HIV- and sex work-related stigmas and quality of life of female sex workers living with HIV in South Africa: a cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Environmental quality of life (QoL) assesses individually perceived factors such as physical safety and security, accessibility, quality of healthcare, and physical environment. These factors are particularly relevant in the context of sex work and HIV, where stigma has been identified as an important barrier across several prevention and treatment domains. This study aims to examine the association between different types of HIV- and sex work-related stigmas and environmental QoL among female sex workers (FSW) living with HIV in Durban, South Africa. METHODS: We conducted cross-sectional analyses using baseline data from the Siyaphambili randomized controlled trial. FSW who reported sex work as their primary source of income and had been diagnosed with HIV for ≥ 6 months were enrolled from June 2018-March 2020, in eThekwini, South Africa. We evaluated the association between environmental QoL, dichotomizing the environmental domain score collected by the WHO Quality of Life HIV Brief (WHOQOL-HIV BREF) questionnaire at the median, and stigma using modified robust Poisson regression models. Five stigma subscales were assessed: sex work-related (anticipated, enacted, or internalized stigma) and HIV-related (anticipated or enacted stigma). RESULTS: Among 1373 FSW, the median environmental QoL was 10.5 out of 20 [IQR: 9.0-12.5; range 4.0-19.0], while the median overall QoL was 3 out of 5 [IQR: 2-4; range 1-5]. One-third of FSW (n = 456) fell above the median environmental QoL score, while 67% were above the median overall QoL (n = 917). Reporting anticipated sex work stigma was associated with lower environmental QoL (adjusted prevalence ratio [aPR] 0.74 [95% CI 0.61, 0.90]), as was severe internalized sex work stigma (aPR: 0.64, 95% CI 0.48, 0.86). Reporting enacted HIV stigma versus none was similarly associated with lower environmental QoL (aPR: 0.65, 95% CI 0.49, 0.87). Enacted sex work stigma and anticipated HIV stigma were not statistically associated with environmental QoL. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the need to consider the impact of multiple stigmas on FSW's non-HIV related clinical outcomes, including safety and physical well-being. Moreover, these results suggest that addressing underlying structural risks may support the impact of more proximal HIV prevention and treatment interventions. Trial registration NCT03500172 (April 17, 2018).
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".