Factors associated with Senegalese health workers’ willingness to receive mobile digital payments: cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Although Senegal began digitising servants' salaries in 2004, payments to community health workers have not yet followed suit. This study explored factors associated with health professionals' and community health workers' willingness to receive payments via mobile digital systems. METHODOLOGY: We carried out a cross-sectional study, from October to December 2023 among healthcare staff and community health workers using telephone surveys. At national level, one district per medical region was selected by random draw for the study. In each district, data were collected from all health workers agreeing to participate, using a questionnaire instrument derived from pre-existing conceptual frameworks for the acceptability of technological innovations in healthcare. We conducted a descriptive analysis, followed by a bivariate analysis with a 5% alpha risk and a multivariate analysis. RESULTS: We recruited 2965 healthcare workers (of whom 70.1% were women), including community health workers (70.8%) and health professionals (29.2%). The arithmetic mean age was 42.7 years (SD 11.2 years). 98.6% of the sample had access to a smartphone and 80% had internet access. Healthcare workers reported a high willingness (88.2%) to be paid by mobile digital systems.Factors negatively associated with this willingness included contractual professional status (adjusted OR (AOR) 0.46, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.93), having been in practice for more than 10 years (AOR 0.45, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.72), perceived difficulties in using technology (AOR 0.43, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.81) and carrying out additional administrative procedures. On the other hand, the simplification of payment processes (AOR 3.45, 95% CI 1.86 to 6.32) and positive opinion from health authorities (AOR 1.85, 95% CI 1.17 to 2.94) were positively associated with willingness. CONCLUSION: We found that individual, socioprofessional and contextual factors are associated with health workers' willingness to receive full digitisation of payments. Seamless integration of these systems into existing organisational structures could strengthen worker buy-in.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".