Is Nigeria on course to achieve universal health coverage in the context of its epidemiological and financing transition? A knowledge, capacity and policy gap analysis (a qualitative study)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to assess Nigeria's preparedness to finance and drive the universal health coverage (UHC) agenda within the context of changing health conditions and resource needs associated with the disease, demographic and funding transitions.Nigeria is undergoing transitions in the healthcare system that include a double burden of infectious and non-communicable diseases, and transition from concessional donor assistance towards domestic financing for health. These transitions will affect Nigeria's attainment of UHC. DESIGN AND SETTING: We conducted a qualitative study, including semistructured interviews with relevant stakeholders at national and subnational levels in Nigeria. Data from the interviews were analysed using thematic analysis. PARTICIPANTS: Our study involved 18 respondents from government ministries, departments, and agencies, development partners, civil society organisations and academia. RESULTS: Capacity gaps identified by respondents included limited knowledge to implement health insurance schemes at subnational levels, poor information/data management to monitor progress towards UHC and limited communication and interagency collaboration between government agencies and ministries. Furthermore, participants in our study expressed those current policies driving major health reforms like the National Health Act (basic healthcare provision fund) appear adequate to support UHC advancement in theory, but policy implementation is a key challenge due to a lack of policy awareness, low government spending on health and poor evidence generation for information to support decisions. CONCLUSION: Our study found major gaps in knowledge and capacity for UHC advancement in the context of Nigeria's demographic, epidemiological and financing transitions. These included poor knowledge of demographic transitions, poor capacity for health insurance implementation at subnational levels, low government spending on health, poor policy implementation and poor communication and collaboration among stakeholders. To address these challenges, collaborative efforts are needed to bridge knowledge gaps and increase policy awareness through targeted knowledge products, improved communication and interagency collaboration.
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 | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".