Conducting high-frequency data collection in low-resource settings: Lessons from a financial diary study among women engaged in sex work in Uganda
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Poverty and economic insecurity are driving forces in entering sex work among women in low resource areas. This increases their risk for HIV by influencing the decision-making process for high-risk behaviors. Few studies examine financial behaviors and capacities of women engaged in sex work (WESW). This paper describes the methodology used in a financial diary study aimed at characterizing women's spending patterns within a larger prevention intervention trial among WESW in Uganda. From June 2019 to March 2020, a subsample of 150 women randomized to the combination HIV prevention and economic empowerment treatment were asked to complete financial diaries to monitor daily expenditures in real time. Two hundred forty financial diaries were distributed to study participants during the financial literacy sessions at 8 sites. A total of 26,919 expense entries were recorded over 6 months. Sex work related expenses comprised approximately 20.01% of the total. The process of obtaining quality and consistent data was challenging due to the transient and stigmatized nature of sex work coupled with women's varying levels of education. Frequent check-ins, using peer support, code word or visuals, and a shorter timeframe would allow for a more accurate collection of high frequency data. Moreover, the ability of women to complete the financial diaries despite numerous challenges speaks to their potential value as a data collection tool, and also as an organizing tool for finances.
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 | 0.011 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".