A floating sword covered in glowing circuitry that is floating in a rural West African area populated by clay round huts.
Image credit: Dall-E by OpenAI

Editors’ note: This piece is from Nonprofit Quarterly Magazine’s winter 2024 issue, “Health Justice in the Digital Age: Can We Harness AI for Good?”

Emerging technological innovations in healthcare have the potential to transform public health and healthcare delivery systems, making them more efficient, personalized, and accessible. However, health innovation, when narrowly defined as the application of technologies, often overlooks the broader socioeconomic contexts in which it is deployed. In Nigeria, where health inequities are deeply rooted in systemic issues such as poverty,1 gender inequality,2 and inadequate governance (poor administration/planning),3 the introduction of new technologies can sometimes deepen these disparities rather than alleviate them.4

Two key examples are Nigeria’s significant efforts to enhance primary healthcare through the Saving One Million Lives (SOML) initiative,5 and the country’s progress toward universal health coverage (UHC) via the National Health Act (NHA). SOML is a health reform program launched to improve maternal, newborn, and child health outcomes by promoting results-based funding and data-driven healthcare decisions. The primary aim of the UHC initiative is to expand healthcare access through mechanisms like the Basic Health Care Provision Fund, which allocates funds directly to primary healthcare centers, especially in underserved areas. While the two initiatives were successfully introduced, they encountered political and institutional obstacles that impeded their execution and long-term sustainability.6 Obstacles included insufficient data management systems and delays in fund transfers, which hindered the effective deployment and tracking of resources meant for public health improvements.7

The lack of robust data systems to track and manage the allocation and utilization of funds across healthcare centers led to inefficiencies and poor accountability.8 Such technical hindrances have slowed down response times, particularly in rural areas, where resources are sparse.9 And without effective tracking, funds may not reach those in greatest need—exacerbating inequalities, as urban centers with better infrastructure benefit disproportionately from such health initiatives.

Technological innovations are often lauded as a panacea for global health challenges….[B]ut their effectiveness is often compromised by poor internet connectivity and limited digital infrastructure…where health services are most needed.

Another significant example occurred between March 2017 and March 2019, when digital innovations such as video training and data digitization initiatives were brought to 62 healthcare facilities in Ondo State, southwest Nigeria.10 This initiative aimed to improve healthcare access and quality in areas with limited connectivity; however, many of the facilities lacked access to even a basic 3G mobile network, rendering the digital tools largely ineffective. Healthcare workers struggled to implement the new systems, and patient records became challenging to maintain and access, leading to disruptions in healthcare delivery. Consequently, communities that were already marginalized continued to face limited access to essential healthcare services.11

While this article focuses on Nigeria, the question of AI in healthcare is a critical concern across the planet—and ongoing debates in the areas of technology, policy, and healthcare mirror what follows here. In the United States, for one example, there is ongoing concern about the deep-rooted biases in both healthcare and in the research data used to design the tech innovations that are supposed to help eliminate the biases.12 This kind of contradiction can be found in most of the challenges described below.

Emerging Technologies: Potential and Risks

Technological innovations are often lauded as a panacea for global health challenges.13 Since COVID-19, AI-driven diagnostic tools, telemedicine platforms, and mobile health applications have been rapidly gaining traction, promising to bridge the gap between healthcare providers and underserved communities.14 Digital health—which the National Institutes of Health defines as “the use of information and communications technologies in medicine and other health professions to manage illnesses and health risks and to promote wellness”15—has been emerging broadly: in pharmaceuticals, vaccines, and medical devices; in telemedicine (which, since COVID-19, has become a trusted means of accessing healthcare more safely and easily); and in such areas as sanitation and even agriculture, in terms of how these connect with health.16 Many such digital health solutions have been designed to increase access to healthcare, particularly in underserved areas—but their effectiveness is often compromised by poor internet connectivity and limited digital infrastructure, especially in rural and low-income regions, where health services are most needed.17 This type of digital divide is a significant barrier to health equity globally, with rural and low-income populations often left behind.

For such populations—for whom access to quality healthcare has been historically limited—telemedicine platforms, for example, can be a lifeline, connecting patients with healthcare professionals in urban centers.18 And such cutting-edge technologies as the Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats (CRISPR) gene editing and artificial intelligence—considered ideal future tools for treating diseases, as they can precisely correct harmful base mutations or disable disease-causing genes permanently—are also very promising techniques that could revolutionize healthcare across the board.19 Yet, while such technologies hold immense potential, their benefits are not always evenly distributed. Precision medicine, for example, which aims to tailor treatments to an individual’s genetic makeup, has been heralded as a breakthrough in personalized healthcare—but its impact has been limited by significant gaps in genomic data.20 The majority of genomic research has focused on populations of European descent, leaving vast portions of the global population underrepresented. This lack of diversity makes precision medicine less effective for non-European populations, as genetic markers specific to other groups are often missing or misunderstood.21

The digital divide in Nigeria is particularly pronounced compared to many other countries, with urban centers like Lagos and Abuja having better access to AI-driven healthcare innovations compared to rural areas.

Similarly, research shows that the lack of diversity extends to many wearable devices, and studies suggest that this makes them less accurate in measuring certain health indicators in people with darker skin tones, creating the potential for biased data.22 (And the cost of these devices—often as high as several hundred dollars—limits access for lower-income individuals, who may stand to benefit the most from real-time health monitoring.)

These gaps underscore the urgent need for systems that prioritize inclusivity and equitable representation in both research and healthcare technology development. Expanding genomic research to encompass diverse populations and ensuring wearable devices undergo rigorous testing across different skin tones and socioeconomic contexts can mitigate these disparities. Subsidies or innovative financing models could also make these technologies more accessible to underserved groups, thus promoting fairness in healthcare outcomes and improving precision medicine for all.

And in Nigeria specifically, where health infrastructure has long struggled under the weight of systemic issues, the challenges and risks of technological innovations can be stark. Problems like economic instability, deficient infrastructure, societal inequalities, and limited access to education contribute to persistent health crises for individuals and communities.23 For example, nearly 40 percent of Nigerians live in extreme poverty,24 while gender inequality remains pervasive.25

These systemic societal challenges pose considerable risks to technological innovations in Nigeria. For example, as noted earlier, while technology has the potential to enhance healthcare delivery, the lack of reliable infrastructure—such as consistent electricity and internet access—limits the effectiveness of telemedicine and health information systems.26 And these obstacles hinder progress toward improving health outcomes for vulnerable populations—women and girls, for example, whose unequal access to education and healthcare services makes them especially vulnerable. In addition, economic barriers, such as reliance on out-of-pocket payments, place a burden on low-income families, often preventing access to adequate healthcare.27 And this gap between available resources and health demands is exacerbated by the inequitable distribution of medical facilities, which are primarily concentrated in urban centers, leaving rural communities underserved.28

The introduction of AI-powered diagnostic tools in urban hospitals has undoubtedly improved the accuracy and speed of diagnosis for patients who can afford the services. However, in rural areas where healthcare facilities are underresourced and understaffed, the impact of technological innovations is limited.29 Not only that, but such innovations can even widen the gap between urban and rural healthcare services, leaving marginalized communities at an even greater disadvantage than they already are. The digital divide in Nigeria is particularly pronounced compared to many other countries, with urban centers like Lagos and Abuja having better access to AI-driven healthcare innovations compared to rural areas.30 Nigeria’s healthcare system reflects the country’s larger digital and infrastructural gaps, as over 61 percent of Nigerians in rural areas lack access to reliable internet, which hampers AI deployment in these regions.31 Platforms like mDoc are making strides by providing AI-powered health assistance to Nigerians through mobile-friendly solutions,32 but scaling this to rural areas remains challenging due to the kinds of infrastructure limitations described earlier.33

Furthermore, the National Health Act, established in 2014 to address such gaps by guaranteeing a basic health package, remains inconsistently implemented. Consequently, primary healthcare facilities struggle with underfunding—and the Basic Health Care Provision Fund, designed to support these services, has not reached its intended impact in delivering universal healthcare coverage. Studies suggest that a shift toward a tax-financed health system like the NHA—properly implemented—could alleviate financial burdens on vulnerable populations and make healthcare more accessible.34

Such a shift would also help to alleviate the health disparities for women and children in Nigeria—as noted earlier, a key vulnerable group. According to BudgIT’s 2018 report on Nigerian primary healthcare, it is estimated that 2,300 children ages five and under and 145 women of childbearing age die each day from mostly preventable causes, reflecting a pressing crisis in healthcare delivery and access.35 Although some progress has been made in reducing maternal and child mortality, the pace of improvement lags behind other Sub-Saharan African countries including Kenya, Uganda, Senegal, and Tanzania.36 This stagnation is rooted in systemic barriers, including limited funding.37

Compounding these challenges, conflict and instability, often exacerbated by insurgent activities and terrorist threats, significantly impact the health outcomes of women and children in the Northern Region. These conflicts disrupt healthcare services, displace families, and put already vulnerable populations at greater risk. Accessing consistent medical care becomes nearly impossible, worsening health outcomes and increasing mortality rates, while the fragile healthcare system is further strained by a lack of resources, healthcare professionals, and safe environments to deliver essential services.38

Innovative solutions, such as the RapidSMS platform, aim to address some of these challenges by enabling decentralized monitoring of maternal and child health in Malawi and Zambia, and providing real-time data on birth registration across Nigeria.39 By allowing local birth registration centers to send regular updates via SMS, the platform facilitates targeted interventions where healthcare services are deficient.40

The commercialization of health innovations also raises concerns. The resulting commodification of healthcare creates an environment where profit-driven motives overshadow the goal of achieving health equity.

However, these technological solutions alone cannot fully address the deep-rooted issues of healthcare inequity, lack of infrastructure, and ongoing violence that continue to impede the effectiveness of healthcare for Nigeria’s women and children.

Globally, Nigeria is still in the early stages of integrating AI into healthcare, compared to more developed nations, where AI is now extensively used in everything from diagnostics to outbreak response. Addressing these disparities will require collaborative efforts from government, tech companies, and healthcare providers to improve digital infrastructure and make AI tools more accessible. In Nigeria, the doctor-to-patient ratio remains a critical concern. According to the World Medical Association, there is about one doctor for every 10,000 patients in Nigeria, translating to a ratio of approximately 1:10,000.41 This is significantly lower than the World Health Organization’s recommended standard of 1:600.42 The shortage is exacerbated by the continuous emigration of Nigerian doctors seeking better opportunities abroad, with at least 2,000 doctors reportedly leaving the country annually.43 The deficit poses a challenge in providing adequate healthcare, particularly for rural and underserved communities, and is a major hurdle for Nigeria’s healthcare system and its goal to meet Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in health by 2030. This disparity is exacerbated by Nigeria’s digital divide, which, as noted earlier, is particularly stark in terms of access to electricity and reliable internet services.44 Without stable electricity, digital devices cannot function consistently, and without reliable internet, people in underserved areas cannot access the health innovations. This limited access intensifies social and economic inequalities between regions, preventing equitable progress across areas.

The commercialization of health innovations also raises concerns. The resulting commodification of healthcare creates an environment where profit-driven motives overshadow the goal of achieving health equity.45 The global race for technological advancement often prioritizes innovations that yield the highest financial returns rather than those that address the most pressing health needs of vulnerable populations. This capitalist agenda can lead to the exclusion of marginalized groups, reinforcing existing inequalities in access to healthcare.

Despite the manifold challenges, there are promising examples of health innovations in Nigeria that are being used to advance health equity with respect to access.

In addition, in Nigeria, healthcare is funded through various channels, but estimates indicate that more than 70 percent of Nigerians still rely on out-of-pocket payments, making this the dominant mode of healthcare financing.46 According to the World Bank, this reliance on out-of-pocket payments is closely associated with an increase in the number of people falling into extreme poverty—currently, over 90 million Nigerians are living in poverty.47 In response to the high level of out-of-pocket payments and the need for progress toward universal health coverage, the Nigerian government launched the National Health Insurance Scheme. Despite its being operational since 2005, by 2016 fewer than 5 percent of Nigerians were enrolled, with most coverage concentrated among federal workers—leaving much of the population without insurance.48 And a concurrent rise in private healthcare providers offering advanced diagnostics and treatment technologies has created an environment in which access to high-quality care is determined by financial capacity.49

Meanwhile, public hospitals, which serve the majority of the population, are often underfunded and poorly equipped. This disparity is particularly evident in rural areas, where healthcare services are minimal and health innovations often absent. For example, in some low-income countries, the introduction of expensive diagnostic machines in urban hospitals may improve healthcare for those who can afford it, but this often leaves rural and poorer populations without access to these advancements.50 In Nigeria, rural areas experience significant healthcare challenges, including insufficient facilities and diagnostic tools, and a critical shortage of trained medical personnel—creating a disparity as compared to urban centers, where infrastructure and resources are more concentrated.51

Addressing these obstacles and inequities will require a concerted effort, including decommercializing healthcare to some extent and focusing on equity instead. The Nigerian government has made some progress, such as introducing the Basic Health Care Provision Fund, which aims to expand healthcare access for vulnerable populations.52 However, the implementation of these programs has been slow, and they are not yet at the scale needed to mitigate the negative impacts of healthcare commodification.

Despite the manifold challenges, there are promising examples of health innovations in Nigeria that are being used to advance health equity with respect to access. One such example is the work of Zipline, a company that uses drones to deliver medical supplies to remote areas.53 Operating in Cross River State, Zipline’s drone delivery service has significantly improved access to essential medicines, particularly for marginalized and hard-to-reach communities. The drones, which launch from a distribution center situated at the Nduk community within the Ogoja Local Government Area of Cross River State, fly to preprogrammed destinations, dropping the medical supplies via parachute at designated locations, such as hospitals or clinics, before returning to their base.54

This innovative approach ensures that marginalized populations have access to life-saving treatments and addresses the logistical challenges of healthcare delivery in rural areas. For example, the Ijiraga and Mfuma Primary Health Centers used to face frequent medication shortages and delays in restocking, which impacted the quality of patient care; however, since partnering with the federal government, these centers are now able to deliver more consistent and dependable healthcare services to their patients.55 According to Zipline’s data, it is “42% less likely that patients miss an opportunity to get vaccinated where Zipline operates.”56

In recent years, there has been a shift toward more participatory and coproduction approaches in international development, recognizing that local engagement is crucial for creating sustainable and effective solutions.

Another noteworthy initiative is the LifeBank platform, which leverages technology to connect blood banks with hospitals in need of blood supplies. By using data-driven algorithms to match blood donations with demand, LifeBank has saved countless lives by ensuring timely access to blood transfusions.57 This initiative highlights the potential of technology to address critical gaps in healthcare delivery and promote health equity. According to LifeBank, since its founding, in 2016, the organization has served more than 1,000 hospitals across Nigeria, Kenya, and Ethiopia. The platform has delivered over 45,400 units of essential medical supplies, helping to save the lives of more than 20,000 patients, with approximately 75 percent of those beneficiaries coming from low-income communities. In Nigeria and Kenya, LifeBank has built a network of 100 blood banks and enlisted around 7,400 blood donors, experiencing continuous growth each year since its inception.58

The success of such initiatives, however, hinges on their ability to be scaled and sustained in a way that prioritizes the needs of the most vulnerable. It is essential that health innovations be developed and implemented with a clear focus on social justice and ethical responsibility. This requires a shift in the narrative around innovation—from one that is driven by profit and technological advancement to one that is centered on human dignity, equity, and care.

Harnessing Health Innovation Toward Resilience, Justice, and Love

As we look to the future of health innovation in Nigeria, it is imperative that we consider how these technologies can be harnessed to advance humanistic values. This means ensuring that innovation is not merely about the application of cutting-edge technologies but rather is focused on transforming the health system in a way that is inclusive and just.

One way to achieve this is by involving local communities in the design and implementation of health innovations. By engaging with those who are most affected by health inequities, we can ensure that innovations are responsive to their needs and that the benefits are shared equitably. This participatory approach also fosters a sense of ownership and empowerment among communities, strengthening their resilience in the face of health challenges. It also ensures that innovations are tailored to the specific needs and challenges of those who are most affected by health inequities, particularly in underserved or rural areas.

For instance, rather than relying solely on expensive, urban-centric health technologies, engaging communities allows for the development of cost-effective solutions that are accessible to marginalized populations. This could mean adapting existing technologies to work with limited internet access or leveraging local knowledge to create low-cost alternatives that are more practical for low-income settings.

By adopting a holistic approach to health innovation, we can ensure that technology is used as a tool to promote not only health but also social justice and human rights.

Participatory models promote health equity by ensuring that innovations don’t just serve those who can afford them but are instead designed to benefit everyone. They also help to bridge the digital divide by ensuring that marginalized communities are not only recipients but also active participants in the innovation process. This approach also empowers communities, strengthens local health systems, and builds resilience by ensuring that the benefits of technological advancements are distributed more evenly across socioeconomic lines.

It is also crucial to address the underlying social determinants of health that contribute to inequities in the first place. One notable example has been the introduction of sophisticated electronic health record systems in low-resource settings—systems which, despite their advanced features, often failed due to inadequate infrastructure and lack of local technical support.59 This mismatch between technology and local needs highlights the limitations of a top-down approach.

In recent years, there has been a shift toward more participatory and coproduction approaches in international development, recognizing that local engagement is crucial for creating sustainable and effective solutions.60 Coproduction, which involves working directly with local communities to design, implement, and evaluate health innovations, ensures that these solutions are relevant and adaptable to their specific needs.

An example is mHealth Kenya, which used both a participatory and public–private partnership approach to develop mobile health solutions tailored to the needs of local communities.61 This collaboration led to the successful deployment of mobile health services that improved access to care and health outcomes in rural areas.62

Another example is Breakthrough ACTION-Nigeria, a USAID flagship program that has used integrated Social Behavior Change (SBC) best practices to enhance message clarity, reduce fatigue from repetitive messaging, and amplify health outcomes across various health behaviors.63 This has been achieved through the use of multichannel interventions at the community level and across mass media, mobile platforms, social media, and digital outlets, creating synergistic effects that reinforce each other to maximize health impact.64 The participatory approach ensured that the program addressed specific local health needs and barriers, resulting in a more sustainable and impactful intervention.

Nigeria’s innovation ecosystem, particularly in the tech and health sectors, demonstrates the country’s capacity to address its own health challenges with locally driven solutions. These initiatives not only showcase Nigeria’s growing technological capabilities but also highlight the importance of leveraging local expertise and perspectives. And by emphasizing Nigeria’s leadership in health innovation and showcasing successful examples of participatory research, we can challenge the outdated narrative that solutions must come from outside. Rather, we must recognize and support the capacity of local communities and innovators to develop effective and sustainable health solutions. By adopting a holistic approach to health innovation, we can ensure that technology is used as a tool to promote not only health but also social justice and human rights.

***

By prioritizing ethical responsibility, social justice, and community engagement in the implementation of emerging technologies, we can chart a path forward that ensures health innovations are truly a force for good, advancing the wellbeing of all Nigerians—and the wellbeing of all across the planet, especially those who are most vulnerable. Such an approach requires a concerted effort from policymakers, healthcare providers, technologists, and communities. Together, we can build a health system that is not only innovative but also equitable, resilient, and rooted in justice and love.

Notes

  1. Abdulganiyu Idris Abdulrahman, “The Effects of Poverty on Health Outcomes in Nigeria: An ARDL Approach,” Economics and Business 37, no. 1 (July 2023): 73–89.
  2. Akanni Ibukun Akinyemi, “Women and Girls are Disproportionately Affected by Nigeria’s Weak Health System, Here’s Why,” Global Citizen, July 12, 2021, globalcitizen.org/en/content/women-and-girls-nigeria-health-system/; and Alissa Naydenova, “Gender-Inclusive Pathways for Poverty Reduction in Nigeria,” The Blog, The Borgen Project, September 29, 2024, borgenproject.org/gender-inclusive-pathways/.
  3. Davies Adeloye et al., “Health workforce and governance: the crisis in Nigeria,” Human Resources for Health 15, no. 32 (May 2017); and Reem Hafez, Nigeria Health Financing System (Washington, DC: World Bank Group, 2018).
  4. Edwin Nwobodo et al., “Assessment of the Progress of the Implementation of the Basic Health Care Provision Fund in South East States of Nigeria,” Tropical Journal of Medical Research 21, no. 1 (2022): 75–85.
  5. Spending to Save: Challenges and Opportunities for Financing Nigeria’s Saving One Million Lives Initiative (Washington, DC: Results for Development Institute [RD4]), 2014).
  6. Kevin Croke and Osondu Ogbuoji, “Health reform in Nigeria: the politics of primary health care and universal health coverage,” Health Policy and Planning 39, 1 (January 2024): 22–31.
  7. Benjamin Uzochukwu, Obinna Onwujekwe, and Chinyere Mbachu, Implementing the Basic Health Care Provision Fund in Nigeria: A framework for accountability and good governance (London: London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, 2015).
  8. Hafez, Nigeria Health Financing System,
  9. Wilfred Chukwuemeke Nmorsi, “Challenges of Health Care Delivery in Rural Nigeria: Impact on National Development,” Journal of Resourcefulness and Distinction 17, no. 1 (October 2019): 1–9.
  10. David Akeju et al., “Sustainability of the Effects and Impacts of Using Digital Technology to Extend Maternal Health Services to Rural and Hard-to-Reach Populations: Experience From Southwest Nigeria,” Frontiers in Global Women’s Health 3 (February 2022): 696529.
  11. Ibid.
  12. See, for example, Alec Tyson et al., 60% of Americans Would Be Uncomfortable With Provider Relying on AI in Their Own Health Care (Washington, DC: Pew Research Center, February 2023).
  13. Stefan Ellerbeck, “5 innovations that are revolutionizing global healthcare,” World Economic Forum, February 22, 2023, weforum.org/agenda/2023/02/health-future-innovation-technology/.
  14. Abid Haleem et al., “Telemedicine for healthcare: Capabilities, features, barriers, and applications,” Sensors International 2 (July 2021): 10017.
  15. Yasmyne Ronquillo, Arlen Meyers, and Scott Korvek, “Digital Health,” National Library of Health, last modified May 1, 2023, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK470260/.
  16. Peter Howitt et al., “Technologies for global health,” The Lancet 380 (August 2012): 507–35.
  17. Diego Cuadros et al., “Unlocking the potential of telehealth in Africa for HIV: opportunities, challenges, and pathways to equitable healthcare delivery,” Frontiers in Digital Health 6 (March 4, 2024): 1278223.
  18. Chukwudi Cosmos Maha, Tolulope Olagoke Kolawole, and Samira Abdul, “Revolutionizing community health literacy: The power of digital health tools in rural areas of the US and Africa,” GSC Advanced Research and Reviews 19, no. 2 (2024): 286–96.
  19. Tianxiang Li et al., “CRISPR/Cas9 therapeutics: progress and prospects,” Signal Transduction and Targeted Therapy 8, no. 36 (2023).
  20. Reed Pyeritz, “Uncertainty in Genomics Impacts Precision Medicine,” Trends in Genetics 37, no. 8 (2021): 711–16.
  21. Giorgio Sirugo, Scott Williams, and Sarah A. Tishkoff, “The Missing Diversity in Human Genetic Studies,” Cell 177, no. 1 (May 2019): 26–31.
  22. Daniel Koerber et al., “Accuracy of Heart Rate Measurement with Wrist-Worn Wearable Devices in Various Skin Tones: a Systematic Review,” Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities 10, no. 6 (December 2023): 2676–84.
  23. World Bank, “Deep Structural Reforms Guided by Evidence Are Urgently Needed to Lift Millions of Nigerians Out of Poverty, says New World Bank Report,” news release 2022/052/AFW, March 22, 2022, www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2022/03/21/afw-deep-structural-reforms-guided-by-evidence-are-urgently-needed-to-lift-millions-of-nigerians-out-of-poverty.
  24. Ibid.
  25. Andrew Izuchukwu Nnoje, “Gender Inequality and Economic Growth in Nigeria: A Granger-Causality Analysis (2009–2023),” African Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development 7, 4 (November 2024): 279–94.
  26. Pratik Bansal, “The State of Technology Innovation in Nigeria: Trends, Challenges and Opportunities,” Journal of Marketing & Supply Chain Management 3, 3 (May 2024): 1–2.
  27. punchng, “Challenges of healthcare financing in Nigeria,” Punch, April 27, 2018, com/challenges-of-healthcare-financing-in-nigeria/.
  28. Guest writer, “Bridging the healthcare divide in Nigeria,” The Cable, January 29, 2024, thecable.ng/bridging-the-healthcare-service-divide-in-nigeria/.
  29. Elijah Kolawole Oladipo et al., “Impact and Challenges of Artificial Intelligence Integration in the African Health Sector: A Review,” Trends in Medical Research 19, no. 1 (June 2024): 220–35.
  30. Temi Olowu, “Nigeria’s Project 774 LG Connectivity—A strategic move toward digital inclusion,” Global Financial Digest, August 15, 2024, com/nigerias-project-774-lg-connectivity-a-strategic-move-toward-digital-inclusion/.
  31. Emmanuel Ugwueze, “Reliable, affordable internet access still a challenge for many Nigerians—NIGCOMSAT,” Daily Post, May 5, 2024, ng/2024/05/05/reliable-affordable-internet-access-still-a-challenge-for-many-nigerians-nigcomsat/.
  32. Na’ankwat Dariem, “Google Selects 2 Nigerian Startups for ‘AI for Health’ programme,” Voice of Nigeria, September 26, 2023, gov.ng/google-selects-2-nigerian-startups-for-ai-for-health-programme/.
  33. SME Guide, “AI and Machine Learning: Reshaping Nigerian Healthcare Delivery,” SME Guide, accessed November 19, 2024, net/ai-and-machine-learning-reshaping-nigerian-healthcare-delivery/.
  34. Bolaji Aregbeshola, “A Tax-based, Noncontributory, Health-Financing System Can Accelerate Progress toward Universal Health Coverage in Nigeria,” MEDICC Review: International Journal of Cuban Health & Medicine 20, no. 4 (October–December 2018): 40–45.
  35. Nigeria: Health Budget Analysis (Lagos, Nigeria: BudgIT, 2018). And see Nkechi Onyedika-Ugoeze, “2,300 children, 145 women die daily, says NPHCDA,” The Guardian, September 24, 2024, ng/news/2300-children-145-women-die-daily-says-nphcda/.
  36. Primary Healthcare in Nigeria: A preliminary report of short stories and field evidence across four Northern States (Lagos, Nigeria: BudgIT/Tracka, 2022).
  37. Ibid.
  38. Olabayo Ojeleke et al., “The impact of armed conflicts on health-care utilization in Northern Nigeria: A difference-in-differences analysis,” World Medical & Health Policy 14, no. 4 (December 2022): 624–64.
  39. Sharon Oladiji, “Future of statistics for Africa: Statistics that leave no one behind, the example of making birth registration in Nigeria more inclusive,” Statistical Journal of the IAOS 36, S1 (December 2020): 77–86.
  40. Birth Registration in Nigeria: Making Children Count; A Bottleneck Analysis Of The National Birth Registration System in Nigeria (Nigeria: UNICEF, 2013).
  41. Biodun Busari, “In Nigeria, it’s one doctor to 10,000 patients—NMA,” Vanguard, October 20, 2022, www.vanguardngr.com/2022/10/in-nigeria-its-one-doctor-to-10000-patients-nma/. Some sources have the number as four doctors to every 10,000 See Chinedu Asadu, “Nigerian doctors walk off the job again. Overstretched and underpaid, many have left for overseas,” Associated Press, July 26, 2023, apnews.com/article/nigeria-doctors-brain-drain-strike-hospitals-migration-fd1ed1652a98ee1fc03c07df4a 139c5c; and Adijat Kareem, “As doctors emigrate, Nigerians are left with four doctors to every 10,000 patients,” Dataphyte, October 7, 2021, www.dataphyte.com/latest-reports/health/as-doctors-emigrate-nigerians-are-left-with-four-doctors-to-every-10000-patients/.
  42. Punch Editorial board, “2024 Budget: Healthcare deserves better funding,” Punch, December 7, 2023, com/2024-budget-healthcare-deserves-better-funding/.
  43. Kareem, “As doctors emigrate, Nigerians are left with four doctors to every 10,000 patients.”
  44. Mercy Akinseinde, “The Challenges of Implementing Digital Health in Nigeria” (master’s thesis, University of Salford, 2016), researchgate.net/publication/349663009_THE_CHALLENGES_OF_IMPLEMENTING_DIGITAL_HEALTH_IN_NIGERIA_BY_AKINSEINDE_MERCY_IFEOLUWA; and Emma Okonji, “NCC Set to Bridge Nigeria’s Digital Divide with ICT Innovation Competition,” THISDAY, accessed November 19, 2024, www.thisdaylive.com/index.php/2023/02/18/ncc-set-to-bridge-nigerias-digital-divide-with-ict-innovation-competition/.
  45. David McCoy, “Commercialisation is bad for public health,” British Medical Journal 344 (January 2012): e149.
  46. Olufemi Erinoso et al., “Predictors of health insurance uptake among residents of Lagos, Nigeria,” Population Medicine 5 (July 2023): 1–7.
  47. Ibid.
  48. Ibid.
  49. “Private Equity Investments in Health Care May Increase Costs and Degrade Quality,” Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, July 21, 2023, publichealth.columbia.edu/news/private-equity-investments-health-care-may-increase-costs-degrade-quality.
  50. Market Failures and Opportunities for Increasing Access to Diagnostics in Low- and Middle-Income Countries (Seattle, WA: PATH, 2022).
  51. Healthcare Infrastructure West Africa (West Africa: Medic West Africa, n.d.).
  52. “Basic Health Care Provision Fund (BHCPF),” The National Primary Health Care Development Agency (NPHCDA), accessed November 19, 2024, gov.ng/bhcpf/.
  53. “Zipline Improves Primary Healthcare Access in Cross River State,” THISDAY, accessed November 19, 2024, thisdaylive.com/index.php/2024/02/02/zipline-improves-primary-healthcare-access-in-cross-river-state/.
  54. “Zipline commissions drone delivery centre in Cross River State of Nigeria to improve UHC,” Joy Online, January 25, 2023, myjoyonline.com/zipline-commissions-drone-delivery-centre-in-cross-river-state-of-nigeria-to-improve-uhc/.
  55. “Zipline Improves Primary Healthcare Access in Cross River ”
  56. “Enable universal healthcare efficiently and effectively,” “Zipline for Public Health Services,” accessed November 19, 2024, flyzipline.com/solutions/public-health; and The Global Leader in Instant Logistics (San Francisco, CA: Zipline, n.d.), zipline.imagerelay.com/share/faa450f29f72414bb4b98ca339fff9cd.
  57. Temie Giwa-Tubosun and Ayomide Otegbayo, “Impact Stories: LifeBank,” Inclusive Business, accessed November 19, 2024, inclusivebusiness.net/impact-story/lifebank.
  58. Ibid.
  59. Assel Syzdykova et al., “Open-Source Electronic Health Record Systems for Low-Resource Settings: Systematic Review,” JMIR Medical Informatics 5, no. 4 (November 2017): e44.
  60. Adrian Rivera-Reyes, “Harnessing Local Knowledge for Sustainable Development,” Blog: Insights and reflections from the community on learning and adapting, Learning Lab, United States Agency for International Development, January 4, 2024, org/community/blog/harnessing-local-knowledge-sustainable-development.
  61. “Mobile Health: How Phones are Reshaping Healthcare in Africa,” CDC Foundation, accessed November 19, 2024, cdcfoundation.org/content/mobile-health-how-phones-are-reshaping-healthcare-africa.
  62. “Innovations in Telemedicine: Connecting Remote Areas to Healthcare Services in Kenya,” Sollay Kenyan Foundation, May 21, 2024, sollaykenyanfoundation.org/innovations-in-telemedicine-connecting-remote-areas-to-healthcare-services-in-kenya/.
  63. Shittu Abdu-Aguye, Breakthrough ACTION-Nigeria 2018–2024: Celebrating Successes, Consolidating Learning and Transitioning for Sustainability (Abuja, Nigeria: Breakthrough ACTION-Nigeria, 2024).
  64. Ibid.