Where there is no policy: governing the posting and transfer of primary health care workers in Nigeria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The posting and transfer of health workers and managers receives little policy and research attention in global health. In Nigeria, there is no national policy on posting and transfer in the health sector. We sought to examine how the posting and transfer of frontline primary health care (PHC) workers is conducted in four states (Lagos, Benue, Nasarawa and Kaduna) across Nigeria, where public sector PHC facilities are usually the only form of formal health care service providers available in many communities. We conducted in-depth interviews with PHC workers and managers, and group discussions with community health committee members. The results revealed three mechanisms by which PHC managers conduct posting and transfer: (1) periodically moving PHC workers around as a routine exercise aimed at enhancing their professional experience and preventing them from being corrupted; (2) as a tool for improving health service delivery by assigning high-performing PHC workers to PHC facilities perceived to be in need, or posting PHC workers nearer their place of residence; and (3) as a response to requests for punishment or favour from PHC workers, political office holders, global health agencies and community health committees. Given that posting and transfer is conducted by discretion, with multiple influences and sometimes competing interests, we identified practices that may lead to unfair treatment and inequities in the distribution of PHC workers. The posting and transfer of PHC workers therefore requires policy measures to codify what is right about existing informal practices and to avert their negative potential. © 2016 The Authors The International Journal of Health Planning and Management Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".