Reasons for Inconsistent Condom Use among Female Sex Workers: Need for Integrated Reproductive and Prevention Services
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Interventions for condom use promotion have been undertaken for HIV prevention among female sex workers (FSWs). Our aims are to (1) assess the frequency of inconsistent condom use with clients and with the main regular non-client sex partner (RNCP); and (2) investigate factors associated with inconsistent condom use with the RNCP, particularly the desire to have children and links of the RNCP with commercial sex work. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted in Conakry, Guinea, among 223 FSWs. A questionnaire on socio-demographic characteristics, behaviours and desire for children was administered. Descriptive statistics and logistic regression were performed. RESULTS: Inconsistent condom use was frequent with the RNCP but rare with the clients (80.4% vs. 1.3%). FSWs' desire for children was strongly associated with inconsistent condom use with the RNCP. CONCLUSION: Interventions that take into account reproductive health are needed to prevent HIV among FSWs and their children.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".