| Literature DB >> 34113178 |
Godwin Avwioro1, Andy Egwunyenga2, Collins Adjekuko3, Osaro Mgbere4,5, Ewomazino Odibo2, Sina Iyiola6, Seyi Samson Enitan7, Ekere James Essien4,5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sex workers, like others, are facing economic hardships and anxiety about their health and safety due to coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19), an infectious disease caused by a novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Universally, most sex work has largely reduced, moved online, or undertaken covertly because of lockdown measures and need for social distancing to break the transmission of SARS-CoV-2. However, the ability of sex workers to protect themselves against COVID-19 depends on their individual and interpersonal behaviors and work environment. In this study, we sought to determine the relationships between COVID-19 knowledge, awareness and prevention practice (KAP) among female commercial sex workers (FCSW) in the Niger Delta region of Nigeria to inform the development of prevention interventions for this vulnerable population.Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19; Niger Delta region; SARS-CoV-2; commercial sex workers; social distancing; transmission
Year: 2021 PMID: 34113178 PMCID: PMC8183186 DOI: 10.2147/IJWH.S303565
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Womens Health ISSN: 1179-1411
Socio-Demographic Characteristics of Study Participants
| Characteristic | N | (%)a |
|---|---|---|
| Single | 524 | 86.8 |
| Widowed | 7 | 1.2 |
| Child outside of wedlock | 73 | 12.1 |
| 15–20 | 82 | 13.6 |
| 21–25 | 183 | 30.3 |
| 26–30 | 200 | 33.1 |
| 31–35 | 139 | 23.0 |
| Alcohol | 243 | 40.3 |
| Alcohol + Cigarettes | 246 | 40.8 |
| Alcohol + Cigarettes + Drugs | 32 | 5.3 |
| None | 82 | 13.6 |
| 1–2 | 89 | 14.7 |
| 3–4 | 442 | 73.2 |
| 5–6 | 73 | 12.1 |
| 0–1 | 155 | 25.7 |
| 2–4 | 250 | 41.4 |
| 5–6 | 199 | 32.9 |
| Yesb | 401 | 66.4 |
| No | 203 | 33.6 |
Notes: aWithin characteristic, percentages may not add up to exactly 100 due to rounding up. bOnly if the government provides an alternative means of livelihood.
Comparisons of COVID-19 KAP by Socio-Demographic Characteristics Among FCSW in Niger Delta Region of Nigeria
| Characteristic | N | Knowledge Score | Awareness Score | Preventive Practice Score | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean ± SEM | Prob>|t|/F | P-value | Mean ± SEM | Prob>|t|/F | P-value | Mean ± SEM | Prob>|t|/F | P-value | ||
| 604 | 16.03±0.08 | – | – | 11.90±0.06 | – | – | 3.49±0.04 | – | – | |
| Single | 524 | 16.02±0.09 | 0.1563 | 0.8554ns | 11.74±0.07a | 22.59 | <0.0001**** | 3.56±0.0a | 8.68 | 0.0002*** |
| Widowed | 7 | 16.43±0.74 | 12.43±0.57a, b | 3.71±0.41a, b | ||||||
| Child outside wedlock | 73 | 16.02±0.09 | 13.00±0.18b | 3.00±0.13b | ||||||
| 15–20 | 82 | 14.00±0.19a | 66.87 | <0.0001**** | 9.00±0.11a | 335.23 | <0.0001**** | 2.00±0.08a | 246.82 | <0.0001**** |
| 21–25 | 183 | 15.98±0.12b | 12.00±0.07b | 3.98±0.05 b | ||||||
| 26–30 | 200 | 16.00±0.12 b | 13.00±0.08 c | 3.00±0.05c | ||||||
| 31–35 | 139 | 17.32±0.14 c | 11.90±0.08 b | 4.42±0.06d | ||||||
| Alcohol | 243 | 17.24±0.10 a | 106.18 | <0.0001**** | 13.24±0.04 a | 845.26 | <0.0001**** | 3.74±0.06a | 83.43 | <0.0001**** |
| Alcohol + Cigarettes | 246 | 15.43±0.10 b | 11.43±0.04 b | 3.72±0.06a | ||||||
| Alcohol + Cigarettes + Drugs | 32 | 16.59±0.28b | 12.69±0.12c | 3.66±0.16a | ||||||
| None | 82 | 14.00±0.17c | 9.00±0.08d | 2.00±0.10b | ||||||
| 1–2 | 89 | 15.99±0.21 | 0.08 | 0.9220 ns | 12.99±0.15a | 64.39 | <0.0001**** | 3.00±0.11a | 25.42 | <0.0001**** |
| 3–4 | 442 | 16.04±0.09 | 11.50±0.07b | 3.67±0.05b | ||||||
| 5–6 | 73 | 15.96±0.35 | 12.99±0.17a | 2.97±0.12a | ||||||
| 0–1 | 155 | 14.00±0.12a | 254.21 | <0.0001**** | 9.47±0.05 a | 1617.71 | <0.0001**** | 2.47±0.05a | 571.43 | <0.0001**** |
| 2–4 | 250 | 17.30±0.09b | 12.53±0.04 b | 4.51±0.04b | ||||||
| 5–6 | 199 | 16.00±0.10c | 13.00±0.04 c | 3.00±0.05c | ||||||
| No | 203 | 16.00±0.14 | 0.282 | 0.7778ns | 12.53±0.50a | −7.35 | <0.0001**** | 3.46±0.08 | 0.432 | 0.6653 ns |
| Yes+ | 401 | 16.04±0.10 | 11.58±0.09b | 3.50±0.05 | ||||||
Notes: +Only if the government provides an alternative means of livelihood. Within each measure by characteristic, means ± SEM with different superscripts (a, b, c) are significantly different at p<0.05. Significance Level: ****p<0.0001; nsNot significant (p>0.05).
Abbreviations: SEM, standard error of mean; Prob>|t|/F, Probability of t and F values.
Figure 1Bivariate fit and density contours showing the relationship between knowledge and preventive practice scores among FCSW in the Niger Delta Region of Nigeria.
Figure 2Bivariate fit and density contours showing the relationship between awareness and preventive practice scores among FCSW in the Niger Delta Region of Nigeria.
Figure 3Bivariate fit and density contours showing the relationship between awareness and knowledge scores among FCSW in the Niger Delta Region of Nigeria.
Pair-Wise Correlation and Predictive Models’ Equations of KAP Measures Among FCSW in the Niger Delta Region of Nigeria
| Variable | By Variable | Correlation (r) | 95% CI | Model Equation | R2 (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Preventive Practice Score | Knowledge Score | 0.901 | 0.885–0.915 | Preventive Practice Score = −4.610 + 0.505 x Knowledge Score | 81.2 | <0.0001**** |
| Preventive Practice Score | Awareness Score | 0.651 | 0.602–0.695 | Preventive Practice Score = 8.547–0.429 x Awareness Score + 0.244 x (Awareness Score-11.899) ^2 + 0.205 x (Awareness Score-11.899) ^3 | 73.7 | <0.0001**** |
| Awareness Score | Knowledge Score | 0.785 | 0.753–0.814 | Awareness Score = 1.7356485 + 0.6341599 x Knowledge Score | 61.6 | <0.0001**** |
Note: Significance Level: ****p<0.0001.
Abbreviation: r, correlation value; CI, confidence interval; R2, coefficient of determination.
Associations Between COVID-19 KAP Among FCSW in Niger Delta, Nigeria
| Measure | Total n (%) | Preventive Practice | Fisher’s Exact Test | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Poor | Good | P-value | ||
| Poor | 157 (25.99) | 157 (25.99) | 0 (0.00) | |
| Good | 447 (74.01) | 199 (32.95) | 248 (41.06) | <0.0001**** |
| Poor | 156 (25.83) | 156 (25.83) | 0 (0.00) | |
| Good | 448 (74.17) | 200 (33.11) | 248 (41.06) | <0.0001**** |
| Total | 604 (100) | 356 (58.94) | 248 (41.06) | |
Note: Significance Level: ****p<0.0001.
Latent Class Model Conditional Probabilities of Responses to KAP Measures and Socio-demographic Characteristics of FCSW in the Niger Delta Region of Nigeria
| Measure/Characteristic | Category/Response Scale | N | Distribution of Latent Classesa | Effect Sizeb | LR Logworthc | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cluster 1 [Low Risk] | Cluster 2 [High Risk] | Cluster 3 [Very High Risk] | |||||
| Overall | γc | 604 | (41.12%) | (33.17%) | (25.71%) | – | – |
| Knowledge | Poor | 157 | 0.0007 | 0.0108 | 0.9893 (L) | 143.89 | |
| Good | 447 | 0.0011 | |||||
| Awareness | Poor | 156 | 0.0007 | 0.0058 | 0.9935 (L) | 145.52 | |
| Good | 448 | 0.0011 | |||||
| Preventive Practice | Poor | 356 | 0.0007 | 0.9983 (L) | 175.65 | ||
| Good | 248 | 0.0008 | 0.0011 | ||||
| Marital Status | Child Outside Wedlock | 73 | 0.0004 | 0.3599 | 0.0007 | 0.5233 (M) | 36.755 |
| Single | 524 | ||||||
| Widowed | 7 | 0.0125 | 0.0155 | 0.0072 | |||
| Age Group (Years) | 15–20 | 82 | 0.0003 | 0.0004 | 1.2736 (L) | 231.38 | |
| 21–25 | 183 | 0.0054 | 0.0005 | ||||
| 26–30 | 200 | 0.0003 | 0.0005 | ||||
| 31–35 | 139 | 0.2661 | 0.0004 | ||||
| Habit | Alcohol | 243 | 0.2460 | 0.0005 | 0.9863 (L) | 141.04 | |
| Alcohol + Cigarettes | 246 | 0.0004 | |||||
| Alcohol + Cigarettes + Drugs | 32 | 0.0446 | 0.0903 | 0.0198 | |||
| None | 82 | 0.0003 | 0.0004 | ||||
| Average number of sex clients per day | 1–2 | 89 | 0.0004 | 0.4398 | 0.0007 | 0.8546 (L) | 105.35 |
| 3–4 | 442 | 0.1952 | |||||
| 5–6 | 73 | 0.0005 | 0.3650 | 0.0007 | |||
| Years of experience as a FCSW | 0–1 | 155 | 0.0004 | 0.0006 | 1.4054 (L) | 272.88 | |
| 2–4 | 250 | 0.0105 | 0.0007 | ||||
| 5–6 | 199 | 0.0005 | 0.0007 | ||||
| Support for Government Prohibition of Commercial Sex Work | No | 203 | 0.3792 | 0.0011 | 0.4413 (M) | 35.079 | |
| Yes | 401 | 0.4601 | |||||
| Model Fit Statisticse[Number of Cluster=3] | Best fit estimates | - LogLikelihood = 1980.60; BIC=4281.29; AIC=4061.19 [Smallest BIC and AIC] | |||||
Notes: aThe overall probabilities of cluster membership (γ), and the conditional probabilities (ρ) for each cluster are shown for each response category; Within latent class, bold ρ denotes the largest conditional probability within a given measure or characteristic. bM=Medium effect; L=Large effect. cA Likelihood Ratio Logworth value above 2 corresponds to significance at the 0.01 significance level (p<0.01). dOnly if the government provides an alternative means of livelihood. eBIC=Bayesian Information Criterion, AIC=Akaike's Information Criterion.