Examining corruption risks in the procurement and distribution of COVID-19 vaccines in select states in Nigeria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Public health emergencies raise significant concerns about corruption and accountability; however, these concerns can manifest in different ways across diverse locations. For instance, more developed countries with a stronger rule of law may experience more corruption in vaccine procurement, whereas developing countries may experience more corruption at the point of distribution and delivery to end users. This research focuses on corruption concerns in Nigeria, specifically examining the procurement and distribution of COVID-19 vaccines. METHODS: This paper utilizes a scoping review and a qualitative research approach. Key informants (n = 40) involved in the procurement and distribution of COVID-19 vaccines across two states in Nigeria were interviewed. Findings from the scoping review were summarized, and collected data were inductively coded and analysed in themes, revealing clear examples of implementation irregularities and corruption in the country's COVID-19 vaccination processes. RESULTS: Vaccination programme budgeting processes were unclear, and payment irregularities were frequently observed, resulting in vaccinators soliciting informal payments while in the field. Recruitment and engagement of vaccination personnel was opaque, while target vaccination rates incentivized data falsification during periods of vaccine hesitancy. Accountability mechanisms, such as health worker supervision, vaccination data review, and additional technical support provided by donors were implemented but not effective at preventing corruption among frontline workers. CONCLUSIONS: Future accountability measures should be evidence-driven based on findings from this research. Personnel recruitment, contracting, budgeting, and remuneration should focus on transparency and accountability.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".