Skip to main content
Future Business Journal
Download PDF

Review of public health commodity distribution models in Nigeria

Future Business Journal volume 10, Article number: 48 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

The distribution of public health commodities is a challenging activity directly responsible for the success of a public health program or intervention. Getting the distribution strategy right is a major concern of many health program implementers and stakeholders in Nigeria. This study intends to look at available models previously or currently used for the distribution of public health commodities in Nigeria. Literature search was carried out in PubMed and Google Scholar on articles related to the public health commodities distribution models in Nigeria. Websites of health organizations operating in Nigeria and publicly funded health institutions were also visited for gray literatures on public health commodities distribution strategies. The study shows the absent of scientific publication as source of information on the distribution model; instead, most of the research publications were review publications in addition to program reports from international nongovernmental organizations and health authorities in Nigeria. Direct delivery and information capture, pull and push, hub and spoke, 5 tier, vertical distribution, integrated distribution models were some of the models identified from the study. Analysis from the review suggests hub/spoke model and integrated model as a desirable model for the distribution of public health commodities.

Introduction

The success of any public health programs relies heavily on the reliability of the supply chain system necessary for the provision of uninterrupted program commodities required for the implementation of the health program [1,2,3]. As the saying goes no product, no program. Despite the general believe in the value of a reliable supply chain system for the success of a public health program, poor access to public health commodities is a visible feature in several countries across Africa and other developing countries outside the continent [4,5,6]. The resultant effect of the poor access to public health product is seen in the poor health indices in the affected countries [6,7,8,9].

Health programs aimed at addressing these poor indices are often implemented in most developing countries across several diseases’ areas of public health importance [10]. These programs are commonly donor funded with some financial and non-financial resources contribution from the local authorities and usually cut across several public health interventions not limited to the prevention and controls of diseases using quality diagnostic and therapeutic tools which are required to be consistently available for use in the treatment and prevention of diseases and promoting health [11,12,13,14,15]. To achieve this, project implementers and local public health players will have to come up with strategies to ensure these diagnostic and therapeutic tools which are mostly medicines and laboratory commodities are always available for a successful project implementation.

A very important project output within these programs is to ensure an uninterrupted availability of commodities utilized within each program, which largely depends on the availability of the right strategy for the distribution of commodities and the effective execution of the strategy to ensure commodities get to beneficiaries. Consequently, to always achieve a desirable level of health commodities across service delivery point which serves the clients or beneficiaries, there is need for the availability of a buoyant and adaptable supply chain strategy for the management of the health commodities particularly a suitable commodity distribution model or models. Likewise, distribution model must be sustainable and acceptable to all key stakeholders complying with all ethical requirements while achieving the goals of ensuring an uninterrupted availability of health products. For instance, while making decision on how vitamin A supplements are made available to rural dwellers in the interior part of Northern Nigeria, vitamin A supplement will be imported from India and transported in a way that complies with good distribution practices to maintain its quality while also complying with regulatory requirements in Nigeria and then distributed on time to service delivery points where children will have access to them. For this purpose, the distribution strategy and model must be suitable to ensure timely access to the program commodities.

The last mile distribution of commodities represents as important and critical stage in ensuring the availability of program commodities at service delivery points [16]. Indeed, the presence of an efficient distribution model for health often ensured health commodity security and zero of stock outs of health products [17]. On the contrary, the supply chain systems in most developing countries like Nigeria are associated with inefficient distribution of health commodities which are due to several factor inherent in the health systems [18].

Thus, the purpose of this study is to provide a broad description of the public health distribution models used in the distribution of public health commodities in Nigeria to ensure the uninterrupted availability of health products to serve the population. The study will act as a guide for the selection of suitable and adaptable distribution models for the management of public health commodities in the challenging environment of most developing countries.

This study will critically review and analyze selected logistics and supply chain literature to understand the available distribution models utilized for the management of public health commodities in developing countries. The study will provide a descriptive report on the qualitative review of distribution models for public health commodities in Nigeria.

The study will classify the range of published distribution strategies used to get public health commodities to the point of care from 2005 to 2021 and recommend an effective and efficient distribution model for the distribution of public health commodities in developing. In addition, the report will capture a review of available literature on public health commodity management for the distribution of public health commodities in Nigeria.

Main text

Research approach and design

PubMed and Google Scholar databases were explored for articles and research publications on health commodities distribution strategies used for the implementation of public health interventions in Nigeria. Gray literatures which represent publication on the topic of interest by health organizations in Nigeria were also searched. The search strategy involved search through Google Scholar and PubMed to identify related articles on the topic on interest, after which the identified publications were scanned through for the selection of relevant articles. Selection criteria were initially based on the title of article relevant to supply chain management in Nigeria. Thereafter, screening was based on the assessment of abstract of the publication for relevance. The irrelevant articles from the screening of the title of the article and review of the abstract were excluded from the final screening for final selection for inclusion in the review.

At the end of the assessment process, only 5 related articles were considered for final inclusion into the review.

Search strategy

The following key words were used to carry out the literature search: “Public health commodities” OR “public health products” AND “distribution model” OR “logistic model” OR “supply chain model” OR “distribution network” AND “Nigeria.”

The search for gray literature was less systematic. It entails a search through the websites of key organizations and health institutions and agencies in Nigeria. Once identified, the publication was downloaded and achieved for review for relevant details on the distribution model used for the management of health programs in Nigeria. Most of the identified publications were mostly inform of program reports, standard operating guidelines, and national strategy documents.

Result

Database searches from both PubMed and Google Scholar produced a total of 2,882 citations, out of which 5 articles were included in this review (Fig. 1). The initial search on Google Scholar yielded 2,710 related articles out of which 15 articles were selected based on the title. While on PubMed, the search yielded 172 related articles out of which 17 related articles were selected based on the titles (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

The various steps involved the search in PubMed and Google Scholar

Full size image

Identified distribution models and features

In addition to the description above for the selection of articles from PubMed and Google Scholar databases, websites of international nongovernmental organizations and health agencies in Nigeria were visited for gray literatures. This search resulted in 10 relevant publicly available literatures which were included in this review.

Push and pull distribution model

These models are common models in Nigeria, and it simply involves the distribution levels making the decision on the quantity of health commodities to be distributed. Pull distribution model was identified as a common model used for the supply of Antivenom into the country [19]. The distribution of public health commodities in Nigeria is mostly pushed in which quantity to be supplied is determined from higher levels to lower level of the supply chain [20].

Five tier distribution model

This is common within the public health sector in Nigeria, and it involves the movement of commodities across 5 different supply chain levels [21].

Some authors also describes the national strategic cold store as the national central hubs while the 6 zonal stores across the 6 geopolitical zones as the regional hubs [20, 22].

Hub and spoke

The hub and spoke model was recently initiated in Nigeria as a strategy for the distribution of HIV commodities as part of the differentiated service delivery model for improving the quality of HIV services provided to HIV clients in the country [23].

Direct distribution and information capture (DDIC)

This model was piloted in Nigeria by the USAID|DELIVER PROJECT in 2013 across 2 states (Ebonyi and Bauchi). The model was utilized to distribute health commodities to 378 health facilities in the states, thereby making malaria, family planning and maternal and child health commodities available to beneficiaries in the states [24]. The trucks arrive, carrying predetermined quantities of health commodities, based on the facilities past consumption data. By investing in reliable transportation, DDIC ensures that truck drivers and team leaders are available to deliver commodities to health facilities according to an established delivery schedule [25]. A team leader traveling with the truck inspects the facilities’ storage space, counts stock-on-hand for the different health commodities, and enters this inventory data into a specifically designed inventory management database.

Facility lead commodity pick-up

The model was observed in Kano, Nigeria. Drugs and Medical Consumables Supply Agency (DMCA) operates a central warehouse in Kano Municipality. Health facilities (secondary and primary healthcare centers) registered under the drug revolving funds comes directly to the DMCA warehouse to place order for and receive commodities through their staffs [16]. Health facility workers managed the pick-up of commodities. This is an example of a 2-tier distribution system. This was also observed in the distribution of family planning commodities in Nigeria [26].

Highly centralized supply chain system

This model was mentioned in a review article as a model used in Nigeria for the distribution of public health commodities [27].

Decentralized drug distribution model

This is a drug distributed strategy utilized in settings where governments rapidly adjusted policies and service delivery mechanisms to provide ARVs to PLHIV in or near their homes usually referred to as home delivery of ARVs [28].

Public private partnership distribution model (PPP distribution model)

In this model, the public sector responsible for the management of public health commodities leveraged private sector capabilities to support the distribution of health commodities [20]. Some disease programs in Nigeria use a privately operated 3rd party logistics providers (3PL) to distribute commodities from the central warehouse to the various service delivery points in Nigeria, “while others use a combination of 3PL, facility vehicles, and local couriers, depending on the level of the supply chain system” [29]. “PPP models have been developed for stakeholder considerations” [30].

Multiple program specific vertical distribution model

The distribution of public health commodities in Nigeria is characterized by multiple vertical distribution of health products focused around the movement of health commodities and information by specific health programs [29]. Each individual health program typically has an oversight role in the distribution of their respective health products.

Integrated commodity distribution model

In Nigeria, Chemonics is currently combining parallel donor-funded warehousing and distribution supply into a single streamlined supply chain, and the project facilitates the provision of critical life-saving HIV and malaria health commodities to the people of Nigeria [31]. This was also piloted in some states in Nigeria [32]. “Some preliminary integration for Malaria and HIV programmes exists as the same 3PL works on both” [30].

Analysis of the identified models

Most of the selected articles were gray literatures (Fig. 2). Gray literature represents 67% of the source of the articles used for the review while PubMed and Google Scholar represent 20% and 13%, respectively, thus indicating that most of the research articles were from government and public health organization sites.

Fig. 2
figure 2

The distribution of sources of articles selected for the study/review. ***Gray literature describes literatures from website of government institutions, international nongovernmental organization working within the public health space in Nigeria

Full size image

Possible relationships between the identified models

Figure 3 shows the possible relationships between the identified models which can be broadly classified as either a decentralized model or a centralized model (Table 1).

Fig. 3
figure 3

The possible relationship between the various identified model

Full size image
Table 1 Key findings in terms of the various identified models and commodities/programs managed under the models (Table 1)
Full size table

Discussion

Several public health commodities distribution models were identified from the study. Most of which were from gray literatures published by government institutions and or nongovernmental international organizations with public health projects in Nigeria (Fig. 2). A total of 9 different models were identified from the study, and these include push, multiple program specific vertical distribution model and pull, integrated commodity distribution models, public private partnership distribution model (PPP), facility lead commodity pick-up, highly centralized supply chain system, decentralized dug distribution model, hub and spoke and direct distribution and information capture (DDIC).

Analysis of the description of the identified models shows that distribution models used in Nigeria for the distribution of public health commodities can be broadly divided in two (Fig. 3). This classification depends on whether commodity distribution is handled centrally or decentralized to be managed at the various level within the supply chain. The centralized models can either be pull or push or DDIC or vertical distribution model or integrated model or PPP model.

A centralized model is often desirable when structures and systems at the lower levels are weak for the management of commodities. Although it may be time-consuming and expensive [33], it is still recognized as a common model utilized in Nigeria for the distribution of public health commodities in Nigeria. The lead time for the distribution of commodities in a centralized model is often more prolonged compared with a decentralized distribution model [34]. This is more pronounced when there is need for an emergency response to supply issues. However, the centralized model has some benefits which includes low operating costs compared to the decentralized model. Nevertheless, a decentralized model seems to be a more preferred and ideal/effective model for most public health commodity distribution in Nigeria and should be the standard model for the distribution of public health commodities in Nigeria.

Additionally, pull and push models are both common in Nigeria according to reports from studies captured in this review. These models based their principles on how commodities are issued or ordered to service delivery point in terms of the decision-making levels within the supply chain pipeline. While in the case of the pull models the health facilities staffs at the lowest level of the supply chain pipeline decide the quantity of commodities to be resupplied through a process known as requisition, the push model on the other hand has the higher level of the pipeline deciding commodities to be issued to the health facilities in the process also known as commodity allocation. The drawbacks from the push distribution model are mostly related to its reliance on already existing data like demographic, morbidity, mortality, registered birth numbers among others. Estimates from these data may omit latent demand that may arise from nonregistered births or unknown populations in areas that are hard to reach [20]. Also, studies have shown better performance in terms of commodity stock out rate with the pull distribution model compared with the push distribution model in Nigeria [35]. Even though the pull model is highly desirable, it may not be suitable in an environment like Nigeria due to the skill level of health facility workers at the lower level of the supply chain who are often given the responsibility of making requisition for health commodities. For this reason, a push system may still be suitable in Nigeria especially for health facilities with less skilled workers. Thus, a mixed push and pull distribution model may be operated in the management of public health commodities in Nigeria depending on the prevailing circumstances related to the capacity of the workers at the lower level of the supply chain in the country.

Again, informed push was mentioned in the study which is a modified pushed model. This is a general model used by the HIV program in Nigeria, where lower level health personnel calculate and placed orders for commodities to be supplied to the health facilities [23]. To ensure the accuracy of order placed by health facilities, logistics management coordination unit (LMCUs) and implementing partners (IPs) usually provide technical support in generating quality information, review and validate bimonthly reports to ensure all health facilities commodity needs are accurately captured. This model is also accurately integrated within the hub and spoke models described above (Fig. 3).

The decentralized model is becoming a desired model due to the challenges encountered during the COVID 19 pandemic where restriction of movement was a common strategy use to curtail the spread of the virus. It involves decentralizing the distribution functions or points to other geographical locations [33] usually closer to the point of final location within the supply chain pipeline. A decentralized network tends to ensure closeness to treatment centers [36]. Similarly, information is closer to the point of distribution, since localized authorities tends to have more required information for distribution [37]. This model is also highly common in developed countries health systems and in private sector with success and is implemented in several forms and variations.

Hub and spoke distribution models are a common decentralized strategy utilized by companies across the world in the supply chain management of products and were also found in this study within the HIV sector in Nigeria. This model is visible in the food and consumer goods industry and in airline industry for the transportation of people and goods across the world. Similarly, this strategy has been used with success in healthcare industry where service delivery points are organized in a way where we have a more comprehensive anchor service delivery points complemented by secondary delivery points which offers limited patients services. Hub and spoke model has been shown to promote efficiency within the system and has numerous benefits which include reduced length of haul, consistent timely delivery of commodities, reduced cost, improved productivity, reduction in carbon footprint, stable pricing, and others [38, 39].

Companies within the private sector understand that a central distribution model may not always work in all cases. For instance, Coca Cola’s had to adopt a hub and spoke distribution model to get access to rural market. Coca Cola stock was transported from the bottling plants to hubs and then from hubs to spokes which are usually smaller towns and from spokes to retailers who catered to the demands in rural areas [40]. This is also similar in Nigeria where Coca Cola uses the strategy to ensure availability of its products even in the remotest places in Nigeria. This may also be adopted within the public health sector in Nigeria.

The use of hub and spoke model has also shown impact in other healthcare areas as documented by several research reports. This includes acting as a lifeline for improved access to quality health services among rural population and serving patients better, improving access to quality medications for opioid use disorders [41] and more recently as a proposed distribution strategy of choice for COVID-19 distribution [42]. These reports are mostly from advanced climate where there is access to adequate financial and human resources which if inadequate may limit the success of the strategy. Nevertheless, similar application of the strategy with comparable positive impact can be found within the Uganda National Health System. These studies, however, fail to capture detailed analysis of the financial implication of the implementation of the strategy which makes the studies lacking in clear demonstration of efficiency and cost-effectiveness. Thus, while these reports may not be a clear reflection of possible positive impacts of the application of the strategy in Nigeria due to a different environmental factors like financial and human resources, it may be a pointer to the possible positive impact in the country if replicated appropriately.

Cost saving can be achieved by improving the efficiency of a logistics system [43]. The need for cost saving and coordination within the supply chain system informed another models called the integrated distribution model which has had application within the private sector for several years. This model can be in the form of either a decentralized model or a centralized model (Fig. 3) and may also be applied as a pull or push system. The unique feature of this model is the integrated distribution of commodities instead of a more costly parallel distribution of commodities. Thus, the model is less costly and more cost effective and may be a more sustainable model in a challenging environment like Nigeria where funding is an issue in the health system.

Nigeria currently has infrastructural, financial, and human resource gaps across several areas [44,45,46,47,48]. This includes poor road networks for the transportation of medicines, insufficient number of storage facilities of highest standards, inadequate number of skilled health supply chain workers, and poor investment within the health systems [46, 49]. Additionally, the health system is often plagued by repeated industrial actions by health workers and security challenges which often hamper public health supply chain activities [46, 50,51,52]. Overall, a resilient health systems and structure capable of responding to health commodity needs in a way that ensures an interrupted availability of life-saving health products is currently lacking in Nigeria. Therefore, a more agile and flexible supply chain model will be required to drive the public health supply chain system in the country. This is because the deficiencies and capacity gaps within the systems will subject it to a high level of uncertainties which will require a highly flexible supply chain system to ensure optimal performance of commodity availability. For example, security threat caused by activities of terrorist may prevent the transportation of public health commodities by road across areas controlled by armed terrorist, thereby necessitating an alternative means of transportation or creating a system that ensure commodities are stored in bulk close to service delivery points across the country. Admittedly, with limited financial resources, poor transportation infrastructures and security challenges, a more cost saving integrated and decentralized model for the distribution of public health commodities with a mixed push and pull model may be suitable and adaptable for the Nigeria situation.

Conclusion

The Nigeria public health supply chain system is currently characterized by frequent stock out of health products across service delivery points which sometimes necessitate emergency order and delivery of these commodities. As a result, the desired distribution model should be one that can respond to commodity needs in a timely manner. For the most part, the lead time for the delivery must be as short as possible to ensure uninterrupted availability of live saving commodities. Consequently, a more decentralized distribution model may be the most appropriate model for the Nigeria challenging situation.

The review shows that most of the publications on public health commodities distribution models in Nigeria are more visible in gray literatures of public health organizations program reports. Scientific publications in peer review journals are mostly review articles with no original research publications describing the models used in the distribution of health products for public health interventions in Nigeria. Thus, the research method and strategy produce desired results in identifying distribution models used for the distribution of public health commodities in Nigeria even though these secondary data are not in form of primary research.

Some of the identified models were only piloted for specific health products while others are currently being utilized for the distribution of health products. The direct delivery and information capture model is an example of the piloted model in Nigeria, utilized for the distribution of HIV, malaria and family planning commodities to several health facilities in the country, whereas the 5-tier distribution model, hub and spoke models and a broader classification, the push and pull model are currently in operation across health programs in the country. While these models have been able to achieve short-term goals in a less qualitative way, they may not have a long-term benefit for the country. Thus, there will be need for coordination of all these models in the country to provide a better well-structured model for the distribution of public health commodities in Nigeria. This review provides valuable information on the various distribution strategies for the management of public health commodities and may act as a guide or template for the selection of suitable and adaptable distribution models for the management of public health commodities in the challenging environment of most developing countries and other similar environment. It may also give readers valuable information for further research on the suitability of distribution models for the management of public health commodities across the world.

Limitation and implication for future research

This study is limited by the limited number of articles utilized for the study. The exclusion of other databases like Embase and Web Science suggests the possibility of exclusion of other relevant articles which may provide additional information on the models used in the distribution of public health commodities. Also, some local and smaller nongovernmental organization with current or previous implementation of public health programs in Nigeria may not have their program reports publicly or easily available, thus indicating the exclusion of vital resources which may offer additional perspectives on the distribution models used in the management of public health commodities in Nigeria.

Additionally, the study shows the absence of research publications detailing the analysis of distribution models used for the distribution of public health commodities in Nigeria. Most research publications identified from the review are review articles. This gap shows the need for research studies focusing on the field assessment and identification of the distribution models used for the management of public health commodities in Nigeria.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.

Abbreviations

3PL:

3rd party logistics providers

ARVs:

Antiretrovirals

DDIC:

Direct distribution and information capture

DMCA:

Drugs and Medical Consumables Supply Agency

HIV:

Human immunodeficiency virus

IP:

Implementing partners

LMCU:

Logistics management coordinating unit

PLWHIV:

People living with HIV

PPP:

Public private partnership

TB:

Tuberculosis

References

  1. EK Tetteh 2021 Commodity security frameworks for health planning Explor Res Clin Soc Pharm 2 100025 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcsop.2021.100025

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. P Yadav 2015 Health product supply chains in developing countries: diagnosis of the root causes of underperformance and an agenda for reform Health Syst Reform 1 142 154 https://doi.org/10.4161/23288604.2014.968005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. B Mukasa M Ali M Farron R Weerdt Van de 2017 Contraception supply chain challenges: a review of evidence from low- and middle-income countries Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care 22 384 390 https://doi.org/10.1080/13625187.2017.1394453

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. A Cameron M Ewen D Ross-Degnan 2009 Medicine prices, availability, and affordability in 36 developing and middle-income countries: a secondary analysis Lancet Lond Engl 373 240 249 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61762-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. R Sharma 2001 Developing nations work for more access to essential health commodities BMJ 322 1510

    Google Scholar 

  6. H Stevens I Huys 2017 Innovative approaches to increase access to medicines in developing countries Front Med 4 218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. B Pécoul P Chirac P Trouiller J Pinel 1999 Access to essential drugs in poor countries a lost battle? JAMA 281 361 367

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. DH Peters A Garg G Bloom 2008 Poverty and access to health care in developing countries Ann N Y Acad Sci 1136 161 171 https://doi.org/10.1196/annals.1425.011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. S Mendis K Fukino A Cameron 2007 The availability and affordability of selected essential medicines for chronic diseases in six low- and middle-income countries Bull World Health Organ 85 279 288 https://doi.org/10.2471/BLT.06.033647

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. A Benyoussef B Christian 1967 Health care in developing countries Soc Sci Med 11 399 408 https://doi.org/10.1016/0037-7856(77)90103-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. KA Grépin CB Pinkstaff ZC Shroff A Ghaffar 2017 Donor funding health policy and systems research in low- and middle-income countries: how much, from where and to whom Health Res Policy Syst 15 68 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-017-0224-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. OS Ilesanmi AA Afolabi 2022 Sustainability of donor-funded health-related programs beyond the funding lifecycle in Africa: a systematic review Cureus 14 e24643 https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.24643

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. N Juliet S Freddie S Okuonzi 2010 Can donor aid for health be effective in a poor country? Assessment of prerequisites for aid effectiveness in Uganda Pan Afr Med J https://doi.org/10.4314/pamj.v3i1.52448

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Knox D (2020) Aid spent on health: ODA data on donors, sectors, recipients. In: Dev. Initiat. https://devinit.org/resources/aid-spent-health-oda-data-donors-sectors-recipients/. Accessed 15 Aug 2023

  15. D McCoy S Chand D Sridhar 2009 Global health funding: how much, where it comes from and where it goes Health Policy Plan 24 407 417 https://doi.org/10.1093/heapol/czp026

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. USAID | DELIVER PROJECT, Task Order 4 (2011) Using last mile distribution to increase access to health commodities. 28

  17. A Karimi A Mishra KV Natarajan KK Sinha 2021 Managing commodity stock-outs in public health supply chains in developing countries: an empirical analysis Prod Oper Manag 30 3116 3142 https://doi.org/10.1111/poms.13420

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. OA Chukwu VN Ezeanochikwa BE Eya 2017 Supply chain management of health commodities for reducing global disease burden Res Soc Adm Pharm 13 871 874 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sapharm.2016.08.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. AG Habib BM Musa G Iliyasu 2020 Challenges and prospects of snake antivenom supply in sub-Saharan Africa PLoS Negl Trop Dis 14 e0008374 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0008374

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. E Shittu M Harnly S Whitaker R Miller 2017 Reorganizing Nigeria’s vaccine supply chain reduces need for additional storage facilities, But More Storage is Required Health Aff (Millwood) https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2015.1328

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Federal Ministry of Health, Nigeria (2020) National Health Products Supply Chain Strategy and Implementation Plan 2021–2025. http://www.abcnig.com/reports_uploads/National_Health_Supply_Chain_Strategy_and_implementation_Plan_09092020_210322_222625_abcnig.pdf. Accessed 18 Mar 2022

  22. D Hirsh Bar Gai Z Graybill P Voevodsky E Shittu 2018 Evaluating scenarios of locations and capacities for vaccine storage in Nigeria Vaccine 36 3505 3512 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2018.04.072

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. National AIDS & STIs Control Programme, Federal Ministry of Health Nigeria (2021) Standard Operating Procedure for HIV Commodity Management within the Hub and Spoke Structure

  24. USAID | DELIVER PROJECT, Task Orders 4 and 7 (2014) Nigeria: Direct Delivery and Information Capture Activities--March 2012-August 2014. 38

  25. Reproductive Health Supply Coalition (2014) Summary of Last Mile Distribution Models for Health Commodities Discussion. 6. https://iaphl.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Summary-of-Last-Mile-Distribution-Models-for-Health-Commodities-discussion.pdf

  26. Usman K, Bunde E, Ronnow E, Igharo E (2007) Nigeria: Contraceptive Logistics Management System Report. Arlingt Va USAID Deliv Proj Task Order 1

  27. Igharo V (2013) Improving access to medicines through integrated technologies

  28. T Hoke M Bateganya O Toyo 2021 How home delivery of antiretroviral drugs ensured uninterrupted HIV treatment during COVID-19: experiences from Indonesia, Laos, Nepal, and Nigeria Glob Health Sci Pract 9 978 989 https://doi.org/10.9745/GHSP-D-21-00168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Ajulo V, Askerin F, Falayajo K, et al (2015) Nigeria National Supply Chain Assessment Results: A Review of the Public Health Supply Chain for Nigeria. https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00TF9B.pdf. Accessed 4 Apr 2022

  30. Deloitte (2018) Review of the Nigeria Supply Chain Integration Project (NSCIP)

  31. Chemonics International (2022) Integrating Supply Chains in Nigeria. In: Chemonics Int. https://chemonics.com/projects/integrating-supply-chains-in-nigeria/. Accessed 3 Jul 2022

  32. National Supply Chain Intergration Project, Nigeria (2020) About Nigeria Supply Chain Integration Project (NSCIP). In: Natl. Supply Chain Integr. Programme NPSCIP. https://nscip.gov.ng/about-nscip/. Accessed 26 Apr 2022

  33. S Abimbola L Baatiema M Bigdeli 2019 The impacts of decentralization on health system equity, efficiency and resilience: a realist synthesis of the evidence Health Policy Plan 34 605 617 https://doi.org/10.1093/heapol/czz055

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Dutta B (2022) Centralized vs Decentralized Logistic Distribution | Analytics Steps. https://www.analyticssteps.com/blogs/centralized-vs-decentralized-logistic-distribution. Accessed 15 Aug 2023

  35. Cleenewerck de Kiev L, Bhalla D, Gulma K (2019) Performance Comparison between Push and Pull Health Logistics Systems in Katsina State, Nigeria

  36. RP Harrison QA Rafiq N Medcalf 2018 Centralised versus decentralised manufacturing and the delivery of healthcare products: a United Kingdom exemplar Cytotherapy 20 873 890 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcyt.2018.05.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Aubrecht P, Essink J, Kovac M, Vandenberghe A-S (2020) Centralized and Decentralized Responses to COVID-19 in Federal Systems: US and EU Comparisons

  38. Tan Z, Hai F, Shi G (2009) Economy analysis of Hub-and-spoke logistics network. https://en.cnki.com.cn/Article_en/CJFDTotal-SPCY200905008.htm. Accessed 29 Aug 2022

  39. Skipper JB (2002) An optimization of the hub-and-spoke distribution network in United States European Command. 77. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA399997.pdf

  40. H Abbasi 2017 Marketing strategies of coke: an overview KAAV Int J Econ Commer Bus Manag 4 1 194 199

    Google Scholar 

  41. JR Brooklyn SC Sigmon 2017 Vermont hub-and-spoke model of care for opioid use disorder: development, implementation, and impact J Addict Med 11 286 292 https://doi.org/10.1097/ADM.0000000000000310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. X Xu MD Rodgers W Guo 2021 A hub-and-spoke design for ultra-cold COVID-19 vaccine distribution Vaccine 39 6127 6136 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2021.08.069

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Dolinskaya IS, Smilowitz KR, Ross M, Foundation A (2011) Decentralized Approaches to Logistics Coordination in Humanitarian Relief. 8

  44. D Adeloye RA David AA Olaogun 2017 Health workforce and governance: the crisis in Nigeria Hum Resour Health 15 32 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12960-017-0205-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Ayoade O (2021) Nigeria’s infrastructure gap: The way out. In: Businessday NG. https://businessday.ng/opinion/article/nigerias-infrastructure-gap-the-way-out/. Accessed 12 Aug 2023

  46. VO Olutuase CJ Iwu-Jaja CP Akuoko 2022 Medicines and vaccines supply chains challenges in Nigeria: a scoping review BMC Public Health 22 11 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-12361-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. B Salami F Dada F Adelakun 2016 Human resources for health challenges in Nigeria and Nurse Migration Policy Polit Nurs Pract https://doi.org/10.1177/1527154416656942

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. The World Bank (2023) Overview: The World Bank in Nigeria. In: World Bank. https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/nigeria/overview. Accessed 12 Aug 2023

  49. K Gbadamosi O Oluwaseyi 2016 Rural road infrastructural challenges: an impediment to health care service delivery in Kabba-Bunu Local Government Area of Kogi State Nigeria https://doi.org/10.5901/ajis.2016.v5n2p35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. OO Oleribe D Udofia O Oladipo 2018 Healthcare workers’ industrial action in Nigeria: a cross-sectional survey of Nigerian physicians Hum Resour Health 16 54 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12960-018-0322-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Schöpperle A (2013) Analysis of challenges of medical supply chains in sub-Saharan Africa regarding inventory management and transport and distribution. 70 https://iaphl.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Medical-Supply-Chain-Challenges.Masterthesis.ASchoepperle.pdf

  52. Tubonemi OA, Solomon E, Tari A, Onasoga DO (2020) Perceived Effects of Strike Action by Health Workers on the Effective Health Care Service Delivery in Federal Medical Centre, Yenagoa, Bayelsa State. 3. https://abjournals.org/ajhnm/papers/volume-3/issue-6/perceived-effects-of-strike-action-by-health-workers-on-the-effective-health-care-service-delivery-in-federal-medical-centre-yenagoa-bayelsa-state/

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

The study was funded by the author.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Malaria Consortium, No 33 Pope John Street, Off Gana Street, Maitama, Abuja, Nigeria

    Kunle Rotimi

Authors
  1. Kunle Rotimi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

The input of the contributors are as follows: K.R. conceptualized the study protocol, K.R wrote the first draft of the manuscript, proofread, and formatted the final manuscript. Also K.R. carried out data collation and analysis.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kunle Rotimi.

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

There is no conflicting interest associated with this study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rotimi, K. Review of public health commodity distribution models in Nigeria. Futur Bus J 10, 48 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s43093-024-00337-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s43093-024-00337-1

Keywords