IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0360425.html

Assessing primary health care facilities in six prioritized Nigerian states: Linking facility readiness with service availability

Author

Listed:
  • Olufunke Fasawe
  • Abubakar Abba
  • Abubakar Yerima Mohammed
  • Cynthia Kukoyi
  • Kabiru A Gulma
  • Ashiru A Abubakar
  • Abdulrahman Shuaibu
  • Bello Jamoh
  • Mohammed Nasir Mahmoud
  • Yahaya Shamsudeen
  • Ibrahim A Mustafa
  • Ibrahim A Dangana
  • Abubakar Yakubu
  • Ahmed Sani
  • Babawale Peter
  • Oyewole Oladapo
  • Nazeef Mohammed
  • Nasir Umar
  • Lawrence N Anyanwu
  • Adebowale S Ayo

Abstract

Background: Nigeria’s poor health indicators have been linked to its dysfunctional Primary Health Care (PHC) facilities. Policy gaps remain in achieving sustainable and equitable provision of PHC for Nigerians. Therefore, this study examined the relationship between health facilities’ readiness and service provision in Nigeria. Methods: This was a cross-sectional assessment of 204 PHC facilities enrolled under the Basic Health Care Provision Fund program, in six prioritized states in Nigeria. The facilities were assessed for the provision of ≥80% of the three levels of primary healthcare services—Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3—as the outcome variables. The three tiers represent the minimum, intermediate, and comprehensive levels of essential PHC services, respectively, defined under Nigeria’s Minimum Service Package. Health Facility (HF) readiness (explanatory variable) was assessed across six domains, with five of the domains disaggregated into 3 levels (poor, fair, and good). Data were analysed using Principal Component Analysis (PCA) and multivariable logistic regression model (alpha = 0.05). Results: The majority (81.9%) of the HFs have a functional management committee, 54.4% have an updated BHCPF annual quality improvement plan, 81.9% have standard operating procedures. While 16.2% met the World Health Organization standard ≥2.3 Health Care Workers (HCWs)/1000 population, none met the Minimum Service Package standard for HCWs across all cadres. The proportion of facilities with good readiness in each domain was: management and finance (42.6%); Health Management Information System tools/registers, supply chain tools/registers, and guidelines (40.2%); infrastructure and utility (33.3%); tracer equipment (34.8%); and tracer drugs (29.9%). The percentage of HF that provided ≥80% services was: Tier 1 (65.2%), Tier 2 (46.6%), and Tier 3 (35.8%); while 31.9% met ≥ 80% across all the service Tiers. Common predictors of providing ≥80% across the service Tiers were tracer drugs and equipment availability. The likelihood of delivering all Tiers of services was higher in HF with fair (aOR=2.38, 95% CI = 1.92-11.14, p

Suggested Citation

  • Olufunke Fasawe & Abubakar Abba & Abubakar Yerima Mohammed & Cynthia Kukoyi & Kabiru A Gulma & Ashiru A Abubakar & Abdulrahman Shuaibu & Bello Jamoh & Mohammed Nasir Mahmoud & Yahaya Shamsudeen & Ibra, 2026. "Assessing primary health care facilities in six prioritized Nigerian states: Linking facility readiness with service availability," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 21(10), pages 1-24, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0360425
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0360425
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0360425
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0360425&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0360425?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0360425. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.