OBJECTIVE: Among sex workers (SWs) in Vancouver, Canada, this study identified social, drug use, sex work, environmental-structural, and client-related factors associated with being offered and accepting more money after clients' demand for sex without a condom. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study using baseline (February 2010 to October 2011) data from a longitudinal cohort of 510 SWs. METHODS: A 2-part multivariable regression model was used to identify factors associated with 2 separate outcomes: (1) being offered more money for sex without a condom in the last 6 months; and (2) accepting more money, among those who had been offered more money. RESULTS: The sample included 490 SWs. In multivariable analysis, being offered more money for sex without a condom was more likely for SWs who used speedballs, had higher average numbers of clients per week, had difficulty accessing condoms, and had clients who visited other SWs. Accepting more money for sex without a condom was more likely for SWs self-reporting as a sexual minority and who had experienced client violence and used crystal methamphetamine less than daily (versus none) and less likely for SWs who solicited mainly indoors for clients (versus outdoor/public places). CONCLUSIONS: These results highlight the high demand for sex without a condom by clients of SWs. HIV prevention efforts should shift responsibility toward clients to reduce offers of more money for unsafe sex. Programs that mitigate the social and economic risk environments of SWs alongside the removal of criminal sanctions on sex work to enable condom use within safer indoor workspaces are urgently required.
OBJECTIVE: Among sex workers (SWs) in Vancouver, Canada, this study identified social, drug use, sex work, environmental-structural, and client-related factors associated with being offered and accepting more money after clients' demand for sex without a condom. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study using baseline (February 2010 to October 2011) data from a longitudinal cohort of 510 SWs. METHODS: A 2-part multivariable regression model was used to identify factors associated with 2 separate outcomes: (1) being offered more money for sex without a condom in the last 6 months; and (2) accepting more money, among those who had been offered more money. RESULTS: The sample included 490 SWs. In multivariable analysis, being offered more money for sex without a condom was more likely for SWs who used speedballs, had higher average numbers of clients per week, had difficulty accessing condoms, and had clients who visited other SWs. Accepting more money for sex without a condom was more likely for SWs self-reporting as a sexual minority and who had experienced client violence and used crystal methamphetamine less than daily (versus none) and less likely for SWs who solicited mainly indoors for clients (versus outdoor/public places). CONCLUSIONS: These results highlight the high demand for sex without a condom by clients of SWs. HIV prevention efforts should shift responsibility toward clients to reduce offers of more money for unsafe sex. Programs that mitigate the social and economic risk environments of SWs alongside the removal of criminal sanctions on sex work to enable condom use within safer indoor workspaces are urgently required.
Authors: Viviane D Lima; Vikram S Gill; Benita Yip; Robert S Hogg; Julio S G Montaner; P Richard Harrigan Journal: J Infect Dis Date: 2008-07-01 Impact factor: 5.226
Authors: C M Lowndes; M Alary; C A Gnintoungbé; E Bédard; L Mukenge; N Geraldo; P Jossou; E Lafia; F Bernier; E Baganizi; J Joly; E Frost; S Anagonou Journal: AIDS Date: 2000-11-10 Impact factor: 4.177
Authors: Viviane D Lima; David R Bangsberg; P Richard Harrigan; Steven G Deeks; Benita Yip; Robert S Hogg; Julio S G Montaner Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2010-12 Impact factor: 3.731
Authors: Patricia A Janssen; Kate Gibson; Raven Bowen; Patricia M Spittal; Karen L Petersen Journal: J Urban Health Date: 2009-06-17 Impact factor: 3.671
Authors: Andrea Krüsi; Jill Chettiar; Amelia Ridgway; Janice Abbott; Steffanie A Strathdee; Kate Shannon Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2012-06 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Caroline C Kuo; Rochelle K Rosen; Caron Zlotnick; Wendee M Wechsberg; Marlanea Peabody; Jennifer E Johnson Journal: BMJ Sex Reprod Health Date: 2018-06-28
Authors: Kate Shannon; Steffanie A Strathdee; Shira M Goldenberg; Putu Duff; Peninah Mwangi; Maia Rusakova; Sushena Reza-Paul; Joseph Lau; Kathleen Deering; Michael R Pickles; Marie-Claude Boily Journal: Lancet Date: 2014-07-22 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Lianping Ti; Lindsey Richardson; Kora DeBeck; Paul Nguyen; Julio Montaner; Evan Wood; Thomas Kerr Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2014-05-17 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Catherine E Oldenburg; Amaya G Perez-Brumer; Sari L Reisner; Kenneth H Mayer; Matthew J Mimiaga; Mark L Hatzenbuehler; Till Bärnighausen Journal: Glob Public Health Date: 2016-03-15