| Literature DB >> 29420577 |
Megha Mamulwar1, Sheela Godbole1, Shilpa Bembalkar1, Pranil Kamble1, Nisha Dulhani1, Rajesh Yadav1, Chitra Kadu1, Pradeep Kumar2, Shivraj Lalikar3, Shrikala Acharya4, Raman Gangakhedkar1, Arun Risbud1, Srinivas Venkatesh5.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The HIV sentinel surveillance [HSS] conducted in 2010-11 among female sex workers [FSW] in the state of Maharashtra, India provided an opportunity to assess characteristics of different types of FSWs and their HIV risk. It is important for India's National AIDS Control Program, to understand the differences in vulnerability among these FSW, in order to define more specific and effective risk reduction intervention strategies. Therefore, we analyzed data from HSS with the objective of understanding the HIV vulnerability among different types of FSW in Maharashtra.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29420577 PMCID: PMC5805240 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0192130
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Characteristics of female sex workers by typology: Data from HIV Sentinel Surveillance, Maharashtra [2010–11].
| Brothel Based [BB] | Home Based [HB] | Bar Based [Bar-B] | Street Based [SB] | Overall | P value | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N = 1927 | N = 1349 | N = 1099 | N = 641 | 5016 | |||
| In years [SD | 29 [5.5] | 32 [5] | 27 [5.3] | 32 [5] | 30 [5.8] | <0.001 | |
| Illiterate | 1449 [75.4] | 866 [64.7] | 652 [59.4] | 343 [53.8] | 3310 [66.3] | <0.001 | |
| Literate | 474 [24.6] | 472 [35.3] | 445 [40.6] | 295 [46.2] | 1686[33.7] | ||
| in years [SD] | 8 [7.03] | 15 [9.52] | 11 [10.08] | 12 [10.15] | 10.8 [9.4] | <0.001 | |
| In days [SD] | 3 [11.9] | 7 [10.1] | 9 [14.8] | 3 [4.5] | 5.3 [11.8] | <0.001 | |
| Mean [SD] | 23 [19] | 4 [5] | 2 [2] | 7 [6] | 11.2 [15] | <0.001 | |
| < 1 Year | 50 [2.6] | 16 [1.2] | 73 [6.7] | 22 [3.5] | 161 [3.3] | <0.001 | |
| 1–3 Years | 367 [19.1] | 393 [29.3] | 243 [22.2] | 198 [31.5] | 1201 [24.1] | ||
| 3–5 Years | 537 [28] | 321 [23.9] | 203 [18.5] | 257 [40.9] | 1318 [26.4] | ||
| > 5 Years | 967 [50.3] | 612 [45.6] | 577 [52.6] | 152 [24.2] | 2308 [46.3] | ||
| Yes | 6 [0.3] | 410 [28.9] | 324 [29.5] | 93 [14.5] | 833 [16.3] | <0.001 | |
| No | 1961 [99.7] | 1009 [71.1] | 774 [70.5] | 548 [85.5] | 4292 [83.6] | ||
| Positive | 191 [9.9] | 42 [3.1] | 41 [3.7] | 58 [9] | 332 [6.6] | <0.001 | |
| Negative | 1736 [90.1] | 1307 [96.9] | 1058 [96.3] | 583 [91] | 4684 [93.4] | ||
| <1% | 1357 [70.4] | 814 [60.3] | 499 [45.4] | 281 [43.8] | 2951 [58.8] | <0.001 | |
| ≥1% | 570 [29.6] | 535 [39.7] | 600 [54.6] | 360 [56.2] | 2065 [41.2] |
*SD- Standard deviation, LPS–Last paid sex, OSI- Other sources of inome
#TI-District categorisation—District with HIV prevalence [in pregnant women attending antenatal care clinic (ANC)] of <1% were considered as low HIV burden district and those with >1% HIV prevalence were considered as high HIV burden districts.
Comparison of characteristics of FSWs based in brothel with those not based in brothel using multinomial regression.
| Home Based | Bar Based | Street Based | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Characteristics | ARRR | P value | ARRR and 95% CI | P value | ARRR and 95% CI | P value | |
| [In years] | 1.03 [1.01, 1.05] | 0.003 | 0.85 [0.83, 0.87] | <0.001 | 1.02 [1.00, 1.05] | 0.027 | |
| Literate | 1.47 [1.20, 1.81] | <0.001 | 1.88 [1.48, 2.38] | <0.001 | 1.76 [1.41, 2.19] | <0.001 | |
| Illiterate | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||
| [In years] | 1.09 [1.07, 1.10] | <0.001 | 1.04 [1.03, 1.06] | <0.001 | 1.07 [1.05, 1.08] | <0.001 | |
| [In days] | 1.00 [0.99, 1.01] | 0.974 | 0.99 [0.97, 0.98] | 0.008 | 0.94 [0.91, 0.96] | <0.001 | |
| 0.82 [0.80, 0.83] | <0.001 | 0.59 [0.57, 0.62] | <0.001 | 0.89 [0.87, 0.90] | <0.001 | ||
| < 1 Year | 1.83 [0.85, 3.91] | 0.121 | 3.65 [1.82, 7.30] | <0.001 | 6.15 [3.15, 12.0] | <0.001 | |
| 1–3 Years | 3.23 [2.48, 4.20] | <0.001 | 0.74 [0.55, 1.01] | 0.055 | 4.56 [3.35, 6.20] | <0.001 | |
| 3–5 Years | 1.42 [1.12, 1.80] | 0.004 | 0.50 [0.38, 0.67] | <0.001 | 3.84 [2.92, 5.06] | <0.001 | |
| >5 Years | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||
| Positive | 0.23 [0.16, 0.34] | <0.001 | 0.28 [0.18, 0.44] | <0.001 | 0.69 [0.49, 0.98] | 0.038 | |
| Negative | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||
| <1% | 1.27 [1.04, 1.55] | 0.022 | 0.46 [0.36, 0.58] | <0.001 | 0.61 [0.49, 0.77] | <0.001 | |
| ≥1% | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||
*ARRR- Adjusted Relative risk ratio
**LPS–Last paid sex
#TI-District categorisation—District with HIV prevalence [in pregnant women attending antenatal care clinic (ANC)] of <1% were considered as low HIV burden district and those with >1% HIV prevalence were considered as high HIV burden districts