Understanding the Relationship Between Female Sex Workers and Their Intimate Partners: Lessons and Initial Findings From Participatory Research in North Karnataka, South India
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While traditional HIV prevention programs with female sex workers (FSWs) in Karnataka, India, have focused on reducing HIV transmission between FSWs and clients through increased condom use, these programs have not fully addressed the transmission risk between FSWs and their nonpaying intimate partners (IPs). Condom use is infrequent and violence is recurrent in these relationships: Furthermore, there is little evidence on the precise nature of FSW-IP relationships. Our study addresses this knowledge gap to inform HIV programs targeted at FSWs. A series of workshops, using participatory tools, was held to explore FSW-IP relationships; 31 FSWs and 37 IPs participated. Three aspects of FSW-IP relationships were examined: how FSWs and IPs understand and interpret their relationships, factors influencing condom use, and the role of violence and its consequences. FSWs wish to be perceived as their IPs' wives, while IPs expect their FSW partners to accept their dominance in the relationship. Nonuse of condoms signals fidelity and elevates the status of the relationship almost to that of marriage, which helps FSWs enter the category of "good" (married) women. Tolerating and accepting violence in these relationships is normative, as in other marital relationships; IPs justify violence as necessary to establish and maintain their power within the relationship. Both FSWs and IPs value their relationships despite the high degree of risk posed by low condom use and high levels of violence. Implications for program design include addressing current norms around masculinity and gender roles, and improving communication within relationships.
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 | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".