OBJECTIVES: We examined the impact of community mobilization (CM) on the empowerment, risk behaviors, and prevalence of HIV and sexually transmitted infection in female sex workers (FSWs) in Karnataka, India. METHODS: We conducted behavioral-biological surveys in 2008 and 2011 in 4 districts of Karnataka, India. We defined exposure to CM as low, medium (attended nongovernmental organization meeting or drop-in centre), or high (member of collective or peer group). We used regression analyses to explore whether exposure to CM was associated with the preceding outcomes. Pathway analyses explored the degree to which effects could be attributable to CM. RESULTS: By the final survey, FSWs with high CM exposure were more likely to have been tested for HIV (adjusted odd ratio [AOR] = 25.13; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 13.07, 48.34) and to have used a condom at last sex with occasional clients (AOR = 4.74; 95% CI = 2.17, 10.37), repeat clients (AOR = 4.29; 95% CI = 2.24, 8.20), and regular partners (AOR = 2.80; 95% CI = 1.43, 5.45) than FSWs with low CM exposure. They were also less likely to be infected with gonorrhea or chlamydia (AOR = 0.53; 95% CI = 0.31, 0.87). Pathway analyses suggested CM acted above and beyond peer education; reduction in gonorrhea or chlamydia was attributable to CM. CONCLUSIONS: CM is a central part of HIV prevention programming among FSWs, empowering them to better negotiate condom use and access services, as well as address other concerns in their lives.
OBJECTIVES: We examined the impact of community mobilization (CM) on the empowerment, risk behaviors, and prevalence of HIV and sexually transmitted infection in female sex workers (FSWs) in Karnataka, India. METHODS: We conducted behavioral-biological surveys in 2008 and 2011 in 4 districts of Karnataka, India. We defined exposure to CM as low, medium (attended nongovernmental organization meeting or drop-in centre), or high (member of collective or peer group). We used regression analyses to explore whether exposure to CM was associated with the preceding outcomes. Pathway analyses explored the degree to which effects could be attributable to CM. RESULTS: By the final survey, FSWs with high CM exposure were more likely to have been tested for HIV (adjusted odd ratio [AOR] = 25.13; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 13.07, 48.34) and to have used a condom at last sex with occasional clients (AOR = 4.74; 95% CI = 2.17, 10.37), repeat clients (AOR = 4.29; 95% CI = 2.24, 8.20), and regular partners (AOR = 2.80; 95% CI = 1.43, 5.45) than FSWs with low CM exposure. They were also less likely to be infected with gonorrhea or chlamydia (AOR = 0.53; 95% CI = 0.31, 0.87). Pathway analyses suggested CM acted above and beyond peer education; reduction in gonorrhea or chlamydia was attributable to CM. CONCLUSIONS: CM is a central part of HIV prevention programming among FSWs, empowering them to better negotiate condom use and access services, as well as address other concerns in their lives.
Authors: Tim Rhodes; Merrill Singer; Philippe Bourgois; Samuel R Friedman; Steffanie A Strathdee Journal: Soc Sci Med Date: 2005-03-19 Impact factor: 4.634
Authors: Deanna Kerrigan; Luis Moreno; Santo Rosario; Bayardo Gomez; Hector Jerez; Clare Barrington; Ellen Weiss; Michael Sweat Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2005-11-29 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: James F Blanchard; John O'neil; B M Ramesh; Parinita Bhattacharjee; Treena Orchard; Stephen Moses Journal: J Infect Dis Date: 2005-02-01 Impact factor: 5.226
Authors: Jaclyn Shea; Agatha Bula; Wezzie Dunda; Mina C Hosseinipour; Carol E Golin; Irving F Hoffman; William C Miller; Vivian F Go; Thandie Lungu; Kathryn E Lancaster Journal: AIDS Educ Prev Date: 2019-10
Authors: Ju Nyeong Park; Charlotte A Gaydos; Rebecca Hamilton White; Michele R Decker; Katherine H A Footer; Noya Galai; Bradley E Silberzahn; Katelyn Riegger; Miles Morris; Steve S Huettner; Sean T Allen; Susan G Sherman Journal: Sex Transm Dis Date: 2019-12 Impact factor: 2.830
Authors: Kate Shannon; Anna-Louise Crago; Stefan D Baral; Linda-Gail Bekker; Deanna Kerrigan; Michele R Decker; Tonia Poteat; Andrea L Wirtz; Brian Weir; Marie-Claude Boily; Jenny Butler; Steffanie A Strathdee; Chris Beyrer Journal: Lancet Date: 2018-07-20 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: M Eugenia Socías; Kate Shannon; Julio S Montaner; Silvia Guillemi; Sabina Dobrer; Paul Nguyen; Shira Goldenberg; Kathleen Deering Journal: Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2015-10-22
Authors: Kathryn E Lancaster; Sarah A MacLean; Thandie Lungu; Pearson Mmodzi; Mina C Hosseinipour; Rebecca B Hershow; Kimberly A Powers; Brian W Pence; Irving F Hoffman; William C Miller; Vivian F Go Journal: Subst Use Misuse Date: 2017-10-11 Impact factor: 2.164
Authors: Richard Muhindo; Andrew Mujugira; Barbara Castelnuovo; Nelson K Sewankambo; Rosalind Parkes-Ratanshi; Juliet Kiguli; Nazarius Mbona Tumwesigye; Edith Nakku-Joloba Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2021-05-07 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Catherine Tomko; Jennifer L Glick; Danielle Friedman Nestadt; Rebecca Hamilton White; Sean T Allen; Ju Nyeong Park; Noya Galai; Susan G Sherman Journal: J Health Care Poor Underserved Date: 2021