MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3006540368 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0228849

Prevalence and correlates of anal intercourse among female sex workers in eSwatini

2020· article· en· W3006540368 on OpenAlexaff
Branwen Nia Owen, Mathieu Maheu‐Giroux, Sindy Matse, Zandile Mnisi, Stefan Baral, Sosthenes Ketende, Rebecca F. Baggaley, Marie‐Claude Boily

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSex work and related issues
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNational Institute of General Medical SciencesNational Cancer InstituteNational Institute on Drug AbuseNational Institute on AgingNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteNational Institute of Mental HealthNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesMedical Research CouncilJohns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public HealthUnited States Agency for International DevelopmentNational Institutes of HealthU.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS ReliefNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesJohns Hopkins UniversityCenter for AIDS Research, University of Washington
KeywordsSerodiscordantCondomMedicineDemographyLogistic regressionPsychological interventionOdds ratioPopulationConfidence intervalRespondentHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Family medicineSyphilisEnvironmental healthViral loadPsychiatryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: As HIV is very effectively acquired during condomless receptive anal intercourse (AI) with serodiscordant and viremic partners, the practice could contribute to the high prevalence among female sex workers (FSW) in eSwatini (formerly known as Swaziland). We aim to estimate the proportion reporting AI (AI prevalence) among Swazi FSW and to identify the correlates of AI practice in order to better inform HIV prevention interventions among this population. METHODS: Using respondent-driven sampling (RDS), 325 Swazi FSW were recruited in 2011. We estimated the prevalence of AI and AI with inconsistent condom use in the past month with any partner type, and inconsistent condom use during AI and vaginal intercourse (VI) by partner type. Univariate and multivariable logistic regression models were used to identify behavioural and structural correlates associated with AI and AI with inconsistent condom use. RESULTS: RDS-adjusted prevalence of AI and AI with inconsistent condom use was high, at 44%[95% confidence interval (95%CI):35-53%]) and 34%[95%CI:26-42%], respectively and did not vary by partner type. HIV prevalence was high in this sample of FSW (70%), but knowledge that AI increases HIV acquisition risk low, with only 10% identifying AI as the riskiest sex act. Those who reported AI were more likely to be better educated (adjusted odds ratio(aOR) = 1.92[95%CI:1.03-3.57]), to have grown up in rural areas (aOR = 1.90[95%CI:1.09-3.32]), have fewer new clients in the past month (aOR = 0.33[95%CI:0.16-0.68]), and for last sex with clients to be condomless (aOR = 2.09[95%CI:1.07-4.08]). Although FSW reporting AI in past month were more likely to have been raped (aOR = 1.95[95%CI:1.05-3.65]) and harassed because of being a sex worker (aOR = 2.09[95%CI:1.16-3.74]), they were also less likely to have ever been blackmailed (aOR = 0.50[95%CI:0.25-0.98]) or been afraid to walk in public places (aOR = 0.46[95%CI:0.25-0.87]). Correlates of AI with inconsistent condom use were similar to those of AI. CONCLUSIONS: AI is commonly practised and condom use is inconsistent among Swazi FSW. Sex act data are needed to determine how frequently AI is practiced. Interventions to address barriers to condom use are needed, as are biomedical interventions that reduce acquisition risk during AI.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.230 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicSex work and related issuesFrench-language works237,207