P2-S2.12 Condom use within intimate partnerships of female sex workers in Southern India
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Although female sex workers (FSWs) report high levels of condom use with commercial sex clients, particularly after targeted HIV preventive interventions have been implemented, condom use is often low with intimate partners. There is limited understanding regarding the factors that influence condom use with FSWs' non-commercial intimate partners, and how programs can be designed to increase condom use. The main objectives of this study were therefore to describe FSWs' self-reported intimate partners, along with interpersonal factors characterising their intimate partnerships, and to examine factors associated with inconsistent condom use within intimate partnerships. Methods This study used data collected from cross-sectional questionnaires administered to 988 FSWs in four districts in Karnataka state in 2006. We used bivariate and multivariable logistic regression analysis to examine the relationship between inconsistent condom use (ie, “never”, “sometimes” or “frequently”, compared to “always”) with intimate partners of FSWs (including husbands/cohabiting partners and other non-paying partners) and interpersonal factors describing these partnerships. Weighting and survey methods were used to account for the cluster sampling design. Results Overall, 511 (51.8%) FSWs reported having husbands/cohabiting partners and 273 (26.0%) reported having other non-paying partners. Inconsistent condom use with these partners was high (77.4% and 60.4% respectively). In multivariable analysis, adjusting for social and environmental factors, the odds of inconsistent condom use with husbands/cohabiting partners and other non-paying partners were 12% (adjusted OR [AOR]: 1.12, 95% CIs 1.06 to 1.17) and 35% (AOR: 1.35, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.62) higher for a one-year increase in the duration of the relationship, respectively. The odds of inconsistent condom use with husbands/cohabiting partners was 50% lower if these partners knew that the respondent was a sex worker (AOR: 0.50, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.86). The odds of inconsistent condom use with other non-paying partners was 68% lower if the respondent reported ever having stayed or lived with these partners (AOR: 0.32, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.79). Conclusions Improved designs for HIV preventive programs, including partner- or couples-focused programs, should be developed to address issues related to FSWs' intimate partnerships and increase condom use.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".