| Literature DB >> 27227998 |
Sangram Kishor Patel1, Parimi Prabhakar2, Anrudh Kumar Jain3, Niranjan Saggurti4, Rajatashuvra Adhikary1.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Studies exploring the linkages between financial vulnerabilities and community collectivization of female sex workers (FSWs) are scarce in India despite having potential policy implications. To fill this gap in the literature, this study attempts to understand the financial vulnerabilities among FSWs and assess the relationship between community collectivization and financial vulnerabilities in southern India. DATA AND METHODS: Data were drawn from a cross-sectional, behavioral tracking survey (BTS)-2014, conducted among FSWs (N = 2400) in Andhra Pradesh, a southern state of India under the Avahan-India AIDS initiative program. Adjusted odds ratios (AOR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated through multivariate logistic regression, to assess the independent relationships of the degree of community collectivization indicators with financial vulnerability indicators, adjusting for socio-demographic characteristics.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27227998 PMCID: PMC4881938 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0156060
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Financial vulnerability as reported by female sex workers (N = 2400) in Andhra Pradesh, India, 2014.
| Indicators | Percentage | N |
|---|---|---|
| Having activities/occupation other than sex work, or currently receiving social schemes/grants from govt. & other sources, or able to access transfer money from family and friends | ||
| No | 7.6 | 183 |
| Yes | 92.4 | 2217 |
| Saved money for future or emergencies expect when income will be less, or having personal/family assets (own house, agriculture land and other resources) | ||
| No | 28.0 | 672 |
| Yes | 72.0 | 1728 |
| Having money of their own and decide how to make expenditure | ||
| No | 55.0 | 1321 |
| Yes | 45.0 | 1079 |
| Not under financial debt at the time of survey | ||
| No | 66.0 | 1586 |
| Yes | 34.0 | 814 |
| Financial vulnerability scores | ||
| 0 | 12.6 | 302 |
| 1 | 36.3 | 871 |
| 2 | 34.0 | 817 |
| 3 | 16.0 | 383 |
| 4 | 1.1 | 27 |
| Financial vulnerability Index | ||
| Low/Medium | 82.9 | 1990 |
| High | 17.1 | 410 |
Note: Financial vulnerability index was calculated based on the combine scores of income, saving, expenditure and debt vulnerabilities. The financial vulnerability score ranges from 0 to 4. The combined scores were divided into two categories (0 = low/medium (< 3 score) and 1 = high (> = 3 score).
Socio-demographic profile and financial vulnerabilities among female sex workers (N = 2400) in Andhra Pradesh, India, 2014.
| Vulnerability | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Socio-demographic characteristics | % (n) or Mean (SD) | No other source of income rather than sex work | No saving for future and not having personal assets | Not having money of their own and decide how to make expenditure | Currently under financial debt | Financial vulnerability | ||
| Low/Medium | High | p-value | ||||||
| 30.9 (5.8) | ||||||||
| 0.884 | ||||||||
| <30 years | 43.3 (1040) | 9.8 (102) | 29.5 (307) | 56.0 (582) | 63.8 (663) | 82.8 (861) | 17.2 (179) | |
| > = 30 years | 56.7 (1360) | 6.0 (81) | 26.8 (365) | 54.3 (739) | 67.9 (923) | 83.1 (1129) | 16.9 (231) | |
| 0.116 | ||||||||
| No formal education | 56.3 (1350) | 6.7 (91) | 29.1 (393) | 56.0 (757) | 67.9 (916) | 81.8 (1105) | 18.2 (245) | |
| Having formal education | 43.7 (1050) | 8.8 (92) | 26.6 (279) | 53.7 (564) | 63.8 (670) | 84.3 (885) | 15.7 (165) | |
| 0.000 | ||||||||
| Never married | 5.0 (119) | 23.5 (28) | 19.3 (23) | 50.4 (60) | 57.1 (68) | 82.3 (98) | 17.7 (21) | |
| Currently married | 66.5 (1596) | 6.6 (105) | 26.1 (417) | 54.4 (868) | 66.4 (1059) | 85.0 (1358) | 15.0 (238) | |
| Widowed/deserted/separated/ divorced | 28.5 (685) | 7.3 (50) | 33.9 (232) | 57.4 (393) | 67.0 (459) | 78.0 (534) | 22.0 (151) | |
| 0.007 | ||||||||
| Home-based | 13.9 (333) | 3.9 (13) | 23.7 (79) | 49.3 (164) | 64.3 (214) | 88.0 (293) | 12.0 (40) | |
| Brothel and lodge-based | 4.5 (109) | 2.8 (03) | 13.8 (15) | 47.7 (52) | 78.0 (85) | 89.0 (97) | 11.0 (12) | |
| Street/public places | 27.6 (663) | 6.3 (42) | 30.0 (199) | 54.6 (362) | 67.7 (449) | 80.4 (533) | 19.6 (130) | |
| Mobile phones | 54.0 (1295) | 9.7 (125) | 29.3 (379) | 57.4 (743) | 64.7 (838) | 82.4 (1067) | 17.6 (228) | |
| 0.000 | ||||||||
| Rural/semi-urban | 46.7 (1121) | 5.6 (63) | 18.7 (210) | 45.5 (510) | 72.0 (806) | 88.8 (996) | 11.2 (125) | |
| Urban | 53.3 (1279) | 9.4 (120) | 36.1 (462) | 63.4 (811) | 61.0 (780) | 77.7 (994) | 22.3 (285) | |
Note: p-values for financial vulnerability were calculated through chi-square test.
Fig 1Distribution of levels of community collectivization indicators among female sex workers (N = 2400) in Andhra Pradesh, India, 2014.
Note: The collective efficacy index was divided into two equal categories based on the mid-value as: 0 = low and 1 = high; The collective agency index was divided into two equal categories based on the mid-value as: 0 = low and 1 = high; The collective action index was divided into two equal categories based on the mid-value as: 0 = low and 1 = high.
Association between community mobilization indicators and financial vulnerability among female sex workers (N = 2400) in Andhra Pradesh, India, 2014.
| Vulnerability | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Community mobilization indictors | No other source of income rather than sex work | No saving for future and not having personal assets | Not having money of their own and decide how to make expenditure | Currently under financial debt | Financial vulnerability (High) | |||||
| % | AOR (95% CI) | % | AOR (95% CI) | % | AOR (95% CI) | % | AOR (95% CI) | % | AOR (95% CI) | |
| Collective efficacy | ||||||||||
| Low | 8.1 | Referent | 40.0 | Referent | 59.8 | Referent | 71.3 | Referent | 30.6 | Referent |
| High | 5.0 | 0.7 (0.4–0.9) | 25.8 | 0.5 (0.4–0.6) | 54.0 | 0.8 (0.6–0.9) | 65.1 | 0.8 (0.6–0.9) | 14.6 | 0.4 (0.3–0.5) |
| Collective agency | ||||||||||
| Low | 8.0 | Referent | 34.9 | Referent | 59.4 | Referent | 62.6 | Referent | 21.0 | Referent |
| High | 6.3 | 0.8 (0.5–1.1) | 5.4 | 0.2 (0.1–0.3) | 40.6 | 0.5 (0.4–0.6) | 77.5 | 1.9 (1.6–2.4) | 4.3 | 0.2 (0.1–0.3) |
| Collective action | ||||||||||
| Low | 8.4 | Referent | 35.4 | Referent | 53.0 | Referent | 60.3 | Referent | 19.4 | Referent |
| High | 7.1 | 0.9 (0.7–1.4) | 23.0 | 0.6 (0.5–0.7) | 56.5 | 1.3 (1.1–1.6) | 70.0 | 1.4 (1.2–1.7) | 15.5 | 0.8 (0.7–1.1) |
Note: CI: Confidence Interval;
*, ** and *** indicate values are significant at 10%, 5% and 1% level of significance;
AOR: Adjusted Odds Ratios; AORs are adjusted for age, education, marital status, typology, usual place of practicing sex work.