Hepatitis B is a leading preventable cause of liver cancer, and in high‑burden settings most chronic infection is acquired around birth. Nigeria carries the largest hepatitis B burden in Africa. Preventing mother-to-child transmission (MTCT) requires a sequence of antenatal and perinatal steps: contact with antenatal care, maternal testing during that contact, receipt of test results, and timely administration of the infant birth dose vaccine. The authors set out to assemble these steps into a single nationally representative prevention cascade for Nigeria and to quantify how far the country is from World Health Organization triple‑elimination targets.
The analysis used the 2023–24 Nigeria Demographic and Health Survey (DHS), the first Nigerian DHS to include both a maternal hepatitis B module and infant birth‑dose vaccination records. The analytic sample comprised 13,341 women with a most recent live birth in the three years before the survey, each linked to that child’s immunisation record. Coverage at each cascade step (antenatal attendance, hepatitis B testing in antenatal care, result received, and infant birth dose) was estimated using complex‑survey methods. The authors examined patterning by household wealth, maternal education, urban/rural residence, travel time to services, and geopolitical region.
Among women with a recent live birth, 72% attended antenatal care. Despite this high contact, only 12.3% of mothers (95% CI 11.4–13.2) reported being tested for hepatitis B during antenatal care. Among those tested, nearly all received their test result; thus the principal gap in the cascade was failure to test rather than failure to return results. The infant birth dose reached 55.0% of infants (95% CI 53.1–56.9). The authors note this was 35 percentage points below the relevant elimination target, indicating substantial shortfall in perinatal protection.
Antenatal hepatitis B testing showed steep socioeconomic and regional gradients. Testing ranged from 2.6% in the poorest wealth quintile to 32.4% in the richest. Geographically, testing was lowest in the North‑West region, the same zone noted by the authors as having Nigeria’s highest hepatitis B prevalence. These patterns indicate that the women and areas with the greatest potential benefit from antenatal testing and linked interventions are among the least likely to receive testing.
Infant birth‑dose delivery appeared to operate as a broadly universal service rather than a targeted one: receipt of the birth dose was unrelated to whether the mother had been tested for hepatitis B during antenatal care. Instead, the dominant correlate of an infant receiving the birth dose was the place of delivery. Where births occurred (facility versus non‑facility) was the primary determinant of birth‑dose coverage in the DHS data.
The cascade demonstrates that Nigeria already achieves contact with many pregnant women through antenatal care but rarely uses that contact to identify hepatitis B–infected mothers via testing. At the same time, the universal birth‑dose is delivered to only about half of infants. Together, these gaps leave the country far from the triple‑elimination goals referenced by the authors, with the largest shortfalls concentrated in regions and population groups where hepatitis B is most common.
Based on these cascade findings, the authors argue that integrating hepatitis B testing into routine antenatal care—providing testing free at the point of care and prioritising scale‑up in higher‑burden northern regions—would convert existing antenatal contact into measurable protection. Strengthening facility delivery coverage and ensuring reliable availability and delivery of the infant birth dose are also implied priorities, since place of delivery strongly determined newborn receipt of the birth dose.
This study was a secondary analysis of publicly available, de‑identified DHS data. The original 2023–24 Nigeria DHS received ethical approval from the National Health Research Ethics Committee of Nigeria and the ICF Institutional Review Board; participants provided written informed consent to the survey implementers. No additional ethical approval was required for this secondary analysis. The authors declare no competing interests. The DHS data and the variables and coding rules necessary to reproduce the reported estimates are available from The DHS Program as described by the authors.