The removal of fuel subsidy in Nigeria has had far-reaching socioeconomic consequences, particularly for low-income households and vulnerable populations such as women and children. This study investigates the impact of fuel subsidy removal on child health outcomes, with particular focus on childhood nutrition and immunization in Bayelsa State. Grounded in the Political Economy Theory, which explains how economic policies and power dynamics shape access to essential social services, the study adopts a purely qualitative research design to provide a nuanced understanding of the issue. Data was gathered through Key Informant Interviews (KII) with healthcare workers and In-Depth Interviews (IDI) with mothers of children under the age of five. These participants were selected through a multistage sampling technique from both urban and rural communities across the state. The study explores maternal experiences and perceptions concerning household food availability, child dietary patterns, access to immunization services, and the increasing financial burden associated with securing adequate healthcare and nutrition in a post-subsidy context. Thematic content analysis was employed to analyze the qualitative data, allowing for the identification of key themes such as reduced dietary diversity, decreased protein consumption, rising transportation costs to health facilities, increased out-of-pocket healthcare expenditures, and delays or dropouts in routine immunization. Health workers also described significant service delivery challenges and inequities in access among rural populations. Preliminary findings suggest that the removal of fuel subsidies has exacerbated pre-existing barriers to child healthcare, intensified food insecurity, and placed added economic strain on mothers, many of whom now rely on unsustainable coping strategies. The study highlights the urgent need for policy interventions that strengthen social safety nets and health system resilience. These insights are critical for informing more equitable economic reforms and protecting child health in times of fiscal austerity.
George et al. (Tue,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: