Oral Health Status of Sex Workers Across the Globe: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Despite the high vulnerabilities of sex workers to poor oral health, there is a substantial global gap in comprehensive evidence regarding their oral health status, reflecting a broader neglect of their oral healthcare needs in public health discourse. In light of this, our systematic review seeks to synthesize and consolidate current global research on the oral health status of sex workers, highlighting the prevalence of oral disorders among the group. METHODS: A search method was developed to find papers indexed in three electronic databases. Studies addressing the oral health of adult sex workers, whether female, male, or LGBTQ+, were considered. The methodological quality of the studies was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). The findings from the included research were synthesized and provided in a narrative format. RESULTS: Out of 4185 studies, 11 were included in the analysis. Four studies found that the prevalence of oral lesions among sex workers ranged between 8.14% and 81.35%. Oral sexually transmitted infections (OSTIs) were identified, including human papillomavirus (HPV), chlamydia trachomatis, and Neisseria gonorrhoeae. Furthermore, half of the sex workers were reported to use substances, including alcohol, cigarettes, and tobacco. A high frequency of dental cavities and poor periodontal health was also reported. CONCLUSION: The most prevalent oral health conditions among sex workers include oral lesions, dental caries, periodontitis, and oral STIs. Substance abuse, notably smoking in various forms, is also extremely widespread. Designing and implementing tailored health interventions addressing substance abuse, stress management, good oral health, and hygiene practices, as well as training dental professionals on the use of inclusive language in clinical settings, are critical to encouraging sex workers to seek help for oral health issues, thereby improving their oral health outcomes.
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 | 0.008 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".