| Literature DB >> 23186171 |
Vannda Kab1, Jennifer Evans, Neth Sansothy, Ellen Stein, Marie Claude-Couture, Lisa Maher, Kimberly Page.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess concordance between self-reported amphetamine-type stimulant (ATS) use and toxicology results among young female sex workers (FSW) in Phnom Penh, Cambodia.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2012 PMID: 23186171 PMCID: PMC3507647 DOI: 10.1186/1940-0640-7-11
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Addict Sci Clin Pract ISSN: 1940-0632
Selected sociodemographic and sexual risk characteristics of women participating in the Young Women’s Health Study-2
| | | |
| 16-18 | 11 | 5.5 |
| 19-24 | 62 | 31.0 |
| 25-29 | 127 | 63.5 |
| | | |
| No Education | 48 | 24.0 |
| Primary (1-6 years) | 114 | 57.0 |
| Secondary (≥ 7 years) | 38 | 19.0 |
| | | |
| Married/Living together | 85 | 42.5 |
| Divorced/separated/widowed | | |
| Single | 34 | 17.0 |
| | | |
| ≤ 5 years | 138 | 69.0 |
| 6-10 years | 53 | 26.5 |
| ≥ 10 years | 9 | 4.5 |
| | | |
| Entertainment/other | 147 | 73.5 |
| Brothels/freelance | 53 | 26.5 |
| | | |
| ≤ 10 partners | 150 | 75.0 |
| 11-29 partners | 48 | 24.0 |
| ≥ 30 partners | 2 | 1.0 |
Self-reported versus urine-toxicology-detected amphetamine-type stimulant use among women participating in the Young Women’s Health Study-2
| | | ||
| | | ||
| Self-reported use | Yes | 25 | 6 |
| | No | 3 | 166 |
| | | ||
| Sensitivity | 89.3 | | 77.8–100 |
| Specificity | 96.5 | | 93.8–99.2 |
| Positive predictive value | 80.6 | | 66.7–94.5 |
| Negative predictive value | 98.2 | 96.2–100 | |
Self-reported amphetamine-type stimulant use compared with urine toxicology results by age, HIV status, and sex-work venue
| | | Positive | Negative |
| Self-reported use (n) | Yes | 2 | 1 |
| | No | 0 | 8 |
| | | | |
| Sensitivity (%) | 100 | | −− |
| Specificity (%) | 88.9 | | 68.4–100 |
| Positive predictive value (%) | 66.7 | | 13.3–100 |
| Negative predictive value (%) | 100 | | −− |
| | | Positive | Negative |
| Self-reported use (n) | Yes | 5 | 3 |
| | No | 2 | 52 |
| | | | |
| Sensitivity (%) | 71.4 | | 38.3–100 |
| Specificity (%) | 94.6 | | 88.5–100 |
| Positive predictive value (%) | 62.5 | | 29.0–96.0 |
| Negative predictive value (%) | 96.3 | | 91.3–100 |
| | | Positive | Negative |
| Self-reported use (n) | Yes | 18 | 2 |
| | No | 1 | 106 |
| | | | |
| Sensitivity (%) | 94.7 | | 84.7–100 |
| Specificity (%) | 98.2 | | 95.6–100 |
| Positive predictive value (%) | 90.0 | | 76.9–100 |
| Negative predictive value (%) | 99.1 | | 97.2–100 |
| | | Positive | Negative |
| Self-reported use (n) | Yes | 9 | 2 |
| | No | 1 | 21 |
| | | | |
| Sensitivity (%) | 90.0 | | 71.4–100 |
| Specificity (%) | 91.3 | | 79.8–100 |
| Positive predictive value (%) | 81.8 | | 59.0–100 |
| Negative predictive value (%) | 95.5 | | 86.8–100 |
| | | Positive | Negative |
| Self-reported use (n) | Yes | 16 | 4 |
| | No | 2 | 145 |
| | | | |
| Sensitivity (%) | 88.9 | | 74.4–100 |
| Specificity (%) | 97.3 | | 94.7–99.9 |
| Positive predictive value (%) | 80.0 | | 62.5–97.5 |
| Negative predictive value (%) | 98.6 | | 96.8–100 |
| | | Positive | Negative |
| Self-reported use (n) | Yes | 3 | 3 |
| | No | 2 | 131 |
| | | | |
| Sensitivity (%) | 60.0 | | 17.1–100 |
| Specificity (%) | 97.8 | | 95.3–100 |
| Positive predictive value (%) | 50.0 | | 10.0–90.0 |
| Negative predictive value (%) | 98.5 | | 96.4–100 |
| | | Positive | Negative |
| Self-reported use (n) | Yes | 22 | 3 |
| | No | 1 | 35 |
| | | | |
| Sensitivity (%) | 95.7 | | 87.3–100 |
| Specificity (%) | 92.1 | | 82.5–100 |
| Positive predictive value (%) | 88.0 | | 75.2–100 |
| Negative predictive value (%) | 97.2 | 91.9–100 | |