P1-S4.05 Quantifying social desirability biases in reported condom use among female sex workers in Southern India
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background As part of the Avahan HIV initiative in Southern India, surveys were carried out in female sex workers (FSWs) and their clients to quantify condom use. We examine reported condom use measured using different survey methodologies, and consistency of response between FSWs and clients to quantify the effect of social desirability bias. Methods We use data from 15 districts with IBBA face-to-face interviews (FTFIs) for FSWs and clients. Three of these districts also had special behavioural survey (SBS) FTFIs, informal confidential voting interviews (ICVIs), and polling booth surveys (PBSs) for FSWs. ICVI/ PBS survey methodologies increase anonymity, reducing reporting bias of sensitive questions eg, condom use, and are analysed in more detail. The IBBA and SBS FTFIs differed as blood samples were taken in the IBBA to measure HIV prevalence. We use questions about condom use in last act with regular and occasional FSWs/clients. For the 15 IBBA districts the FSW: client ratio of reported condom use at last act was calculated. Results In IBBAs, condom use in last act with occasional FSWs reported by clients in the 15 districts is 26% (range 13−40%) lower than FSW condom use with last occasional client, and 28% (3−46%) lower for last act with regular FSW/client. In the three districts with extra surveys, from Abstarct P1-S4.05 table 1, FSW reported condom use with occasional clients is broadly comparable, and the maximum difference with the more anonymous ICVI is 5% with regular clients in Belgaum. On average the IBBA FTFI was only 2% lower that other methods. Reported condom use with occasional clients was15−26% lower than that reported in the IBBA, but the difference between IBBA and PBS was smaller for use with regular clients. Abstarct P1-S4.05 Table 1 Reported condom use in last act by type of act for FSW surveys in the three districts where all surveys were carried out Condom use at last act with occasional clients/FSWs Condom use at last act with regular clients/FSWs Belgaum (%) Bangalore Urban (%) Bellary (%) Belgaum (%) Bangalore Urban (%) Bellary (%) FSW IBBA R1 FTFI 96.43 93.31 82.82 86.91 75.12 77.57 FSW IBBA R2 FTFI 97.45 94.08 96.45 88.22 84.02 92.68 FSW SBS FTFI 91.40 85.98 90.70 82.43 91.18 94.41 FSW SBS ICVI 98.18 91.53 97.67 82.39 77.43 95.78 FSW PBS R3 (May 2007) 82.75 73.33 66.78 94.94 75.68 80.21 FSW PBS R4 (Oct 2008) 88.80 79.50 80.40 88.52 87.01 80.30 Discussion There is a substantial difference in reported condom use in last act with occasional and regular partner for FSWs and clients. However, the samples of FSW and clients may not be comparable because low-risk clients may be undersampled in hot spots. FSWs report lower condom use with occasional clients in the more anonymous PBS, suggesting this method may reduce social desirability bias more than FTFIs and ICVIs. Based on FSW data only and using a conservative estimate from the largest difference, the FSW IBBA may over-estimate condom use with occasional clients by up to 26% (mean 17%) and with regular clients by 13% (mean 2%).
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".