The work which is the subject of this study is entitled «perception of mothers on the circumcision of their children in the Ngezi district». To achieve this objective, we used the ethnographic method, supported by the interview guide. The results obtained show that: - The mothers interviewed consider circumcision mainly as an act of purification, often recommended by institutions religious such as the Church; - The main reasons given by participants for circumcising their children include preventing urinary infections and reducing the risk of sexually transmitted diseases; - In today’s society, circumcision is seen as a social requirement, contributing to well-being and the integration of the child into their social environment; - The decision to circumcise their children is mainly based on aesthetic and hygiene considerations. Indeed underlines that they prefer to circumcise their children so that their penis takes a «good shape»; - The study revealed a diversity of concerns among respondents regarding the potential risks for their uncircumcised children. Some respondents believe that the absence of circumcision could increase the risk of infection of the foreskin and still others think that there is a risk of developing phimosis. This is why it is very important to do circumcision in a boy child. To prevent certain risks.

The population takes care of itself, sometimes abandons first aid structures made affordable for them, and joins informal structures, prayer rooms or alternative medicines, less expensive and considered gentler in rural areas. The situation is becoming more alarming because the population is impoverished, which still does not make the attendance of health centers at the community level always evident. This study aims to describe the impacts of subsidy of care among children under of 5 years in the Bunia health zone. To carry out this work, the transversal method supported by the semi-structural interview made it possible to carry out this work with the 20 ITs in the Bunia health zone. After analysis, we reached the results according to which 85.0% of health structures receive the care subsidy; 55.0% of health structures stipulate the increase in patients as a subsidy advantage; 40.0% of health structures reported the non-treatment of all illnesses as disadvantages of subsidy 35.0% of health structures reported patient satisfaction as socio-economic impacts of subsidy; Health structures reported that the impact of subsidy on quality of service is to offer quality care and not to offer quality care respectively 30.0%; excluding 90.0% of health structures are motivated by the care subsidy; 50.0% of health structures reported the reduction in maternal and neonatal as a subsidy impact on the operation of services; 45.0% of health structures reported the supply of medicines as a type of motivation for care; 60.0% of health structures reported not having a maintenance subsidy of building. Given these results, we believe that the subsidy significantly increases the use of healthcare services and allows the entire population to have access to healthcare.