| Literature DB >> 23851672 |
Sharon S Weir1, Jing Li, Jessie K Edwards, Anisha D Gandhi, Yingying Huang, Huang Yingying, Chirayath M Suchindran, Xiang-Sheng Chen.
Abstract
The re-emerging syphilis epidemic in China is documented among sex workers, but little is known about STI risk among the broader group of women who work at entertainment and service venues, many of whom do not self-identify as sex workers. In 2009 in Liuzhou, China, community informants identified venues where people meet sexual partners. Characteristics of a stratified random sample of venues were collected during venue visits. Female staff at 42 venues were interviewed and tested for syphilis. The results showed that venue characteristics, worker behaviors, and syphilis prevalence differed by venue type. Service venue workers had more sexual partners, were more likely to report sex work, and more likely to have a positive syphilis test than entertainment venue workers (prevalence ratio: 5.4; 95% CI 1.4-20.6). To conclude, risk of syphilis differs by venue type and is higher at service venues, even among women who do not report commercial sex.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 23851672 PMCID: PMC3931934 DOI: 10.1007/s10461-013-0546-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: AIDS Behav ISSN: 1090-7165
Fig. 1Directed acyclic graph illustrating the proposed causal pathway between type of venue and syphilis
Characteristics of venues where people go to meet new sexual partners in Liuzhou, China
| Entertainment venues ( | Service venues ( | |
|---|---|---|
| Total | 39.1 (32.9, 45.3) | 60.9 (54.7, 67.1) |
| Venue type, location, and years of operation | ||
| Social venues | ||
| KTV | 29.6 (20.2, 39.0) | |
| Bar | 22.6 (14.3, 30.9) | |
| Nightclub/disco | 9.5 (4.0, 14.9) | |
| Restaurant | 6.3 (0.8, 11.9) | |
| Internet café/bar | 5.3 (0.1, 10.5) | |
| Karaoke | 3.0 (0.2, 5.7) | |
| Other | 9.1 (3.5, 14.8) | |
| | 100.0 | |
| Service venues | ||
| Massage | 46.7 (38.7, 54.6) | |
| Hair salon | 24.9 (17.9, 32.0) | |
| Sauna | 9.5 (5.0, 14.0) | |
| Hotel | c | |
| Guesthouse | 18.9 (12.0, 25.7) | |
| | 100.0 | |
| Located in urban Liuzhou | 66.8 (56.1, 77.4) | 62.7 (55.4, 70.0) |
| Site is in a cluster | 4.7 (1.7, 7.6) | 55.0 (47.0, 63.1) |
| Years in operation < 1 year | 13.8 (6.8, 20.8) | 27.0 (19.7, 34.2) |
| Characteristics of staff and patrons | ||
| Ratio of female staff to male staff > 1 | 31.2 (21.4, 41.1) | 89.1 (83.7, 94.5) |
| 10 or fewer patrons present during busiest time | 1.7 (0.0, 4.9) | 54.6 (46.5, 62.7) |
| More than 25 patrons present during busiest time | 94.4 (89.4, 99.3) | 19.5 (13.1, 25.9) |
| No female patrons present during busiest time | 4.3 (0.0, 9.1) | 34.3 (26.7, 41.9) |
| Ratio of male to female patrons > 1 | 81.1 (73.2, 88.9) | 90.7 (86.0, 95.5) |
| Average number of female workers in past week | 14.2 (11.0, 17.4) | 6.0 (5.1, 6.9) |
| Activities occurring at venue | ||
| People socialize for an hour or more | 95.2 (90.2, 100.0) | 68.1 (60.6, 75.6) |
| Alcohol consumption | 68.4 (58.7, 78.2) | 5.0 (1.4, 8.6) |
| People come for dancing | 12.3 (6.5, 18.1) | c |
| People come for singing karaoke | 50.2 (39.9, 60.4) | 2.1 (0.0, 5.0) |
| People come for foot/body massage | 5.1 (0.4, 9.9) | 68.0 (60.1, 76.0) |
| People meet new sexual partners | 45.7 (35.5, 55.8) | 54.2 (46.2, 62.1) |
| Someone onsite helps potential partners meet | 20.1 (12.1, 28.1) | 28.9 (21.8, 36.0) |
| Some female workers provide sex for money | 6.6 (2.3, 11.0) | 35.7 (28.3, 43.1) |
| People have sex onsite | 11.8 (4.9, 18.7) | 47.0 (39.1, 54.9) |
| Physical characteristics observed at venue | ||
| Rooms onsite with bed | 18.4 (9.7, 27.1) | 90.8 (85.6, 96.0) |
| Poster with sexy lady promoting pleasure | 4.3 (1.2, 7.5) | 22.0 (15.6, 28.3) |
| Posters with HIV-related messages | 4.7 (0.3, 9.0) | 6.3 (2.6, 10.0) |
| HIV prevention at site | ||
| Condom onsite and shown to interviewers | 11.8 (4.4, 19.2) | 36.7 (28.7, 44.6) |
| Ever had any HIV prevention activities on site | 42.2 (32.0, 52.4) | 69.5 (62.1, 76.9) |
| Any HIV educational talk at site | 19.8 (11.3, 28.2) | 38.2 (30.6, 45.8) |
| Any condom distribution at site | 28.7 (19.2, 38.3) | 63.9 (56.2, 71.5) |
| Any HIV poster or leaflets distribution | 34.4 (24.4, 44.4) | 54.7 (46.7, 62.6) |
| Any health worker outreach | 21.9 (13.1, 30.8) | 51.7 (43.8, 59.6) |
| Accept future onsite HIV prevention activities | 60.1 (50.1, 70.2) | 79.9 (73.0, 86.7) |
aWeighted proportions
bBy report of venue informant; all sites were named as places where people go to meet sexual partners by initial community informants
cCould not be computed as weighted proportion
Characteristics of women who work at entertainment and service venues
| Entertainment venues % (SD or 95 % CI) | Service venues % (SD or 95 % CI) | |
|---|---|---|
| Number of venues | 14 | 28 |
| Total sample of female workers | 480 | 183 |
| Sociodemographic characteristics | ||
| Mean age | 24.5 (23.1, 25.8) | 26.9 (25.7, 28.1) |
| Age 15–19 | 30.5 (23.6, 37.4) | 9.8 (4.5, 15.0) |
| 20–24 | 37.6 (30.3, 44.8) | 33.4 (24.7, 42.0) |
| 25–29 | 13.8 (8.7, 18.8) | 28.5 (20.3, 36.7) |
| 30–34 | 3.9 (0.9, 6.9) | 17.1 (10.0, 24.2) |
| 35–39 | 4.8 (1.3, 8.2) | 5.5 (1.3, 9.6) |
| 40+ | 9.4 (4.7, 14.2) | 5.9 (1.7, 10.0) |
| Resides in urban Liuzhou | 86.9 (83.0, 90.8) | 42.7 (35.6, 49.7) |
| Resides in rural county | 13.1 (9.2, 17.0) | 57.3 (50.3, 64.4) |
| Living in Liuzhou < 1 year | 38.9 (31.5, 46.3) | 46.7 (37.5, 55.8) |
| Educational attainment < High school | 63.2 (56.0, 70.3) | 84.1 (77.0, 91.2) |
| Never married | 70.4 (63.4, 77.5) | 53.6 (44.4, 62.8) |
| Has ever been homeless | 6.1 (2.5, 9.6) | 7.2 (2.4, 12.1) |
| Has ever been arrested | 8.2 (4.8, 11.5) | 13.6 (7.5, 19.8) |
| Employment at venue | ||
| Mean Income in past month all sources (RMB) | 1466 (1286, 1645) | 1446 (1289, 1604) |
| Paid by site | 86.7 (83.5, 89.9) | 59.2 (50.3, 68.0) |
| Paid by mamie | 6.0 (3.7, 8.3) | 16.7 (10.0, 23.5) |
| Paid by patrons | 15.7 (12.7, 18.7) | 40.0 (31.2, 48.8) |
| Mean number of days worked in past week | 5.9 (5.8, 6.1) | 5.9 (5.6, 6.2) |
| Purchased condom at work in last 4 weeks | 11.8 (7.4, 16.3) | 23.9 (16.6, 31.1) |
| Received free condom at work in last 4 weeks | 12.6 (8.5, 16.6) | 43.0 (34.0, 52.0) |
| Respondent currently carrying condom (and seen) | 3.2 (1.0, 5.3) | 24.5 (16.9, 32.0) |
| Sex work and sexual behavior | ||
| Has ever received gifts or money for sex | 13.9 (9.6, 18.3) | 45.1 (35.9, 54.3) |
| Has exchanged sex for money in past 4 weeks | 4.9 (2.7, 7.2) | 37.2 (28.5, 45.8) |
| Reported having sex with someone met at venue | 6.0 (3.2, 8.7) | 36.6 (27.9, 45.3) |
| Reported 2 or more sexual partners past 12 months | 17.3 (12.6, 22.1) | 50.5 (41.4, 59.7) |
| Mean number of sex partners in past 7 days | 0.8 (0.6, 0.9) | 2.4 (1.8, 3.1) |
| Syphilis test results and other health risks | ||
| Positive rapid syphilis test | 2.4 (0.6, 4.2) | 13.1 (7.2, 19.0) |
| Consumes alcohol at least once per week | 22.3 (17.3, 27.3) | 14.8 (8.6, 21.0) |
| Tested for HIV in last 12 months & received results | 11.0 (7.1, 14.9) | 34.3 (25.7, 43.0) |
| Condom use at last sex with boyfriend (of those with boyfriend) | 33.4 (24.9, 41.9) | 54.7 (43.5, 66.0) |
| Condom use at last sex | 29.0 (22.2, 35.8) | 56.3 (47.0, 65.6) |
Outcome of modeling the association between venue type and a positive syphilis test
| Models | Prevalence ratio | 95 % CI | Prevalence difference | 95 % CI |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Outcome: Syphilis prevalence ratio/difference of a positive syphilis test at service venues compared with entertainment venues | ||||
| Crude | 5.4 | 1.4, 20.6 | 10.7 | 2.1, 19.3 |
| Adjusted for urban–rural location | 2.2 | 0.6, 8.2 | 5.4 | 0.0–11.6 |
| Adjusted for age, education, and rural | 2.3 | 0.6, 9.2 | –a | |
Outcome: Multiple sexual partnerships prevalence ratio/difference of having 2 or more sexual partnerships in the past year at service venues compared with entertainment venues | ||||
| Crude | 2.9 | 1.5, 5.8 | 33.2 | 14.0, 52.4 |
| Adjusted for rural location | 2.5 | 1.2, 5.0 | 27.6 | 7.9, 47.3 |
| Adjusted for age, education, rural location | 2.6 | 1.3, 5.2 | 30.3 | 10.6, 49.9 |
Outcome: Syphilis prevalence ratio/difference of a positive syphilis test among workers with 2 or more sexual partners in the past year compared to those with fewer than 2 partners | ||||
| Crude | 6.9 | 2.1, 23.0 | 13.8 | 3.9, 23.7 |
| Adjusted for rural | 4.0 | 1.4, 11.4 | 3.6 | 0.0, 7.6 |
| Adjusted for age, education, rural location | 4.7 | 1.6, 14.2 | 3.7 | 0.0, 7.7 |
aModel did not converge