Understanding Out-Migration Among Female Sex Workers in South India
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Migrant sex workers are known to be vulnerable to HIV. There is substantial female sex worker (FSW) mobility between the borders of Maharashtra and Karnataka, but little programming emphasis on migrant FSWs in India. We sought to understand the individual/cultural, structural, and contextual determinants of migration among FSWs from Karnataka. METHODS: A cross-sectional face-to-face interview of 1567 FSWs from 142 villages in 3 districts of northern Karnataka, India was conducted from January to June 2008. Villages having 10+ FSWs, a large number of whom were migrant, were selected following mapping of FSWs. Multinomial logistic regression was conducted to identify characteristics associated with migrant (travelled for ≥ 2 weeks outside the district past year) and mobile (travelled for <2 weeks outside the district past year) FSWs; adjusting for age and district. RESULTS: Compared with nonmigrants, migrant FSWs were more likely to be brothel than street based (Adjusted Odds Ratio (AOR): 5.7; 95% confidence interval: 1.6-20.0), have higher income from sex work (Adjusted Odds Ratio (AOR): 42.2; 12.6-142.1), speak >2 languages (AOR: 5.6; 2.6-12.0), have more clients (AOR per client: 2.9; 1.2-7.2), and have more sex acts per day (AOR per sex act: 3.5; 1.3-9.3). Mobile FSWs had higher income from sex work (AOR: 13.2; 3.9-44.6) relative to nonmigrants, but not as strongly as for migrant FSWs. CONCLUSION: Out-migration of FSWs in Karnataka was strongly tied to sex work characteristics; thus, the structure inherent in sex work should be capitalized on when developing HIV preventive interventions. The important role of FSWs in HIV epidemics, coupled with the potential for rapid spread of HIV with migration, requires the most effective interventions possible for mobile and migrant FSWs.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".