Background: The aim of this study was to compare health workers knowledge and skills competencies between those trained using the onsite simulation-based, low-dose, high frequency training plus mobile mentoring (LDHF/ m-mentoring) and the ones trained through traditional offsite, group-based training (TRAD) approach in Kogi and Ebonyi states, Nigeria, over a 12-month period. Methods: A prospective cluster randomized controlled trial was conducted by enrolling 299 health workers who provided healthcare to mothers and their babies on the day of birth in 60 health facilities in Kogi and Ebonyi states. These were randomized to either LDHF/m-mentoring (intervention, n = 30 facilities) or traditional group-based training (control, n = 30 facilities) control arm. They received Basic Emergency Obstetrics and Newborn Care (BEmONC) training with simulated practice using anatomic models and role-plays. The control arm was trained offsite while the intervention arm was trained onsite where they worked. Mentorship was done through telephone calls and reminder text messages. The multiple choice questions (MCQs) and objective structured clinical examinations (OSCEs) mean scores were compared; p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Qualitative data were also collected and content analysis was conducted.

Introduction Poor funding for Health Policy and Systems Research (HPSR) is a major constraint to the development, generation and uptake of HPSR evidence in Low and Middle-Income countries. The study assessed the status of HPSR domestic funding and advocacy strategies for improving HPSR funding in Nigeria. It equally explored the knowledge and perception of the domestic funding status of HPSR and the effect of capacity building on the knowledge of domestic funding for HPSR in Nigeria. Methods This was a sub-national study involving policymakers and researchers from Enugu and Ebonyi States in Southeast Nigeria who participated in the sub-national Health Systems Global convening for the African region. A before-after study design (workshop) was utilized. Data collection employed semi-structured questionnaires, group and panel discussions. The workshop facilitated knowledge of HPSR, funding processes, and advocacy strategies for increased domestic funding for HPSR. Pre and immediate post-workshop knowledge assessments were done. Data were analyzed using SPSS version 25 and thematic analysis. Results Twenty-six participants were involved in the study. Half were females (50.0%) and 46.2% were aged 35–44 years. Policymakers constituted 23.1% of the participants. Domestic funding for HPSR in Nigeria was adjudged to be grossly inadequate. Identified barriers to domestic funding of HPSR included bureaucratic bottlenecks, political and policy transitions, and corruption. Potential opportunities centered on existing policy documents and emerging private sector willingness to fund health research. Multi-stakeholder advocacy coalitions, continuous advocacy and researcher skill-building on advocacy with active private sector involvement were the strategies proffered by the participants. Pre-workshop, understanding of the meaning of HPSR had the highest mean ratings while knowledge of budgeting processes and use of legal action to enable opportunities for budget advocacy for HPSR funding had the lowest mean ratings. Following the capacity-building workshop, all knowledge and understanding parameters markedly improved (percentage increase of 12.5%–71.0%). Conclusion This study found that there was paucity of domestic funding for HPSR in Nigeria alongside poor knowledge of budgeting and advocacy strategies among both policymakers and researchers. We recommend the deployment of these identified strategies and wider national and regional stakeholder engagement towards prioritizing and improving domestic funding for HPSR.

BackgroundThere is limited information from low and middle-income countries on learning outcomes, provider satisfaction and cost-effectiveness on the day of birth care among maternal and newborn health workers trained using onsite simulation-based low-dose high frequency (LDHF) plus mentoring approach compared to the commonly employed offsite traditional group-based training (TRAD). The LDHF approach uses in-service learning updates to deliver information based on local needs during short, structured, onsite, interactive learning activities that involve the entire team and are spaced over time to optimize learning. The aim of this study will be to compare the effectiveness and cost of LDHF versus TRAD approaches in improving knowledge and skill in maternal and newborn care and to determine trainees’ satisfaction with the approaches in Ebonyi and Kogi states, Nigeria.MethodsThis will be a prospective cluster randomized control trial. Sixty health facilities will be randomly assigned for day of birth care health providers training through either LDHF plus mobile mentoring (intervention arm) or TRAD (control arm). There will be 150 trainees in each arm. Multiple choices questionnaires (MCQs), objective structured clinical examinations (OSCEs), cost and satisfaction surveys will be administered before and after the trainings. Quantitative data collection will be done at months 0 (baseline), 3 and 12. Qualitative data will also be collected at 12-month from the LDHF arm only. Descriptive and inferential statistics will be used as appropriate. Composite scores will be computed for selected variables to determine areas where service providers have good skills as against areas where their skills are poor and to compare skills and knowledge outcomes between the two groups at 0.05 level of statistical significance.DiscussionThere is some evidence that LDHF, simulation and practice-based training approach plus mobile mentoring results in improved skills and health outcomes and is cost-effective. By comparing intervention and control arms the authors hope to replicate similar results, evaluate the approach in Nigeria and provide evidence to Ministry of Health on how and which training approach, frequency and setting will result in the greatest return on investment.Trial registrationThe trial was retrospectively registered on 24th August, 2017 at ClinicalTrials.Gov: NCT03269240.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-018-3405-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

objectives Caesarean section (CS) can be life-saving for both mother and child, but in Nigeria the CS rate remains low, at 2.7% of births. We aimed to estimate the rate of CS and early neonatal mortality in Nigeria according to obstetric risk and socio-economic background and to identify factors associated with CS.methods We used the 2018 Nigeria Demographic and Health Survey, encompassing 33 924 live births within the last 5 years, to estimate the CS rate and early neonatal mortality rate (ENMR) by obstetric risk group, informed by the Robson classification. The CS rate and ENMR were assessed within each Robson group and stratified by socio-economic background. Logistic regression analyses were used to explore determinants of CS.results Almost three-quarters (72.4%) of all births were to multiparous women, with a singleton baby of normal birthweight, thus a low-risk group similar to Robson 3, and with a CS rate of 1.0%. CS rates in the two high-risk groups (multiple pregnancy and preterm/low birthweight) were low, 7.1% (95% CI: 5.2-9.7) and 1.8 % (95% CI: 1.4-2.4), respectively. The ENMR was particularly high for multiple pregnancy (175 per 1000 live births; 95% CI: 131-230). Greater number of antenatal visits, unwanted pregnancy, multiple pregnancy, household wealth, maternal education, Christians/Others versus Muslims and referral during childbirth were positively associated with CS.conclusion Inequitable access to CS is not limited to socio-economic determinants, but also related to obstetric risk factors, calling for increased efforts to improve access to CS for high-risk pregnancies.

Background: There are few studies from low- and middle-income countries on learning outcomes among health workers who have been trained on day of birth care using onsite, simulation-based, low-dose, high frequency (LDHF) training plus mobile (m) mentoring. The aim of this study was to compare their knowledge and skills competencies with those of health workers trained using the traditional offsite, group-based training (TRAD) approach in Kogi and Ebonyi states, Nigeria, over a 12-month period. Methods: We conducted a prospective cluster randomized controlled trial, enrolling 299 health workers in 60 health facilities in Kogi and Ebonyi states, randomized to either LDHF/m-mentoring (intervention, n=30 facilities) or traditional group-based training (TRAD, n=30 facilities) control arm. Health workers in both arms received basic emergency obstetric and newborn care training with simulated practice using anatomic models and role-plays. The control arm participants were trained offsite while the intervention arm were trained onsite where they work. Mentorship was done through telephone calls and reminder text messages. The multiple choice questions and objective structured clinical examinations mean scores were compared; p-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Qualitative data were collected and analyzed along themes of interest. Results: The mean knowledge scores between the two arms at months 3 and 12 post-training were equally high; no statistically significant differences. Both arms showed improvements in composite scores for assessed BEmONC clinical skills from around 30% at baseline to 75% and above at endline (p <0.05). Overall, the observed improvement and retention of skills was higher in intervention arm compared to the control arm at 12 months post-training, (p<0.05). Some LDHF/m-mentoring approach trainees reported that mentors’ support improved their acquisition and maintenance of knowledge and skills, which may have led to reductions in maternal and newborn deaths in their facilities. Conclusion: The LDHF/m-mentoring intervention is more effective than TRAD approach in improving health workers’ skills acquisition and retention. Health care managers should have the option to select the LDHF/m-mentoring learning approach, depending on their country’s priorities or context, as it ensures health workers remain in their place of work during training events thus less disruption to service delivery.