| Literature DB >> 31639161 |
Sangram Kishor Patel1, Saradiya Mukherjee1, Bidhubhusan Mahapatra1, Madhusudana Battala1, Matangi Jayaram2, Sameer Kumta2, Yamini Atmavilas2, Niranjan Saggurti1.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Community-led organizations (COs) have been an integral part of HIV prevention programs to address the socio-economic and structural vulnerabilities faced by female sex workers (FSWs). The current study examines whether strengthening of community-led organizations and community collectivization have been instrumental in reducing the financial vulnerability and empowering FSWs in terms of their self-efficacy, confidence, and individual agency in India. DATA AND METHODS: This study used a panel data of 2085 FSWs selected from 38 COs across five states of India. Two rounds of data (Round 1 in 2015 and Round 2 in 2017) were collected among FSWs. Data were collected both at CO and individual level. CO level data was used to assess the CO strength. Individual level data was used to measure financial security, community collectivization, and individual empowerment.Entities:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31639161 PMCID: PMC6804955 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0223961
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Avahan-3 community led-program model depicting financial security as an important pillar to reduce vulnerabilities among FSWs.
Socio-demographic profile of female sex workers and CO level indicators in India: Baseline (Round-1, 2015) vs endline (Round-2, 2017).
| Round-I | Round-II | |
|---|---|---|
| % (n) or Median | % (n) or Median | |
| 35.0 | 37.0 | |
| < 30 years | 20.9 (435) | 12.5 (260) |
| 30–39 years | 53.7 (1119) | 48.9 (1019) |
| ≥ 40 years | 25.5 (531) | 38.6 (806) |
| No formal education | 42.0 (875) | 41.3 (860) |
| Having formal education | 58.0 (1210) | 58.7 (1225) |
| Currently married | 64.0 (1334) | 63.6 (1325) |
| Never married | 7.1 (148) | 3.9 (82) |
| Widowed/deserted/separated/ divorced | 28.9 (603) | 32.5 (678) |
| Home-based | 51.3 (1069) | 43.0 (895) |
| Brothel and lodge-based | 27.0 (563) | 26.6 (556) |
| Street/public places | 21.7 (453) | 30.4 (634) |
| Living alone | 21.5 (448) | 10.7 (223) |
| With husbands/parents | 62.0 (1292) | 78.1 (1629) |
| With others/sex workers | 16.5 (345) | 11.2 (233) |
| | 9.0 | 11.0 |
| Low | 50.0 (19) | 13.2 (05) |
| High | 50.0 (19) | 86.8 (33) |
Note:
#Typology for sex work includes (i) Home-based sex work: Women who provide paid sexual services at homes (sex-worker’s own home or client’s home) or rented rooms chosen by clients; (ii) Brothel or lodge-based sex work: Women who are paid for sex, residing and/or soliciting clients from a fixed place (brothels or lodges) or any similar places like hotel/dhaba/bar/night club/massage parlour; and (iii) Street/public places-based sex work: Women who are paid for sex and cruise from one place to another, soliciting clients at any suitable public place (pick-up points, highway, road, bus stand, garden, vehicle etc.).
Financial security as reported by female sex workers in India, 2015–2017.
| Round-1 | Round-2 | Change from R1 to R2 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Indicators | %(n) | %(n) | AORs 95% CI |
| Other income besides sex work | 53.2 (1109) | 70.6 (1471) | 2.15 (1.85–2.50) |
| Having a savings account in bank/post-office | 70.1 (1462) | 84.0 (1751) | 2.07 (1.74–2.44) |
| Invested in saving schemes | 32.7 (681) | 61.0 (1271) | 3.25 (2.82–3.74) |
| Invested in insurance | 13.2 (275) | 44.0 (917) | 6.74 (5.60–8.11) |
| Loan from formal sources | 4.3 (89) | 5.8 (121) | 1.21 (0.89–1.64) |
| Financial security Index | 49.0 (1042) | 81.7 (1704) | 5.04 (4.28–5.93) |
Note: CI: Confidence Interval; AOR: Adjusted Odds Ratio; AORs are adjusted for age, education, marital status, typology, living arrangements; AORs are derived from multilevel logistic regression models at CO and individual level;
*** indicate significance at 1%.
^Other income besides sex work: FSWs who have reported other income besides sex work have the following sources/jobs/works engaged besides sex work. Other jobs/works: Daily Labor, House maid, Petty shop/vendor, Private salaried job, Government salaried job, Massage parlor, Others—Specify (tailoring, agricultural work and factory work etc.)
Association between CO level indicators with financial security among female sex workers in India, 2015–2017.
| Financial security | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Round-1 | Round-2 | Change from R1 to R2 | |
| Community-led Organization level indicators | % (n) | % (n) | AOR |
| Low | 48.7 (471) | 53.2 (107) | |
| High | 51.1 (571) | 84.8 (1597) | 2.46 (1.47–4.14) |
| Non-TI | 41.7 (217) | 73.5 (383) | |
| TI | 52.8 (825) | 84.5 (1321) | 1.04 (0.72–1.50) |
| ≤1200 | 37.8 (177) | 67.1 (314) | |
| >1200 | 53.5 (865) | 86.0 (1390) | 1.83 (1.28–2.61) |
| <5 years | 52.7 (347) | 72.8 (479) | |
| ≥5 years | 48.7 (695) | 85.8 (1225) | 2.82 (2.03–3.90) |
Note: CI: Confidence Interval; AOR: Adjusted Odds Ratio; AORs are adjusted for age, education, marital status, living arrangements, typology and state. AORs are derived from multilevel logistic regression models at CO and individual level;
*** indicate significance at 1%.
Association between degree of change in financial security and community mobilization indicators in Round-2 (2017) among female sex workers in India.
| Degree of change in financial security | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Remained Low | Worsened | Sustained high | Improved | ||
| AOR (95% CI) | |||||
| Low | 15.4 (61) | 13.9 (55) | 40.5 (160) | 30.1 (119) | |
| High | 9.5 (161) | 6.2 (104) | 42.8 (723) | 41.5 (702) | 1.54 (1.24–1.92) |
| Low | 12.1 (124) | 7.1 (73) | 41.0 (421) | 39.9 (410) | |
| High | 9.3 (98) | 8.1 (86) | 43.7 (462) | 38.9 (411) | 1.03 (0.84–1.29) |
| Low | 11.7 (71) | 7.8 (47) | 37.6 (228) | 42.9 (260) | |
| High | 10.2 (151) | 7.6 (112) | 44.3 (655) | 37.9 (561) | 0.93 (0.73–1.19) |
| Low | 12.8 (155) | 10.2 (123) | 40.2 (485) | 36.8 (444) | |
| High | 7.6 (67) | 4.1 (36) | 45.3 (398) | 42.9 (377) | 1.50 (1.22–1.84) |
Note: CI: Confidence Interval; AOR: Adjusted Odds Ratio; AORs are adjusted for age, education, currently married, typology and living arrangements; AORs are derived from multilevel ordinal logistic regression models at CO and individual level;
*** indicate significance at 1%.
Fig 2Adjusted percentages of empowerment indicators (e.g. self-confidence, individual agency and self-efficacy) by degree of change in financial security in Round-2 (2017) among female sex workers in India.
Note: AOR: Adjusted Odds Ratio; AORs are adjusted for age, education, currently married, typology and living arrangements; Adjusted percentages are derived from the logistic regression models; ** and *** indicate significance at 5% and 1%.