Mothers or primary care givers of all children under five years of age were asked about their child’s vaccination history. For all children with a vaccine card, study enumerators recorded all documented vaccinations and their respective receipt dates. Mothers/primary caretakers were also asked to report any vaccinations that were not recorded in the vaccine card. For these questions, enumerators asked a separate question for each vaccine type that referenced the vaccine name and also gave an indication of its method of administration (i.e. for polio “that is drops in the mouth”) as a guide for respondents. Only children between 12 – 23 months of age were included in these analyses. Both outcomes include the following vaccines: oral polio vaccine, yellow fever, diphtheria and whooping cough (DTC), measles, and <mark>Bacillus Calmette–Guérin (BCG).</mark> Table 6 column 1 shows that among children with a vaccine card, there was an almost 13 percentage point increase in full vaccination over the study period (0.127, p-value = 0.080). In the PBF group, there was a further 17 percentage point increase in full vaccination (0.170, p-value = 0.076). There was no difference between the control group, and the additional funding and additional supervision groups in full vaccination as documented in vaccination records. The second vaccination outcome included both documented vaccine receipt as well as any self-reported vaccines. This outcome displayed a similarly large increase in the control group (0.108, p-value = 0.039). Additionally, there was a further 16.4 percentage point increase in full vaccination over the study period in the PBF group (p-value = 0.019). Finally, neither the additional funding, nor the additional supervision group showed an increase in full vaccination beyond the increase in the control group. The p-values directly comparing the PBF group with the other groups (C1 and C2) further indicate that the PBF group outperformed the three other study groups (Table 6, column 2).

The next two outcomes assessed from the household survey were growth monitoring in the month before the survey, and having slept under a bednet the night before the survey. Both outcomes were assessed among children under five years of age; however, children who were less than 12 months old were not included in the growth monitoring analysis. There was no change in growth monitoring during the study period in the control group. Similarly, growth monitoring did not increase in the PBF and the additional supervision groups. However, growth monitoring increased by approximately 3 percentage points more in the group that received additional funding (0.031*, p-value = 0.071) than the control group (Table 6, column 3). The proportion of children who slept under a bednet the night before the survey declined by approximately 18 percentage points during the study period (-0.186, p-value = 0.000) (Table 6, column 4). A similar decline was observed in all the treatment groups as shown by the small and non-statistically significant coefficients on the interaction terms. It should be noted that neither growth monitoring nor bednet distribution were included in the package of services incentivized in the PBF program.

# ANTHROPOMETRICS

The height and weight of all children under 5 years of age were recorded during both baseline and endline surveys. Though nutrition indicators were not incentivized in the Cameroon PBF program until 2015, we used the height and weight data collected in the household survey to assess the effect of PBF on child nutrition outcomes. Using the WHO child growth standard’s Stata package, we calculated a z-score for child height-for-age, weight-for-age, and weight-for-height. These z- scores represent the location where each child falls according to international standards defining healthy child development. Using these scores, we calculated the prevalence of stunting (heightfor-age of less than -2 standard deviations from the mean), underweight (weight-for-age of less 16