HIV incidence among women engaging in sex work in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Women who engage in sex work in sub-Saharan Africa have a high risk of acquiring HIV infection. HIV incidence has declined among all women in sub-Saharan Africa, but trends among women who engage in sex work are poorly characterised. We synthesised data on HIV incidence among women who engage in sex work in sub-Saharan Africa and compared these with the total female population to understand relative incidence and trends over time. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Global Health, and Google Scholar from Jan 1, 1990, to Feb 28, 2024, and grey literature for studies that reported empirical estimates of HIV incidence among women who engage in sex work in any sub-Saharan Africa country. We calculated incidence rate ratios (IRRs) compared with total female population incidence estimates matched for age, district, and year, did a meta-analysis of IRRs, and used a continuous mixed-effects model to estimate changes in IRR over time. FINDINGS: From 32 studies done between 1985 and 2020, 2194 new HIV infections were observed among women who engage in sex work over 51 490 person-years. Median HIV incidence was 4·3 per 100 person years (IQR 2·8-7·0 per 100 person-years). Incidence among women who engage in sex work was eight times higher than matched total population women (IRR 7·8 [95% CI 5·1-11·8]), with larger relative difference in western and central Africa (19·9 [9·6-41·0]) than in eastern and southern Africa (4·9 [3·4-7·1]). There was no evidence that IRRs changed over time (IRR per 5 years: 0·9 [0·7-1·2]). INTERPRETATION: Across sub-Saharan Africa, HIV incidence among women who engage in sex work remains disproportionately high compared with the total female population. However, constant relative incidence over time indicates HIV incidence among women who engage in sex work has declined at a similar rate. Location-specific data for women who engage in sex work incidence are sparse, but improved surveillance and standardisation of incidence measurement approaches could fill these gaps. Sustained and enhanced HIV prevention for women who engage in sex work is crucial to address continuing inequalities and ensure declines in new HIV infections. FUNDING: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes of Health. TRANSLATION: For the French translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.
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 | 0.014 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".