This section presents the main findings on the modalities and process of distribution of the first round of PBF subsidy payments, and its effects on the motivation of health workers.
Motivation of health workers before the arrival of the PBF
The vast majority of respondents said they chose their profession out of vocation or love for their job, and that they loved working in their job before the arrival of PBF. In their view, being a health care worker is considered a noble profession in society. For health workers, contact with patients on a daily basis and the care they provide is a great source of inner satisfaction (internal motivation). In spite of this, respondents noted difficulties in their working conditions (low salary, lack of equipment, retraining, and human resources). For them, these difficulties hinder their effectiveness in providing quality care to the population, which negatively affected their motivation at times.
Positive PBF effects on health worker motivation
Prior to the implementation of the PBF, the vast majority of health workers did not receive individual subsidies or other bonus payments. Respondents recognized that there was a change in their attitudes when their work started being valued by a financial subsidy (financial motivation). The majority of respondents equated receiving subsidies with both encouragement and incentives to do their job better. In addition, they perceived individual and hospital subsidies as a means to improving their difficult working conditions:
''When there are (individual) subsidies, it changes people's behaviour. In spite of the willingness, i.e. the willingness to work well, when there is money it always supports that. No matter what people say, money is a source of motivation. Today in a structure like the district hospital, it is the subsidies that can motivate the staff to do well. I don't see anything else'' [Specialist doctor, HD 2]
In allowing them to work better, it was not only the financial aspect of the PBF that made a difference for their motivation, but PBF also contributed to better internal motivation.
''When you do a good job, you feel in yourself that you've done a good job, there's satisfaction, that's not material, but it makes you feel comfortable inside'' [Senior Health Technician, HD1]
According to some respondents, improved recognition of their work by their superiors was another factor contributing to their job satisfaction (internal motivation). Moreover, according to some respondents, the PBF made it possible to better describe and distribute work tasks between health workers, contributing to better planning and organization of daily work.
Development process of health workers' expectations regarding subsidies
The vast majority of health workers were happy when the subsidies were announced upon introduction of PBF. However, after receiving their first PBF subsidies, respondents felt disappointed because they perceived a huge gap between the amounts hoped for and those received. Most respondents found the amount of individual subsidy received too low in absolute terms and therefore not motivating. In addition, they perceived a discrepancy between the efforts made and the amount obtained (financial motivation). Disappointment with the subsidy amount varied from one socio-professional category to another. Specifically, disappointment was greater among health workers in lower-level categories C, D and E, because they placed more hope in the amount of the subsidies than those in higher-level categories A and B. For example, in the three HDs, health workers in socio-professional categories A and B (doctors, pharmacists, and administrative staff) obtained between 20,000 CFA francs (US $32.99) and 30,000 CFA francs (US $49.49) as an individual subsidy for the one paid cycle, which corresponds to three months of the PBF. Those in categories C, D and E (hygienist, ambulance driver, security guard, etc.) had individual subsidy ranging from 3,500 CFA francs (US $5.77) to 15,000 CFA francs (US $24.74):
''I know of Hygienist who went into debt because they said there's PBF subsidies ... they got 3,500 CFA francs (US $5.85) as a subsidies... (Laughing) . they were really discouraged." [Ambulance man, HD2]
''I felt a little discouraged about what I was given as payment. I told myself that I actually worked for three months and at the end of my effort I only received 24,000 CFA francs (US $40.14). For this reason, I planned to eventually do another activity, and leave the PBF for the benefit of this activity. For example, if I had a mission within the district, I will forcibly leave the follow-up here, because I know that in two or three days I will have 40,000 CFA francs (US $66.90). Because everyone is chasing after profit. Here I don't think if someone has exceeded 30,000 CFA francs (US $50.17) or 40,000 CFA francs (US $66.90)" [Senior Health Technician, HD1].
DH 1 health workers who had already participated in the PBF pre-pilot project were more disappointed with the amount of individual subsidy received compared to DH 2 and 3, as the majority of them hoped for an amount on average equal to those they obtained during the PBF pre-pilot project, where higher subsidies had been paid.
Effects of PBF implementation difficulties on the motivation of health workers
According to DHs, a delay of six to seven months was observed in the distribution of subsidies. There are two reasons for this delay: administrative delays due to the complexity of the PBF process and errors in bank processing. Respondents stated that they had not received any formal information on the reasons for the delay. In their view, this facilitated the circulation of rumors accusing those responsible of having embezzled subsidies. Some health workers felt that if subsidies are delayed, officials need to communicate the reasons better.
Health workers' suspicions of their managers reveal a lack of confidence in their management of finances. In addition to creating a lack of confidence in the PBF mechanism among health workers, the delay in the disbursement of subsidies and its distribution also led to a lack of motivation among the workers. Health workers were informed individually by the hospital accounting department when the subsidies arrived. However, there was no meeting to inform the health workers about the overall amount of subsidies, individual subsidies, and hospital investment subsidies. A significant number of respondents stated that the subsidy sharing process was not transparent, which caused demotivation (social motivation):
''When they call you just to give you a sum of money, I can even say that the district hospital got billions and they only gave me 20,000 CFA francs (US $33.95) when that's not it, you have to be transparent because that's the best way'' [Medical Assistant, HD1].
Prior to the start of the project, the PBF agency established a key for the distribution of subsidies with several criteria to be used for the calculation of subsidies. Apart from the members of the district health management team (district health manager, manager, and unit heads), most health workers had only partial knowledge of these criteria. Respondents stated that details of the distribution of subsidies were not discussed in depth during the training sessions. The managers of DH 1 had a better grasp of how subsidies were distributed compared to those of DH 2 and 3.This was due to the fact that they had already participated in the PBF pre-pilot project. Beyond knowledge, In the two DHs, most of the distribution criteria were not applied when the subsidies were distributed. For example, in DH 2, some volunteer trainees and members of the management committee had received subsidies, although this was not foreseen. Similarly, individual performance was not considered in two of the three DHs (DH 2 and 3), possibly because the evaluation of individual performance had not been carried out. According to some hospital officials, since the PBF project had already ended, there was no longer a point in evaluating the health workers, and doing so would only create tensions within the teams. In contrast to this judgement, DH 1 health workers, where individual performance evaluation had taken place, stressed the importance of knowing their individual performance rating as an important element for morale:
''If I don't even know the grade I've got, I can really get an idea that somewhere they've taken something off, ... I can get fuzzy ideas.'' [Senior Health Technician, DH 1]
In result of the above issues, the vast majority of health workers felt that the subsidies were not well shared (social motivation). In addition, they felt that the criteria considered when calculating the subsidies did not reflect everyone's effort. Indeed, in the absence of individual performance evaluations in DHs 2 and 3, there was a divergence of views among the different actors with regard to the criteria that should have been considered for the sharing of subsidies. Ideas varied in relation to the socio-professional category of health workers. In particular, for the majority of category C, D, and E health workers, subsidies should have been shared equally among all health workers without distinction of socio-professional category. However, the majority of category A and B health workers were against this egality principle. In their opinion, only the socio-professional category should have been considered, not individual performance. This difference of views among health workers sometimes led to tensions. Some health workers of socio-professional categories C, D, and E reported that they work more than those of higher categories A and B, and therefore should have received the same or higher amounts. In consequence, for example, in DH 2, a health worker refused to receive his subsidies because he considered the amount inadequate in relation to the effort made. Nevertheless, it appears that the vast majority of health workers did not openly express their dissatisfaction:
''the way we did it (the distribution of subsidies), even if they don't tell us we know there's frustration'' [General physician, DH2]