Barriers, promoters, and strategies for improving task shifting and task sharing implementation in Nigeria: qualitative perspectives of policymakers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Nigeria developed a National Task Shifting and Sharing Policy due to protracted inequitable distribution of health workers, especially at the primary level of care, and the low stock and production rate of skilled health workforce. Following the development of Nigeria’s task shifting and sharing policy and strategy, implementation was promulgated at various levels, with States adopting and implementing the national policy. However, the policy environment for task shifting and sharing varies widely. Consequently, evidence on barriers to and factors promoting successful implementation are inconclusive. Hence, strategies for improving implementation are needed. The evidence from this study can inform the scale-up and strengthening of implementation approaches as Nigeria strives to achieve the national goals, universal health coverage and sustainable development goals. Methods An explorative, descriptive research study approach was applied with 20 key informant interviews conducted to explore the perception of policymakers on barriers and promoters of task shifting and sharing in Nigeria. In addition, strategies for improving task shifting and sharing implementation were explored. Results The barriers to effective implementation of task shifting ad sharing from our study were the persistent shortage of health workers, inter-cadre rivalry, perceived sub-optimal capacity of the beneficiary cadres, and lack of adequate equipment for delivery of needed services. The factors promoting the implementation of task shifting and sharing were the availability of adapted policies, the political will of the health sector leadership, acceptance of task shifting and sharing implementation by health workers, and the implementation of actions to improve knowledge and skills of health workers to implement shifted or shared tasks by various actors. The strategies to improve future task shifting and sharing implementation include improving staffing levels, scaling up training and periodic retraining, mentoring and supportive supervision, and improving the, use and dissemination of evidence generated. Conclusions Several factors influence the implementation of task shifting and sharing. Hence the identification and implementation of relevant strategies are pertinent in achieving set objectives and national goals. In policy and practice, therefore, a proactive exploration of the contextual understanding, barriers to implementation, enablers and learning from the performance of similar interventions is pertinent in shaping strategies for translating evidence to practice through an implementation framework. This should be done in collaboration with stakeholders to foster acceptance and participation.
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 | 0.002 | 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".