significant 9.9-percentage point increase in satisfaction (p<0.05). As was the case with the ANC exit interviews, we find a stronger effect in the full PBF than in the additional financing group (5.4 percentage point increase relative to full control) or supervision group (2.2-percentage point increase), and neither of the partial treatments achieves statistical significance at the 10 percent cutoff. While PBF and the additional financing group are not statistically significantly different from one another, the 7.7-percentage point difference in reported satisfaction between the PBF and the enhanced supervision (C2) group is statistically significant (p<0.10).

The remaining columns in 12 show the breakdown of the twelve individual components of satisfaction. Point estimates indicate the percentage point increase or decrease in probability that a respondent in a given intervention group will agree with a given statement, relative to the pure control, after adjusting for individual-level indicators (age, literacy, marital status, and education level) and facility-level indicators (availability of electricity, availability of piped water, availability of latrine, facility open 24 hours, type of health facility, urban/rural status, and number of health workers employed at the facility).

Focusing on the costs associated with care, all three groups are associated with statistically significantly higher satisfaction with laboratory fees relative to the pure control (Table 12, column 3). However, they are not significantly different from one another. The additional financing control had the highest (non-significant 11.1-percentage point) estimated impact on satisfaction with medicine costs; however, none of the differences between the control and treatment groups were statistically significant for this outcome (Table 12, column 4). There was no difference between any of the intervention arms, and the control group in satisfaction with registration fees, and informal payments (Table 12, columns 2 & 5).

PBF is associated with a large and statistically significant impact on satisfaction with the health facility cleanliness ( <mark>β=0.227, p</mark> =0.090). Neither <mark>the additional financing nor the additional supervision intervention groups (C1 and C2) performed better on cleanliness at endline than they did at baseline (Table 12, column 6).</mark> Focusing on waiting times, all of the intervention arms appear to result in improvements over the control group, although none of the differences were statistically significant (Table 12, column 7). All of the arms also resulted in increased satisfaction with the privacy at health facilities, and the very large point estimate on the PBF (33.6 percentage points) is significant at p<0.01 (Table 12, column 8). Satisfaction with the opening hours did not change over time in any of the treatment groups, but the change in the PBF group was greater than the change in the additional supervision group (Table 12, column 9).

Moving to health worker characteristics, PBF does not appear to have had any impact on health staff courteousness ( <mark>β = -0.012),</mark> and the point estimates on the two partial treatments indicate a negative impact on health worker courteousness, relative to the pure control (Table 12, column 10). All three intervention groups have negative, but not statistically significant, point estimates on satisfaction with the time spent with health workers, compared to the pure control (Table 12, column 12). By contrast, all three were associated with positive but non-statistically significant impacts on the ease of getting prescribed medications (Table 12, column 13). Overall, standard errors are large relative to point estimates and, across these variables, no statistically significant differences could be seen between groups, either between the pure control and the three intervention groups or between the different intervention arms themselves.

20