Literature DB >> 30922283

What determines violence among female sex workers in an intimate partner relationship? Findings from North Karnataka, south India.

Prakash Javalkar1, Lucy Platt2, Ravi Prakash3, Tara Beattie2, Parinita Bhattacharjee3,4, Raghavendra Thalinja3, Kavitha D L3, Chaitanya Aids Tadegattuva Mahila Sangha5, Satyanarayana Ramanaik3, Martine Collumbien2, Calum Davey2, Stephen Moses4, Rachel Jewkes6, Shajy Isac3,4, Lori Heise7.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Like other women in India, female sex workers (FSWs) frequently experience violence from their intimate partners (IPs)-a reality that increases their risk of acquiring HIV or other sexually transmitted infections. Less is known about the nature of these intimate relationships or what aspect of the relationship increases the risk of IP violence (IPV). We measured the prevalence and determinants of IPV on FSWs in the context of north Karnataka, India, characterized by high HIV-prevalence and extreme poverty.
METHODS: Overall 620 FSWs with an IP participated in a baseline survey conducted for an on-going cluster-randomised controlled trial aiming to evaluate the impact of a multi-level intervention on IPV reduction. We characterize the nature of intimate relationships and explored determinants of severe physical and/or sexual IP violence using univariable and multivariable analyses.
RESULTS: The median age of participants was 35 years with 10 years of duration in an intimate relationship. Though most relationships originated from a sex work encounter, 84% stated that IPs did not know they were currently practicing sex work. In past 6 months, the experience of emotional violence was 49% (95%CI:45.2-53.2), physical 33% (95%CI:29.5-37.1) and sexual violence 7% (95%CI:4.8-8.9), while 24% (95%CI:21.0-27.9) FSWs experienced recent severe physical and/or sexual violence from IPs. Factors associated with recent IPV included experience of physical and/or sexual violence from their clients in last 6 months (AOR 2.20; 95%CI: 1.29-3.75), sexual intercourse in the past 1 month when their IP was under the influence of alcohol (AOR 2.30; 95%CI: 1.47-3.59) and providing financial support to their IP (AOR 2.07; 95%CI: 1.28-3.34).
CONCLUSIONS: The association between increased risk of violence and provision of financial support to an IP is indicative of gendered power dynamics as men remain dominant irrespective of their financial dependency on FSWs. Interventions are needed that address inequitable gender norms which makes FSWs tolerate violence even though she is not financially dependent on IP. Higher likelihood of violence in presence of alcohol use and FSWs' previous experience of workplace violence linked to IPV call for strengthening the crisis management systems within community-based organisations that can address all forms of violence and associated risk factors. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials NCT02807259.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Devadasi; Domestic violenc; Female sex workers; India; Violence, intimate partner violence

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30922283      PMCID: PMC6440026          DOI: 10.1186/s12889-019-6673-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BMC Public Health        ISSN: 1471-2458            Impact factor:   3.295


Background

Female sex workers can face multiple, complex and inter-dependent health harms. The risk of HIV infection in low and middle-income countries is 12 times higher among female sex workers than women of the same age not engaged in sex work [1]. Violence against female sex workers is widespread originating from a range of perpetrators including intimate partners, police, pimps and paying partners [2, 3]. There is a growing body of evidence to show that exposure to violence among female sex workers is associated with many adverse health outcomes including: increased prevalence of HIV and sexually transmitted infections (STI); poor emotional health; increased alcohol or drug misuse; and reduced access to STI/HIV clinics [4-7]. The mechanisms through which violence adversely affects women’s health are complex and bi-directional. Violence may increase risk of HIV/STI transmission directly through forced unprotected sex. Evidence suggests that coerced sex is rarely protected and can result in injuries that increase the risk of transmission of STIs and HIV [8-10]. Exposure to violence can also lead to depression and low self-esteem, which in turn may lead to alcohol or drug use and reduced ability to negotiate condom use. This in turn can compound low self-esteem and emotional health problems [11]. Additionally, broader gender inequalities are key determinants of both STI/HIV transmission and violence among female sex workers, and violence often plays an important role in reproducing gender inequalities leading to higher risk of HIV/STI transmission [12, 13]. Gender inequalities that give men power over women increases the risk of violence against women, by reducing their ability to negotiate safe and consensual sex, and hindering women’s recourse to justice and help [14]. Evidence shows that men who are violent are more likely to have multiple concurrent partners, use condoms less frequently, have unprotected anal sex and report substance use [15]. All these factors have been linked to increased risk of HIV/STI transmission among female sex workers [16, 17]. Recent estimates suggest there are approximately 8,68,000 women in India who are currently engaged in sex work [18]. Corresponding estimates for Karnataka stands as 1,05,310 [19]. Sex work is closely linked to caste discrimination, poverty and gender inequality that pervades in much of India, with practices of underage marriage and dedication of young girls into sex work as part of religious traditions including the ‘devadasi’ system in northern parts of Karnataka [20]. Although, the devadasi system was made illegal in 1988, it is still one of the most common forms of traditional sex work in north Karnataka [21]. More than 90% of female sex workers in northern Karnataka come from Devadasi families and represent the most marginalised ‘scheduled’ castes or tribes [20]. Research documenting violence among female sex workers has in the majority focussed on client violence and not intimate partners [3]. There is however a growing body of evidence documenting the prevalence of intimate partner violence (IPV) among female sex workers that shows how in some settings it increases vulnerability to HIV and poor emotional health as much as violence from other perpetrators [22, 23]. Despite increasing awareness of the need to include intimate partners of female sex workers in research and interventions particularly in relation to HIV and STI programmes, and the links between violence and HIV/STI transmission, most violence prevention interventions for female sex workers focus on violence with clients, police or other actors relating to the organisation of sex work rather than IPV [24, 25]. It is essential to reduce violence experienced by female sex workers from all actors and to do this we need to understand the extent of exposure to IPV among female sex workers, the extent to which IPV affects health and how intimate relationships interact with the organization of sex work. This study is drawn from the baseline data of a cluster randomized controlled trial that seeks to evaluate the impact of a multi-level intervention to reduce violence from intimate partners among female sex workers in North Karnataka, in the context of high prevalence of HIV and extreme poverty [26]. In the absence of research focusing on the nature of intimate partner relationships among female sex workers, this paper examines the characteristics of relationships between female sex workers and their intimate partners and what aspects of the relationship determines IPV.

Methods

In June 2014 we undertook a cross-sectional baseline assessment of female sex workers across 47 villages in Bagalkot district, north Karnataka. Eligibility criteria for participation included being older than 18 years and reporting an intimate partner in the last 6 months. Participants who had left their intimate partners in the 6 months preceding the survey were also included in the study. An ‘intimate partner’ (IP) was defined as husband, boyfriend, lover or a live-in partner who isn’t charged for sex. Most intimate partners of FSWs in this setting are married to other women and live with their families. All women were current sex workers at the time of recruitment. A team of six female field workers recruited participants from a regularly updated list of eligible female sex workers maintained by the sex-worker collective community-based organisation (CBO) ‘Chaitanya AIDS Tadegattuva Mahila Sangha’, responsible for implementing the Samvedana Plus intervention [26]. All eligible female sex workers listed from 47 villages were approached for a face-to-face interview, and those who consented to participate were interviewed. Field workers received training on confidentiality, understanding of gender inequalities, violence and HIV to prepare them to respond appropriately to disclosures of violence and refer respondents to sources of support. Training of field workers covered all aspects of the study protocol, informed consent procedures and the survey tool. The study was approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee of St. John’s Medical College and Hospital, Bangalore, India, and the Observational/Interventions Research Ethics Committee of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. A community advisory board of female sex workers was set up to oversee all aspects of study design, implementation and consent procedures, and to address any adverse event that might occur from participating in the study. Since illiteracy is high among female sex workers in the region, verbal consent was accepted for participation, witnessed by counsellors supporting the intervention and study teams. Field investigators completed pen and paper questionnaires during face-to-face interviews conducted in a private setting. Questionnaires involving closed-ended, pre-coded items were developed using, where possible, questions that had been used extensively in multi-centre studies conducted in resource-constrained countries [27]. Data were collected on: socio-demographic characteristics of both the female sex worker and her IP; sex work characteristics; characteristics of the intimate partnerships; the experience of violence; sexual risk behaviours; and exposure to HIV intervention programmes. In the case of more than one intimate partner (n = 7), information collected on the most important partner was included in all the analyses. All interviews were conducted in the local language, Kannada. The primary outcome measure was the experience of “severe physical and/or sexual violence” from an intimate partner in the past 6 months. This was defined as experience of any act of moderate physical violence (pushed, shaken, thrown something, slapped or shoved) many times, and/or experience of any severe physical or sexual violence (hit, kicked, dragged, beaten, choked or burnt, threaten to use or actually used a knife, gun or any other weapon, physically forced to have sex against her will, forced to have sex under threat of violence or rejection, or forced her to do something degrading or humiliating to her) regardles of the frequency. Questions were adapted from the WHO (World Health Organisation) Multi-country Study on Domestic Violence and Women’s Health, and have been shown to have high internal consistency in different settings [27]. We focus particularly on the experience of severe physical and/or sexual violence since evidence from domestic violence research shows that this population is at increased risk of receiving sustained injuries and being in need of health care [28]. The prevalence of emotional violence in the last 6 month was also assessed using four items that inquired about humiliating, threatening, insulting actions and behaviours to scare or intimidate. Potential covariates included in the analyses were individual and sex work characteristics, IP characteristics, and the characteristics of their relationship. FSWs individual and sex work level predictors included her age, literacy status (non-literate, literate), current marital status (never married, ever married), number of children (none, less than three, three or more), income other than sex work, average monthly income, place of solicitation (home, public places, phone/others), age at start of sex work, type of clients (occasional-clients who come once or a few times but are not known or recognized, regular- clients who are well known to female sex workers and regular visitors, occasional and regular), membership in a CBO, consistent condom use with clients in past 30 days, and experience of physical or sexual violence from clients in the last 6 months. IP level characteristics (derived from female sex worker responses) included information on the IP’s literacy status (non-literate, literate), current marital status (married, not married), occupation (cultivator, agricultural labourer, non-agricultural labourer, other work), caste (scheduled caste or tribe vs. other), whether the IP has children with other women, frequency of alcohol use (never, occasionally (less often), frequently (very often)). Characteristics analysed at the relationship level were: was the IP a client before he became her IP, frequency of visit by IP (most frequent (daily/weekly), monthly (at least once in a month), less often (once in more than 1 month)), IP’s awareness of sex work profession, sexual intercourse with the IP in the last 7 days, IP under influence of alcohol during sex in past 1 month, provision of financial support to IP (for food, clothing or to fulfill his other needs), receipt of social support from the IP (defined as accompanying her when she goes out to the market, temple, shopping or any family functions), feeling afraid of the IP, refusing to have sex with the IP in the past 6 months, frequently receiving love and affection from the IP (receiving love and affection from the IP regularly), believing that her IP is unlikely to leave her and consistent condom use with the IP (defined as using condom in every sex act).

Analysis

We examined univariable and multivariable associations between various co-variables and the outcome of interest (severe physical and/or sexual violence). Odds ratios (ORs) were used as the measure of association in all analyses and the likelihood ratio chi-square test was used to determine statistical significance. We followed a conceptual framework approach in conducting the multivariable analyses building on other conceptual frameworks that group variables according to their distal or proximal relationship to the outcome and drawing on ecological frameworks relating to IPV [29, 30]. We classified variables into different groups ranging from individual factors of female sex worker (socio-demographic and sex work characteristics) and intimate partners (characteristics of intimate partners) to relationship level factors (characteristics of the intimate partner relationship). This analysis was conducted in three stages. First, we assessed the association between each of the co-variables and the outcome. Second, individual variables from each grouping were included in separate subgroup models. Third, variables significant at P ≤ 0.10 in each of the multivariable subgroups were included in an overall multivariable model. This final model was adjusted for pre-hypothesised confounders: age and literacy status along with other factors found significant in the final model (p values ≤0.05). Stata V.14 (StataCorp LP, College Station, TX, USA) was used for all analyses.

Results

Sample characteristics

A total of 809 female sex workers were identified across the study sites. Of these, 620 (77%) participants completed the interview. The median age of participants was 35 years (interquartile range [IQR] = 28–40). The majority (89.8%) were Illiterate, were devadasi (96%) (Devadasi women are by tradition not allowed to marry a mortal man because they are considered “married” to one of the Hindu Gods), and 95% were consequently unmarried. Most (85%) reported having at least one child- with a median of two children (IQR = 1–3) per participant. Most (68%) female sex workers had children exclusively with their current intimate partners, 7% had children with current intimate partner as well as with other partners (clients or former intimate partners), and 11% had children exclusively with other partners (clients or former intimate partners). The majority (82%) had an alternate source of income other than sex work. The median duration of sex work was 19 years (IQR = 13–25). Three in four participants (76%) sold sex at their home, and the median number of clients per week was two (IQR = 1–3). More than half (54%) had both regular clients as well as occasional clients. More than half (61%) of women were members of the female sex worker community-based organization (CBO). These results are summarised in Table 1.
Table 1

FSW’s socio-demographic and sex work characteristics, and characteristics related to their IPs and intimate relationship

Characteristics% or Median (IQR)n = 620
Individual characteristics of sex workers
 Age
  Aged 25 years or below11.974
  Aged above 25 years88.1546
 Median age of female sex workers (in years)35.0 (28–40)620
 Illiteratea89.8557
 Never married95.2590
 Devadasi96.1596
 Number of children
  No children13.785
  Less than three children56.1348
  Three or more children30.2187
 Median number of children FSWs have (Nos.)2.0 (1–3)620
 Children with different partners
  Only current intimate partners67.7420
  Current intimate partners and others7.345
  Only others11.370
 Sources of income other than sex work82.3510
 Average monthly income
  Below Rs.350022.1137
  Between Rs.3500 to Rs.699960.5375
  Above Rs.699917.4108
 Median monthly income (in rupees)4500 (3500–6000)620
Sex work characteristics
 Place of solicitation
  Home76.0471
  Public places14.489
  Phone/others9.760
 Age at first sex work
  Less than 15 years38.7240
  15 years or older61.3380
 Median age of first sex work (in years)15 (14–16)620
 Duration of time in sex work
  Below 10 years9.861
  Between 10 to 19 years41.0254
  Above 19 years49.2305
 Median duration in sex work (in years)19 (13–25)620
 Client volume per week
  below 3 clients65.1397
  3 or more clients34.9213
 Median no. of clients per week2 (1–3)620
 Types of clients
  Only occasional clients b5.333
  Only regular clients c41.1255
  Both occasional & regular clients53.5332
 Member of community-based organisation (CBO)61.2379
 Used condoms consistentlyf with their clients (occasional and regular) in past 30 days preceding survey91.8560
 Experienced physical violence from client in the last 6 months15.294
 Experienced sexual violence from client in the last 6 months8.854
 Experienced physical or sexual violence from clients in the last 6 months16.3101
Intimate partner (IP) characteristicse
 Median age of intimate partner (in years)40.0 (35–45)620
 Illiteratea66.9415
 Currently married88.7548
 Occupation
  Cultivator31.7196
  Agricultural labourer32.8203
  Non-agricultural labourer14.288
  Other work21.2131
 Belongs to Scheduled caste/Scheduled tribe38.9235
 Has children with other women71.6444
 Alcohol consumption
  Never68.9427
  Occasionally24.4151
  Frequently6.842
Intimate relationship characteristics d
 Belonging to different duration of intimate relationship
  below 5 years14.087
  between 5 to 9 years23.7147
  10 or more years62.3386
 Median duration of intimate relationship (in years)10.0 (7–18)620
 Intimate partner was a client before he became intimate partner63.8394
 Frequency of visit
  Most frequent (daily/weekly)65.2401
  Monthly27.0166
  Less often7.848
 Aware of FSW’s sex work profession16.099
 Had sexual intercourse with their intimate partner in the 7 days preceding the survey58.4362
 Median number of times of sexual intercourse with the IP in the month preceding the survey3 (2–6)620
 Intimate partner was under the influence of alcohol during sex in the month preceding the survey24.0149
 FSWs provide financial support to their intimate partners30.2187
 FSWs receive social support from their intimate partners80.3498
 FSWs feel afraid of their intimate partners50.5313
 FSWs refused to have sex with their intimate partners without using condoms in past 6 months10.867
 FSWs receive love and affection frequently from their intimate partners75.3467
 FSWs believe that their intimate partner is unlikely to leave them64.7401
 Used condoms consistentlyf with their intimate partners43.5269

a Who cannot read and write

b clients who came only once or a few times, but FSW do not remember their faces or do not know them

c clients FSW recognize well, who come to her repeatedly and she knows them

d About seven FSWs reported having more than one intimate partner and another 12 FSWs reported that they had left their intimate partners in the last 6 months preceding the survey

e As reported by female sex workers

f Used condoms every time during sexual intercourse

FSW’s socio-demographic and sex work characteristics, and characteristics related to their IPs and intimate relationship a Who cannot read and write b clients who came only once or a few times, but FSW do not remember their faces or do not know them c clients FSW recognize well, who come to her repeatedly and she knows them d About seven FSWs reported having more than one intimate partner and another 12 FSWs reported that they had left their intimate partners in the last 6 months preceding the survey e As reported by female sex workers f Used condoms every time during sexual intercourse

Characteristics of intimate partnerships

Almost all participants (97%) reported just one current intimate partner (IP) and only 1% (n = 7) more than one. Twelve (2%) women did not have a current intimate partner but had left an intimate partner within the last 6 months. The median age of intimate partners was 40 years (IQR = 35–45). Approximately 67% of intimate partners (IPs) were illiterate, and the majority (89%) were currently married. While almost all female sex workers were from scheduled caste or scheduled tribes, the majority of their IPs (61%) were from other castes. The majority of IPs (72%) had children with women other than their sex worker partner. Women reported that one quarter (24%) of IPs drink alcohol occasionally, and 7% drink frequently (Table 1). The median duration of intimate relationships with the current IP was around 10 years (IQR = 7–18). Almost two-third (64%) of female sex workers met their intimate partner first as a client, however the majority (84%) said that their IPs are not aware of their current sex work profession. About one in three female sex workers (65%) met their IP regularly (daily or weekly) and 58% had had sexual intercourse with their IP in the past 7 days. Nearly one in four (24%) IPs were under the influence of alcohol during sex in the past 1 month. Almost all female sex workers (99%) said that they receive financial support from their IPs (not shown in the table) and about 30% of female sex workers reported providing financial support to their IPs while 80% received social support from them (defined as accompanying female sex workers to the market, temple, shopping or any family functions). Half of the women (51%) said they were afraid of their IP and two in three (65%) felt that their IP would not leave them (Table 1).

Prevalence and frequency of different forms of violence

Table 2 summarises the findings on prevalence and frequencies of different forms of violence. The results on the severity of experiencing violence from the IPs shows that about 24% (95% CI: 21.0–27.9) of female sex workers experienced severe physical and/or sexual violence. One in three female sex workers (33%; 95% CI: 29.5–37.1) faced some form of physical violence from their intimate partners in the previous 6 months. The most common acts of moderate physical violence were being pushed, shaken or having something thrown at them. Hitting, kicking/dragging or beating were the most common acts of severe physical violence. In addition to this, 7% (95% CI: 4.8–8.9) experienced any form of sexual violence from their intimate partners in the prior 6 months. Nearly half of the women (49%; 95% CI: 45.2–53.2) reported experiencing emotional violence from the intimate partners during the same period. In most cases, the frequency of these violent acts was just once. However, among the acts of sexual violence, physically forcing sex was most frequently reported. Among acts of emotional violence saying or doing something to humiliate was most frequently reported.
Table 2

Prevalence and frequency of intimate partner violence in last 6 months among female sex workers

Forms of violenceLast six-month prevalence
Violence experiencedFrequency of events
OnceFew timesMany times
n (%, 95 CI)n (%)n (%)n (%)
Physical violence
 Any physical violence205 (33.1%, 29.5–37.1)108 (17.4)81 (13.1)16 (2.6)
Moderate physical violence:
 Pushed, shaken, or thrown something146 (23.6%, 20.3–27.1)74 (12.0)58 (9.4)14 (2.3)
 Slapped or shoved109 (17.6%, 14.6–29.8)52 (8.4)42 (6.8)15 (2.4)
 Any moderate physical violence170 (27.4%, 23.9–31.1)87 (14.0)67 (10.8)15 (2.4)
Severe physical violence:
 Hit with a fist that could hurt102 (16.5%, 13.6–19.6)65 (10.5)24 (3.9)13 (2.1)
 Kicked/dragged or beating97 (15.7%, 12.9–18.8)43 (6.9)41 (6.6)13 (2.1)
 Choked or burnt on purpose9 (1.5%, 0.7–2.7)5 (0.8)1 (0.2)3 (0.5)
 Threatened to use or actually used a knife, gun or any other weapon4 (0.6%, 0.2–1.6)3 (0.5)0 (0.0)1 (0.2)
 Any severe physical violence146 (23.5%, 20.3–27.1)84 (13.5)47 (7.6)14 (2.3)
Sexual violence
 Physically forced you to have sex when she did not want to35 (5.6%, 4.0–7.8)18 (2.9)13 (2.1)4 (0.6)
 Used threats of violence or rejection to force her to have sex when she did not want to21 (3.4%, 2.1–5.1)11 (1.8)6 (1.0)4 (0.6)
 Forced her to do something sexual that she found degrading or humiliating7 (1.1%, 0.5–2.3)7 (1.1)0 (0.0)0 (0.0)
 Any sexual violence41 (6.6%, 4.8–8.9)22 (3.6)13 (2.2)4 (0.7)
Emotional violence
 Said or did something to humiliate her in front of others260 (41.9%, 38.0–45.9)182 (29.4)61 (9.8)17 (2.7)
 Threatened to hurt or harm her or someone close to her140 (22.6%, 19.3–26.1)94 (15.2)40 (6.5)6 (1.0)
 Insulted repeatedly to make her feel bad about herself161 (26.0%, 22.6–29.6)103 (16.6)45 (7.3)13 (2.1)
 Did things to scare or intimidate her on purpose145 (23.4%, 20.1–26.9)79 (12.7)49 (7.9)17 (2.7)
 Any emotional violence305 (49.2%, 45.2–53.2)160 (25.8)124 (20.0)20 (3.2)
Severity of violence
 Experienced severe physical and/or sexual violence151 (24.4%, 21.0–27.9)
Prevalence and frequency of intimate partner violence in last 6 months among female sex workers Figure 1 shows, the relationship between different forms of violence in the form of a proportional Venn diagram. For the most part multiple violence types were reported. Overall, about 26% of female sex workers reported the experience of both emotional and physical violence and 6% reported experiencing all three forms of violence from their intimate partners in the last 6 months. The most commonly occurring single form of intimate partner violence was emotional violence (18%).
Fig. 1

Proportional Venn diagram illustrating the overlapping between the different forms of violence

Proportional Venn diagram illustrating the overlapping between the different forms of violence Univariable associations indicated higher odds of severe physical and/or sexual violence among female sex workers aged 25 years or older compared to their younger counterparts (Odds ratio [OR] 2.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.24–4.99), and among female sex workers who had children (with IP or others) (OR, 2.53; 95% CI: 1.08–5.92) (Table 3). Female sex workers had higher odds of severe physical and/or sexual violence if they reported an average monthly income of more than Rs.6999 (OR 2.28; 95% CI: 1.27–4.12), solicited clients in public places rather than receiving them at home (OR 1.87; 95% CI: 1.11–3.14), had been in sex work for 10 to 19 years (OR 3.21; 95% CI: 1.45–7.10), had three or more clients per week (OR 1.64; 95% CI: 1.11–2.42), and experienced physical or sexual violence from their clients in the last 6 months (OR 2.56; 95% CI: 1.59–4.11).
Table 3

Association between FSWs’ individual, sex work and relationship level predictors and their experience of IPV

CharacteristicsSevere physical and/or sexual IPV in last 6 monthsUnadjusted OR (95% CI)Adjusted ORa (95% CI)
%N
Overall24.4620
Individual characteristics
 FSW aged above 25 years (Ref- 25 years or below)25.85462.49 (1.24–4.99)*2.31 (1.09–4.89)*
 Literate (Ref- Non-literate)33.3631.64 (0.93–2.91)1.98 (1.04–3.78)*
 Ever married (Ref- Never married)30.0301.25 (0.55–2.80)
 Number of children (Ref- None)18.885
  Less than three children23.33481.35 (0.74–2.47)
  Three or more children28.91871.77 (0.94–3.35)
 With whom FSW has children (Ref- No children)18.885
  Only with IP24.34201.41 (0.78–2.56)
  IP and others33.3452.53 (1.08–5.92)*
  Others only25.7701.45 (0.67–3.14)
 FSW has any other source of income other than sex work (Ref-No)24.75101.08 (0.66–1.78)
 Average monthly income in rupees (Ref- Less than Rs.3500)19.7137
  Rs.3500 to Rs.699923.23751.27 (0.78–2.08)
  More than Rs.699934.31082.28 (1.27–4.12)**
Sex work characteristics
 Place of solicitation (Ref- Home)22.7471
  Public places31.5891.87 (1.11–3.14)*
  Phone/others26.7601.29 (0.69–2.42)
 Age at start of sex work 15 years or above (Ref- Age less than 15 years)25.33801.18 (0.81–1.74)
 Duration in sex work (Ref- Less than 10 years)13.161
  10 to 19 years29.92543.21 (1.45–7.10)**
  20 or more years22.03052.02 (0.91–4.48)
 Three or more weekly clients (Ref-Less than three weekly clients)29.12131.64 (1.11–2.42)*
 Type of clients FSWs have (Ref- Occasional clients)24.233
  Regular clients13.72550.43 (0.17–1.04)
  Occasional and regular clients32.53321.44 (0.61–3.37)
 Member of community based organisation (Ref- Non-members)21.63790.69 (0.47–1.00)*
 Used condoms consistently with their clients in past 30 days (Ref- Not used)23.85600.63 (0.33–1.22)
 Experienced physical or sexual violence from clients in the last 6 months (Ref- Not experienced)37.61012.56 (1.59–4.11)***2.20 (1.29–3.75)**
Intimate partner (IP) characteristics
 IP age 30 years or more (Ref- Age below 30 years)25.25631.98 (0.90–4.32)
 Having literate IP (Ref-Having non-literate IP)24.92051.08 (0.72–1.61)
 Having currently married IP (Ref-Having not currently married IP)25.55482.11 (1.05–4.26)*
 Occupation of IP (Ref- Cultivator)26.5196
  Agricultural labourer24.12030.85 (0.54–1.35)
  Non-agricultural labourer19.3880.65 (0.35–1.21)
  Other work25.21311.01 (0.60–1.69)
 IP from other caste (Ref-IP from scheduled caste or tribe)26.03691.28 (0.87–1.89)
 Has children with other women partner (Ref- No)20.9110
  Yes25.94441.32 (0.79–2.20)
  Don’t know19.7660.99 (0.46–2.15)
 Frequency of alcohol use (Ref- Never)19.1425
  Occasionally26.51511.46 (0.94–2.26)
  Frequently66.7429.26 (4.43–19.38)***
Intimate relationship characteristics
 Duration of intimate relationship (Ref- Less than 5 years)19.587
  5 to 9 years22.41471.17 (0.60–2.28)
  10 or more years26.23861.44 (0.80–2.59)
 IP was client before he became IP (Ref-No)23.93940.97 (0.66–1.42)
 Frequency of visit by IP (Ref- Most frequent (daily/weekly))22.4401
  Monthly27.11661.34 (0.88–2.05)
  Less often27.1481.25 (0.63–2.49)
 IP aware of FSW’s sex work profession (Ref- No)15.2990.47 (0.26–0.84)*
 Had sexual intercourse with IP in the last 7 days (Ref-No)21.53620.68 (0.46–0.98)*
 Number of sexual intercourse with IP in the last 1 month (Ref- Less than 3 times)26.0262
  3 to 4 times20.91390.69 (0.42–1.14)
  5 or more time24.01830.87 (0.56–1.35)
 IP was under influence of alcohol during sex in the month preceding the survey (Ref- No)38.31492.41 (1.60–3.62)***2.30 (1.47–3.59)***
 FSWs give financial support to IP (Ref- No)30.51871.43 (0.97–2.11)2.07 (1.28–3.34)**
 FSWs receive social support by IP (Ref- No)21.94980.53 (0.34–0.82)**0.38 (0.23–0.65)***
 FSWs feel afraid of their IP (Ref- No)30.03132.20 (1.50–3.22)***1.94 (1.23–3.04)**
 FSWs refused to have sex with IP in the past 6 months preceding the survey (Ref- No)32.8671.50 (0.86–2.61)
 FSWs frequently receive love and affection from their IPs (Ref- No)22.74670.65 (0.43–0.99)*
 FSWs believe that their IP is unlikely to leave them (Ref- No)19.04010.40 (0.27–0.58)***0.46 (0.30–0.72)**
 Used condoms consistently with their IPs (Ref- No)24.22690.95 (0.65–1.38)

*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001. a Final model is adjusted for age, literacy, experience of physical or sexual violence from clients in the last 6 months, IP under the influence of alcohol during sex, sex workers providing financial support to IP, sex workers receiving social support from IP, sex workers afraid of their IP, sex workers believe their IP is unlikely to leave them

Association between FSWs’ individual, sex work and relationship level predictors and their experience of IPV *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001. a Final model is adjusted for age, literacy, experience of physical or sexual violence from clients in the last 6 months, IP under the influence of alcohol during sex, sex workers providing financial support to IP, sex workers receiving social support from IP, sex workers afraid of their IP, sex workers believe their IP is unlikely to leave them Similarly, having an IP who was currently married (OR 2.11; 95% CI: 1.05–4.26), who consumed alcohol frequently (OR 9.26; 95% CI: 4.43–19.38), or who was under the influence of alcohol during sex in past month (OR 2.41; 95% CI: 1.60–3.62) and feeling afraid of their IP (OR 2.20; 95% CI: 1.50–3.22) were associated with higher odds of severe physical and/or sexual violence among female sex workers. Decreased odds of severe physical and/or sexual violence was associated with IPs being aware of their partners’ sex work profession (OR 0.47; 95% CI: 0.26–0.84), having sexual intercourse with their IP in the last 7 days (OR 0.68; 95% CI: 0.46–0.98), the IP providing social support (OR 0.53; 95% CI: 0.34–0.82), love and affection (OR 0.65; 95% CI: 0.43–0.99), and female sex workers believing that their current IPs are unlikely to leave them (OR 0.40; 95% CI: 0.27–0.58). After adjustment for confounders, increased odds of recent severe physical and/or sexual violence from an IP remained associated with experience of physical or sexual violence from a client in the last 6 months (AOR 2.20; 95% CI: 1.29–3.75). In addition, factors specifically related to the intimate relationship that remained siginificant in the multivariate model included sexual intercourse in past 1 month when IP was under the influence of alcohol (AOR 2.30; 95% CI: 1.47–3.59), providing financial support to the IP (AOR 2.07; 95% CI: 1.28–3.34), and feeling afraid of their IPs (AOR 1.94; 95% CI: 1.23–3.04). Receiving social support from an IP (AOR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.23–0.65) and confidence that the IP would not leave them (AOR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.30–0.72) remained significantly associated with reduced odds of recent severe physical and/or sexual violence from their intimate partners (Table 3).

Discussion

We found high levels of severe physical and/or sexual violence (24%) within the last 6 months from intimate partners among female sex workers in Bagalkot district of Karnataka, India. Our study provides important new information showing that emotional violence from intimate partners is the most pervasive form of violence experienced in the last 6 months by FSWs (49%), followed by physical (33%) and sexual violence (7%). Findings clearly point to a substantial overlap between these different forms of violence, especially emotional and physical violence, suggesting that female sex workers in an intimate relationship are exposed to multiple forms of violence at a given point in time. The experience of physical or sexual violence from intimate partners was associated with increased risk of violence from clients during sex work, indicating a highly vulnerable population. Findings show that providing financial support to IP was associated with increased risk of violence reflective of broader gender inequalities that dictate that men who provide for women. Good communication, social support and trust were associated with reduced risk of IPV, showing that in context of long-term intimate partner relationships strategies to reduce intimate partner violence apply are the same across all populations irrespective of sex work. Our findings build on other evidence that shows that female sex workers are highly vulnerable to sexual and physical violence from intimate partners as well as clients [5, 31]. Our findings provide important new evidence showing a high prevalence of emotional violence experienced by female sex workers and its intersection with physical violence. While levels of recent severe/moderate violence experienced by female sex workers are comparable to other reports of violence from intimate partners among female sex workers in the region [31, 32] measures of emotional, physical or sexual violence are far higher than in other low-income contexts – pointing to extreme vulnerability experienced by this population [6]. We found a clear association between intimate partner violence and increased risk of violence from clients. While this association has been evidenced elsewhere, including among street-based female sex workers in Vancouver [33] and Mexico [7], it provides important new information in the Indian context. This finding builds on previous research that has shown associations between experiencing physical or sexual violence from husbands and reduced condom use with clients as well as accepting more money for unprotected sex [31]. There is limited evidence on how intimate partners influence female sex workers’ interactions with clients, but emerging data suggest that female sex workers’ intimate relationships may influence their interactions with clients or vice-versa [7]. Qualitative evidence from drug-using female sex workers in Canada suggested that partners exercise control over female sex workers’ drug use, selection of clients, access to condoms as well as amount earnt per transaction [33]. More research is needed to understand the nature of this association in this context in order to design appropriate interventions. The association between female sex workers’ providing financial support to their IP and increased risk of IPV has been shown in other low-income contexts [34]. Evidence from our qualitative work suggest that the desire for social acceptance lead women to frame their relationship as a marriage, with Devadasi increasingly relying on male partners to support them. When this financial commitment becomes too much for the intimate partner who often have other families to support (88% of male partners were married and 71% had children with other women) the Devadasi may take on this financial role in order to maintain the relationship (personal communication S. Ramanaik, 2018) [35]. Social expectations require men to be providers and women to take more modest care taking roles, conflict may arise when this role is reversed, compounded by the stigma arising from the money originating from sex work [32]. Traditional social expectations are more difficult to apply to sex workers and particularly Devadasi who traditionally cannot marry and are expected to look after their whole family [20]. It is also likely to reflect broader gender inequalities and gendered power dynamics, where men remain dominant even when financially dependent [34]. This is particularly acute within a society where domestic violence against women is generally accepted as the norm and with little recourse to legal support [36]. These baseline findings form part of a clustered-randomised controlled trial that will evaluate the ‘Samvedana Plus’ intervention designed to reduce violence and increase condom use within the intimate relationships of female sex workers in Bagalkot district of Karnataka. This comprehensive, multi-level intervention includes counselling for female sex workers and their IPs as couples and individuals and give strategies to reduce conflict and violence, as well as community level engagement in villages to question existing gender stereotypes and norms, and strengthening crisis management teams within the CBO to which female sex workers who experience violence can turn to for support and advice [26]. Causal pathways through which the intervention is hypothesized to work is that violence within intimate partner relationships can be reduced in the context of stronger, more openly communicative and gender equitable relationships [26, 37, 38]. Initial findings of this baseline data support this theory. We found social support (defined as being accompanied to the market or social and family functions) and security (not thinking a partner will leave) to be associated with reduced IPV. It is important to note that these indicators of social support can characterize a successful relationship in other non-sex working populations and indicate that in the context of long-term intimate partner relationships strategies to reduce intimate partner violence are the same irrespective of sex work. Other research has shown the benefit of intimate partnerships and how being treated as a person and not just a sex worker can foster feelings of inclusion [39]. At the same time when sex work related stigma and the discourse of blame, contempt and disrespect enters into an intimate relationship, often occurring alongside alcohol use, this can be more emotionally damaging that when it occurs at work [39]. Findings showed associations between increased violence and alcohol use of partners during sex. Alcohol use by both partners in a relationship has been linked to intimate partner violence among all women again irrespective of sex work [6, 14, 22, 23, 40]. In addition to the intervention needing to address signs of alcohol misuse, other services including health or drug and alcohol services could provide important entry points to refer people who may be at risk of IPV. Only 7% of respondents reported that their intimate partner frequently used alcohol, but interventions that try to address and change cultural norms supportive of excessive alcohol use might also be expected to have knock-on effects in terms of primary violence prevention.

Limitations

As the data are cross-sectional we cannot establish causality or temporal associations between determinants and intimate partner violence. Additionally, in order to increase accuracy in reporting there was some inconsistency in time frames used (i.e. for sexual behaviours, consistent condom use). As a consequence some of the associations could be bi-directional. The use of the WHO tool to measure violence is a strength as this has been validated in other contexts and populations and facilitates comparison [27]. Due to the sensitive nature of questions asked about intimate relationships, there may be underreporting of behaviours, particularly of experiences of intimate partner violence. We attempted to reduce misclassification in behavioural data by our use of female interviewers who conducted interviews in locations selected by participants to minimise their discomfort, embarrassment or fears over disclosure and potential consequences. Although we did not use standardized measures to assess alcohol use among intimate partners, measures were developed through linked qualitative work, to ensure they are appropriate and grounded in the local context and language. Our definition of regular client versus intimate partner may be weakened by the fluid nature of this relationship, with regular clients often moving to the status of intimate partner and back, possibly resulting in misclassification of violence from intimate partners.

Conclusions

Findings of the study clearly point to the high levels of IPV among female sex workers that needs to be addressed urgently and the association between intimate partner violence and violence from clients, increasing vulnerability of this highly marginalized population. Findings support the need for a multi-level approach to reduce violence including decreasing gender inequalities through education of women, providing community level support structures to address the immediate impacts of violence (including support through criminal justice procedures, immediate medical care and emotional support) and harm reduction interventions to addressing alcohol misuse. The intervention ‘Samvedena Plus’ is designed to do this. Findings are important in that they go some way to dispel misconceptions of female sex workers intimate relationships: trust and demonstrating social support are linked to reduced violence within these relationships; factors common across all types of long-term relationships.
  33 in total

1.  Intimate partner violence and physical health consequences.

Authors:  Jacquelyn Campbell; Alison Snow Jones; Jacqueline Dienemann; Joan Kub; Janet Schollenberger; Patricia O'Campo; Andrea Carlson Gielen; Clifford Wynne
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2002-05-27

2.  Violence against women: an integrated, ecological framework.

Authors:  L L Heise
Journal:  Violence Against Women       Date:  1998-06

Review 3.  Does physical intimate partner violence affect sexual health? A systematic review.

Authors:  Ann L Coker
Journal:  Trauma Violence Abuse       Date:  2007-04

Review 4.  Sex-work harm reduction.

Authors:  Michael L Rekart
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2005-12-17       Impact factor: 79.321

Review 5.  The intersections of HIV and violence: directions for future research and interventions.

Authors:  S Maman; J Campbell; M D Sweat; A C Gielen
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2000-02       Impact factor: 4.634

Review 6.  Health consequences of intimate partner violence.

Authors:  Jacquelyn C Campbell
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2002-04-13       Impact factor: 79.321

7.  Intimate partner violence: causes and prevention.

Authors:  Rachel Jewkes
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2002-04-20       Impact factor: 79.321

8.  Understanding the social and cultural contexts of female sex workers in Karnataka, India: implications for prevention of HIV infection.

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

9.  Transactional sex with casual and main partners among young South African men in the rural Eastern Cape: prevalence, predictors, and associations with gender-based violence.

Authors:  Kristin L Dunkle; Rachel Jewkes; Mzikazi Nduna; Nwabisa Jama; Jonathan Levin; Yandisa Sikweyiya; Mary P Koss
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2007-06-08       Impact factor: 4.634

10.  Gender-based violence, relationship power, and risk of HIV infection in women attending antenatal clinics in South Africa.

Authors:  Kristin L Dunkle; Rachel K Jewkes; Heather C Brown; Glenda E Gray; James A McIntryre; Siobán D Harlow
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2004-05-01       Impact factor: 79.321

View more
  4 in total

1.  Reproductive Health Concerns of Women With High Risk Sexual Behaviors.

Authors:  Azade Zenouzi; Elham Rezaei; Zahra Behboodi Moghadam; Ali Montazeri; Sakineh Maani; Seyedeh Fatemeh Vasegh Rahimparvar
Journal:  SAGE Open Nurs       Date:  2021-08-22

2.  Multi-level experiences and determinants of alcohol misuse and illicit drug use among occupational groups at high-risk of HIV in sub-Saharan Africa: A thematic synthesis of qualitative findings.

Authors:  Monica O Kuteesa; Janet Seeley; Sarah Cook; Emily L Webb
Journal:  Glob Public Health       Date:  2019-10-23

3.  Effectiveness of a multilevel intervention to reduce violence and increase condom use in intimate partnerships among female sex workers: cluster randomised controlled trial in Karnataka, India.

Authors:  Prakash Javalkar; Lucy Platt; Ravi Prakash; Tara S Beattie; Martine Collumbien; Mitzy Gafos; Satyanarayana Ramanaik; Calum Davey; Rachel Jewkes; Charlotte Watts; Parinita Bhattacharjee; Raghavendra Thalinja; Kavitha Dl; Shajy Isac; Lori Heise
Journal:  BMJ Glob Health       Date:  2019-11-06

4.  Sexual IPV and non-partner rape of female sex workers: Findings of a cross-sectional community-centric national study in South Africa.

Authors:  Rachel Jewkes; Kennedy Otwombe; Kristin Dunkle; Minja Milovanovic; Khuthadzo Hlongwane; Maya Jaffer; Mokgadi Matuludi; Venice Mbowane; Kathryn L Hopkins; Naomi Hill; Glenda Gray; Jenny Coetzee
Journal:  SSM Ment Health       Date:  2021-12
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.