ArticlePLOS water2025
Resource allocation for environmental health services in healthcare facilities: A qualitative case study from Niger.
Article in PLOS water, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Global Trends and Attributable Risk Factors in the Disease Burden of Lower Respiratory Infections.Tropical medicine and infectious disease · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Water, sanitation, hygiene, waste management, and other environmental health services are critical for safe health systems, but global access is lacking. Adequate financing is a key barrier, and understanding resource allocation can help identify solutions in resource-limited contexts. We conducted a qualitative case examining resource allocation in rural Niger. Our objectives were to understand resource allocation processes, key actors and their roles, and contextual factors that influenced resource allocation. We interviewed thirty-three healthcare workers, community leaders, and government officials. We found that resource allocation followed formal and informal processes. Formal processes encompassed annual budgets and monthly supplies through government channels, while informal processes depended on healthcare workers' out-of-pocket expenses, unpaid labor, in-kind community support, healthcare facility revenue, and contributions from non-governmental and United Nations agencies, and the diaspora. Informal resource allocation was critical to fill the gap when formal processes were slow or insufficient. Resource allocation was highly decentralized with minimal influence of national policies and legal frameworks at the local level. Key contextual factors influencing resource allocation included politicization of budgets at the commune level, sometimes leading to inefficiency or inequity. We observed that healthcare facility actors who were most knowledgeable of needs often held the least decision-making power. We concluded that informal processes were complementary to formal processes, not conflicting. In contexts where government funding is severely limited, informal mechanisms may be the only viable short-term option to ensure the availability of services, demonstrating greater flexibility and adaptability. However, ultimately informal processes are an interim solution that should be explored to ensure service delivery without undermining long-term government systems strengthening. We recommend that funders commit to long-term initiatives promoting local government democratic decision-making, account for local actors' capacities and incentives, and acknowledge dynamic formal and informal resource allocations to optimize investments and trade-offs.
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.