Structural Determinants of Inconsistent Condom Use With Clients Among Migrant Sex Workers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Migrant women in sex work experience unique risks and protective factors related to their sexual health. Given the dearth of knowledge in high-income countries, we explored factors associated with inconsistent condom use by clients among migrant female sex workers over time in Vancouver, BC. METHODS: Questionnaire and HIV/sexually transmitted infection testing data from a longitudinal cohort, An Evaluation of Sex Workers Health Access, were collected from 2010 to 2013. Logistic regression using generalized estimating equations was used to model correlates of inconsistent condom use by clients among international migrant sex workers over a 3-year study period. RESULTS: Of 685 participants, analyses were restricted to 182 (27%) international migrants who primarily originated from China. In multivariate generalized estimating equations analyses, difficulty accessing condoms (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 3.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.13-12.47) independently correlated with increased odds of inconsistent condom use by clients. Servicing clients in indoor sex work establishments (e.g., massage parlors) (AOR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.15-0.77), and high school attainment (AOR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.09-0.50) had independent protective effects on the odds of inconsistent condom use by clients. CONCLUSIONS: Findings of this longitudinal study highlight the persistent challenges faced by migrant sex workers in terms of accessing and using condoms. Migrant sex workers who experienced difficulty in accessing condoms were more than 3 times as likely to report inconsistent condom use by clients. Laws, policies, and programs promoting access to safer, decriminalized indoor work environments remain urgently needed to promote health, safety, and human rights for migrant workers in the sex industry.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".