| Literature DB >> 22848800 |
Lianne A Urada1, Robert M Malow, Nina C Santos, Donald E Morisky.
Abstract
Consistent condom use among high risk groups such as female sex workers (FSWs) remains low. Adolescent female sex workers are especially at higher risk for HIV/STI infections. However, few published studies have compared the sexual risk negotiations among adolescent, emerging adult, and older age groups or the extent a manager's advice about condom use is associated with an FSW's age. Of 1,388 female bar/spa workers surveyed in the southern Philippines, 791 FSW who traded sex in the past 6 months were included in multivariable logistic regression models. The oldest FSWs (aged 36-48) compared to adolescent FSWs (aged 14-17) were 3.3 times more likely to negotiate condoms when clients refused condom use. However, adolescent FSWs received more advice from their managers to convince clients to use condoms or else to refuse sex, compared to older FSWs. Both adolescent and the oldest FSWs had elevated sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and inconsistent condom use compared to other groups. Having a condom rule at the establishment was positively associated with condom negotiation. Factors such as age, the advice managers give to their workers, and the influence of a condom use rule at the establishment need to be considered when delivering HIV/STI prevention interventions.Entities:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22848800 PMCID: PMC3405561 DOI: 10.1155/2012/812635
Source DB: PubMed Journal: AIDS Res Treat ISSN: 2090-1240
Sociobehavioral and social-structural characteristics of female sex workers in the southern Philippines by age category (N = 791).
| Age category % | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total | 14–17 | 18–25 | 26–34 | 35–48 | |
| ( | ( | ( | ( | ( | |
| Sociobehavioral | |||||
| Months worked as an entertainer∗ | 10 (4–21) | 5 (3–12) | 8 (3–12) | 15 (7–36) | 36 (20–96) |
| Married or living with a boyfriend | 264 (33) | 6 (11) | 144 (29) | 85 (47) | 29 (48) |
| Education∗ | 9 (7–10) | 8 (7–9) | 9 (7–10) | 9 (7–10) | 8 (6–10) |
| Number of children∗ | 1 (0–2) | 0 (0) | 1 (0-1) | 1 (1–3) | 2 (1.5–4) |
| Ever used drugs by injection | 45 (6) | 5 (9) | 25 (5) | 14 (8) | 1 (2) |
| Any STIs during past six months | 219 (28) | 18 (32) | 123 (25) | 52 (29) | 26 (43) |
| Ever had an HIV test | 566 (72) | 33 (59) | 319 (64) | 157 (88) | 57 (95) |
| Always uses a condom when having vaginal sex | 367 (46) | 21 (38) | 248 (50) | 80 (45) | 18 (30) |
| Social-structural | |||||
| Coworker ever tried to convince you to use condoms with clients | 568 (72) | 43 (77) | 349 (70) | 127 (71) | 49 (82) |
| Belongs to an organization of workers | 30 (4) | 2 (4) | 16 (3) | 8 (4) | 4 (7) |
| Your manager ever talked to you about using condoms | 519 (66) | 37 (66) | 334 (67) | 105 (59) | 43 (72) |
| The current establishment has a rule that workers must use condoms | 594 (75) | 41 (73) | 383 (77) | 120 (67) | 50 (83) |
∗Median, IQR.
Associations between female sex workers' age and sexual risk negotiation if a client refuses to use condoms in the Philippines (N = 791)∗.
| Variable | Unadjusted odds ratio (95% confidence interval) | Adjusted odds ratio (95% confidence interval) |
|---|---|---|
| Age (versus 14–17) | ||
| 18–25 | 1.78 (1.01–3.16) | 1.77 (0.97–3.22) |
| 26–34 | 1.13 (0.61–2.10) | 1.42 (0.73–2.74) |
| 35–48 | 2.59 (1.13–5.93)∗∗ | 3.33 (1.27–8.71)∗∗ |
| Months worked as an entertainer | 1.00 (0.99-1.00) | 1.00 (0.99-1.00) |
| City of interview∗ | 1.11 (1.07–1.16)∗∗ | 1.06 (1.02–1.11)∗∗ |
| Sociostructural | ||
| Belongs to an organization of workers | 2.11 (0.80–5.59) | 2.10 (0.76–5.80) |
| Manager talked about using condoms | 2.29 (1.67–3.15)∗∗ | 1.37 (0.95–1.98) |
| Condom rule exists at establishment | 3.43 (2.44–4.82)∗∗ | 2.50 (1.70–3.68)∗∗ |
*Controlling for intervention effects, **significant at P < .05.
Associations between FSW age and perceived manager safer sex advice if a client refuses condoms in the southern Philippines (N = 791)∗.
| Variable | Unadjusted odds ratio (95% confidence interval) | Adjusted odds ratio (95% confidence interval) |
|---|---|---|
| Age (versus 14–17) | ||
| 18–25 | 0.17 (0.07–0.46)∗∗ | 0.17 (0.64–0.46)∗∗ |
| 26–34 | 0.08 (0.01–0.39)∗∗ | 0.06 (0.01–0.31)∗∗ |
| 35–48 | 0.12 (0.01–1.00) | 0.05 (0.00–0.78)∗∗ |
| Months worked as an entertainer | 1.00 (0.99–1.02) | 1.01 (0.99–1.03) |
| City of interview∗ | 0.92 (0.82–1.04) | 0.91 (0.80–1.03) |
| Sociostructural | ||
| Belongs to an organization of workers | 2.65 (0.59–11.88) | 3.01 (0.62–14.67) |
| Condom rule exists at establishment | 0.88 (0.34–2.28) | 1.05 (0.38–2.90) |
*Controlling for intervention effects, **significant at P < .05.