| Literature DB >> 32891151 |
Maria Slim1, Chadia Haddad2, Elsa Sfeir3,4, Clara Rahme5, Souheil Hallit6,7, Sahar Obeid2,8,9.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many constituents contribute to the rise of sex work in Lebanon such as the socio-economic situation in the country (poverty, increased unemployment rates, and religious divisions), as well as the political and social instability. Several emotional and psychological factors such as depression, stress, anxiety, low self-esteem, emotional abuse, may force some people to rely on trading sex as a coping strategy for persevering. Therefore, it was deemed interesting to explore and understand factors that are correlated with sex work in Lebanon where no study, to our knowledge, has been written on this critical point. The objective of the study was to assess factors (such as trauma, child abuse, partner abuse, depression, anxiety, and stress) associated with women joining sex work among a sample of the Lebanese population.Entities:
Keywords: Alcohol drinking; Anxiety; Child abuse; Partner abuse; Sex work; Sex workers
Year: 2020 PMID: 32891151 PMCID: PMC7487794 DOI: 10.1186/s12905-020-01062-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Womens Health ISSN: 1472-6874 Impact factor: 2.809
Sociodemographic and other characteristics of the sample
| Non sex worker | Sex worker | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Frequency | % | Frequency | % | ||
| Illiterate | 3 | 5.0% | 13 | 21.7% | |
| Primary | 2 | 3.3% | 13 | 21.7% | |
| Complementary | 6 | 10.0% | 7 | 11.7% | |
| Secondary | 5 | 8.3% | 10 | 16.7% | |
| University | 44 | 73.3% | 17 | 28.3% | |
| < 1000 $ | 43 | 71.7% | 51 | 85.0% | 0.094 |
| 1000$ - 2000$ | 15 | 25.0% | 6 | 10.0% | |
| > 2000 $ | 2 | 3.3% | 3 | 5.0% | |
| Single | 58 | 96.7% | 57 | 95.0% | 0.843 |
| Married | 1 | 1.7% | 2 | 3.3% | |
| Widowed | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% | |
| Divorced | 1 | 1.7% | 1 | 1.7% | |
| Unemployed | 45 | 75.0% | 51 | 85.0% | 0.171 |
| Employed | 15 | 25.0% | 9 | 15.0% | |
| Yes | 7 | 11.7% | 22 | 36.7% | |
| No | 53 | 88.3% | 38 | 63.3% | |
| Yes | 16 | 26.7% | 32 | 53.3% | |
| No | 44 | 73.3% | 28 | 46.7% | |
Fig. 1Mean difference of the used scales between non sex-worker and sex worker. *p < 0.05, **p > 0.05
Multivariable analysis: Logistic regression taking non-sex workera/sex worker as the dependent variable
| | ||||
| Illiterate | 1 | |||
| Primary | 0.683 | 1.50 | 0.21–10.52 | |
| Complementary | 0.122 | 0.27 | 0.05–1.42 | |
| Secondary | 0.359 | 0.46 | 0.09–2.41 | |
| University | 0.09 | 0.02–0.35 | ||
| | ||||
| Illiterate | 1 | |||
| Primary | 0.907 | 0.88 | 0.10–7.45 | |
| Complementary | 0.266 | 0.35 | 0.05–2.25 | |
| Secondary | 0.116 | 0.21 | 0.03–1.47 | |
| University | 0.13 | 0.03–0.59 | ||
| Partner non-physical abuse | 1.03 | 1.02–1.05 | ||
| Anxiety (HAMA scale) | 1.08 | 1.03 | 1.13 | |
| Partner physical abuse | 1.02 | 1.01 | 1.04 | |
Hosmer and Lemeshow test (p = 0.745); Nagelkerke R2 = 0.617
Variables entered in the final model: education level, socioeconomic status, stress, anxiety, depression, psychological child abuse, physical child abuse, sexual child abuse, partner physical abuse, partner nonphysical abuse, alcohol use and substance use
a Reference group; numbers in bold indicate significant p-values