Tilley-Gyado, Ritgak Dimka2015-10-192015-10-192015-05https://hdl.handle.net/10986/22775Nigeria is a country of immense natural resources and potential, but the government’s capacity to deliver public goods has generally been weak. It was against this backdrop that Nigeria faced the arrival within its borders of the deadly Ebola virus disease in July 2014. Despite assurances that the Nigerian government was prepared to respond to an outbreak of Ebola, the country was caught unaware and forced to mount an emergency response. Yet despite these serious concerns, the spread of Ebola was successfully contained in Nigeria. This case study seeks to understand why Nigeria’s Ebola response was so successful despite the challenging context. The case study will focus on institutional architecture and political will, taking an exploratory qualitative approach to examine the institutional dynamics and motivations among various stakeholders involved in the country’s response. The aim is to distill lessons that may be applied to other emergency response initiatives, as well as elsewhere in the health sector and in other areas of service delivery. A proactive communication strategy is required to build a broader coalition of support, and demand-side actors such as nongovernmental organizations play a helpful role.en-USCC BY 3.0 IGOMEDICAL PRACTICECHILD HEALTHEPIDEMIOLOGISTSRISKSTREATMENTDIAGNOSISDISEASE OUTBREAKEBOLA VIRUSINFORMATION SYSTEMHUMAN IMMUNODEFICIENCY VIRUSPREVENTIONPOLIO ERADICATION INITIATIVEMORBIDITYREDUCING MATERNAL MORTALITYRESOURCE ALLOCATIONHEALTH RESEARCHHEALTH CAREHEALTH SURVEYSDEATHEFFECTSHEALTHEPIDEMICHEALTH WORKERSPUBLICATIONSNATIONAL LEVELENVIRONMENTAL HEALTHSYNDROMEHEALTH FACILITIESHOSPITALPUBLIC HEALTHNATIONAL CAPACITIESMATERNAL MORTALITYQUALITATIVE APPROACHHEALTH SECTORKNOWLEDGEPOLICY RESPONSETECHNICAL CAPACITYTECHNICAL ASSISTANCEMINISTRY OF HEALTHDISEASESMILLENNIUM DEVELOPMENT GOALTRAININGINFECTIOUS DISEASESPATIENTSPATIENTLIFEINTERVENTIONPOISONINGHUMANITARIAN AFFAIRSPEDAGOGYEMERGENCIESHEALTH MANAGEMENTPARALYSISHAZARDDISSEMINATIONEMERGENCY RESPONSESYMPTOMSSERVICE DELIVERYNATURAL RESOURCESGLOBAL HEALTHINTERVIEWMORTALITYHEALTH CARE SYSTEMTECHNICAL RESOURCESENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGEPROGRESSDISEASE OUTBREAKSLARGE POPULATIONDIAGNOSESHEALTH REGULATIONSINFANTWORKERSFEVERUSE OF RESOURCESPOLICIESFATIGUEINFLUENZAHIVSURVEILLANCEAGGRESSIVENESSIMMUNODEFICIENCYPOLICY MAKERSSERVICE DELIVERY SYSTEMSHEALTH POLICYMEDICINEHEALTH SECTOR REFORMMORBIDITY AND MORTALITYURBAN AREASEMERGENCY   RESPONSEMEDICAL PERSONNELDECISION MAKINGMALNUTRITIONPOLIO ERADICATIONACUTE FLACCID PARALYSISDISEASE_SURVEILLANCENUTRITIONANTIMALARIALSINTERNATIONAL COMMUNITYQUALITY CONTROLINTERNATIONAL RESPONSEPOLICYHEALTH SURVEILLANCERESTPRIMARY HEALTH CAREWORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATIONTHERAPYDIAGNOSTICSINTERNETCHILD MORTALITYAVIAN INFLUENZACHILD MORTALITY RATESHEALTH SYSTEMVACCINESWEIGHTPHYSICIANSHUMAN RIGHTSVIRUSEXERCISECHILDRENDISEASEDISEASE CONTROLCLINICSWORKING CONDITIONSWARDISEASE SURVEILLANCERISK OF EXPOSUREILLNESSINFECTIONINFECTIONSALLPOPULATIONPOLIODISSEMINATION OF INFORMATIONMATERNAL AND CHILD HEALTHMEDICAL ETHICSPLAGUEINFECTION RATESVISIONLEAD POISONINGCIVIL WAREMERGENCY PREPAREDNESSSTRATEGYFLOW OF INFORMATIONFERTILITYEPIDEMIOLOGYRISK OF DEATHEBOLAEMERGENCY RESPONSE SYSTEMSHEALTH INTERVENTIONSPRIMARY HEALTH CARE SYSTEMSHEALTH CARE SYSTEMSHEALTH SERVICESIMPLEMENTATIONBLINDSERVICE PROVIDERSPRINT MEDIALASSA FEVERWorking PaperWorld Bank10.1596/22775