↓ Skip to main content

Accountability mechanisms for implementing a health financing option: the case of the basic health care provision fund (BHCPF) in Nigeria

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal for Equity in Health, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
policy
1 policy source
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
36 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
279 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Accountability mechanisms for implementing a health financing option: the case of the basic health care provision fund (BHCPF) in Nigeria
Published in
International Journal for Equity in Health, July 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12939-018-0807-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Benjamin Uzochukwu, Emmanuel Onwujekwe, Chinyere Mbachu, Chinyere Okeke, Sassy Molyneux, Lucy Gilson

Abstract

The Nigerian National Health Act proposes a radical shift in health financing in Nigeria through the establishment of a fund - Basic Healthcare Provision Fund, (BHCPF). This Fund is intended to improve the functioning of primary health care in Nigeria. Key stakeholders at national, sub-national and local levels have raised concerns over the management of the BHCPF with respect to the roles of various stakeholders in ensuring accountability for its use, and the readiness of the implementers to manage this fund and achieve its objectives. This study explores the governance and accountability readiness of the different layers of implementation of the Fund; and it contributes to the generation of policy implementation guidelines around governance and accountability for the Fund. National, state and LGA level respondents were interviewed using a semi structured tool. Respondents were purposively selected to reflect the different layers of implementation of primary health care and the levels of accountability. Different accountability layers and key stakeholders expected to implement the BHCPF are the Federal government (Federal Ministry of Health, NPHCDA, NHIS, Federal Ministry of Finance); the State government (State Ministry of Health, SPHCB, State Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Local Government); the Local government (Local Government Health Authorities); Health facilities (Health workers, Health facility committees (HFC) and External actors (Development partners and donors, CSOs, Community members). In general, the strategies for accountability encompass planning mechanisms, strong and transparent monitoring and supervision systems, and systematic reporting at different levels of the healthcare system. Non-state actors, particularly communities, must be empowered and engaged as instruments for ensuring external accountability at lower levels of implementation. New accountability strategies such as result-based or performance-based financing could be very valuable. The key challenges to accountability identified should be addressed and these included trust, transparency and corruption in the health system, political interference at higher levels of government, poor data management, lack of political commitment from the State in relation to release of funds for health activities, poor motivation, mentorship, monitoring and supervision, weak financial management and accountability systems and weak capacity to implement suggested accountability mechanisms due to political interference with accountability structures.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 279 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 279 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 47 17%
Researcher 32 11%
Student > Postgraduate 19 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 16 6%
Other 49 18%
Unknown 99 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 62 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 28 10%
Social Sciences 21 8%
Unspecified 13 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 10 4%
Other 38 14%
Unknown 107 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 April 2020.
All research outputs
#1,450,335
of 23,923,788 outputs
Outputs from International Journal for Equity in Health
#203
of 2,023 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,786
of 329,576 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal for Equity in Health
#7
of 50 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,923,788 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,023 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 329,576 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 50 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.