Association between sex work occupational stigma and inconsistent condom use: findings from a community-based cohort of women sex workers in Vancouver, Canada (2014–2022)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Women sex workers face substantial health inequities due to structural barriers including criminalisation and stigma. Stigma has been associated with HIV-related inequities among marginalised populations, however, we know less about the impacts of sex work-specific occupational stigma on HIV/sexually transmitted infection (STI) risk among women sex workers. Given these research gaps and the disproportionate burden of stigma faced by sex workers, we evaluated the association between sex work occupational stigma and recent inconsistent condom use with clients, over an 8-year period (2014-2022). METHODS: Baseline and semiannual questionnaire data from a prospective, community-based cohort of sex workers in Vancouver, Canada from September 2014 to February 2022 were used. We employed complete-case bivariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis using generalised estimating equations to analyse the relationship between sex work occupational stigma and inconsistent condom use for vaginal/anal sex with clients in the past 6 months. RESULTS: Among 574 participants, the cumulative prevalence of inconsistent condom use by clients and sex work occupational stigma in the last 6 months was 32.1% (n=184) and 59.9% (n=344), respectively, over the 8-year period. In adjusted multivariable analysis, exposure to sex work occupational stigma was associated with almost twofold increased odds of recent inconsistent condom use with clients (adjusted OR 1.93, 95% CI 1.23 to 3.03) over the 8-year period. CONCLUSION: Multilevel interventions addressing the role of occupational stigma are needed for HIV and STI prevention efforts, including scale-up of sex worker-led/delivered sexual health services and structural changes to decriminalise and destigmatise sex work.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".