Access to sexual and reproductive health care among young adult sex workers in Toronto, Ontario: a mixed-methods study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Young adult sex workers may benefit from sexual and reproductive health care services; however, little research has examined their access experiences. This study aimed to assess barriers to and facilitators of access to sexual and reproductive health care among young adult sex workers, and identify practices suggested by participants to improve services. METHODS: This was a community-based mixed-methods study of adults aged 18-29 years who were currently or had previously been engaged in sex work, conducted in Toronto in 2017-2018. The study was guided by a Youth Advisory Committee of 4 youth with lived experience of sex work. Participants completed an online survey, or participated in a focus group or a one-on-one interview; all 3 modalities included parallel questions about barriers to and facilitators of access to sexual and reproductive health care. We summarized quantitative data using descriptive statistics and identified qualitative themes using thematic analysis, followed by triangulation of the 2 strands. RESULTS: There were 54 survey respondents (response rate 48%) and 17 participants in the qualitative phase (14 in focus groups and 3 in interviews), for a total sample size of 71. Survey respondents reported suboptimal access to sexual and reproductive health care, with 8 (15%) reporting no regular source of care, and only 6 (11%) reporting that they disclose their sex work experience to providers. Actual or expected stigma regarding sex work on the part of providers was the dominant barrier to care, whereas nonjudgmental providers, particularly those who themselves have sex work experience, was a key facilitator. Participants suggested 7 practices to improve access to sexual and reproductive health care. INTERPRETATION: Young adult sex workers face many barriers to accessing sexual and reproductive health care. Including people with sex work experience in the development of solutions will maximize the capacity to address the needs of this underserved population.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".