Barriers to sexual and reproductive healthcare services as experienced by female sex workers and service providers in Dhaka city, Bangladesh
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to identify the barriers female sex workers (FSWs) in Bangladesh face with regard to accessing sexual and reproductive health (SRH) care, and assess the satisfaction with the healthcare received.Data were collected from coverage areas of four community-based drop-in-centers (DICs) in Dhaka where sexually transmitted infection (STI) and human immunovirus (HIV) prevention interventions have been implemented for FSWs. A total of 731 FSWs aged 15-49 years were surveyed. In addition, in-depth interviews (IDIs) were conducted with 14 FSWs and 9 service providers. Respondent satisfaction was measured based on recorded scores on dignity, privacy, autonomy, confidentiality, prompt attention, access to social support networks during care, basic amenities, and choice of institution/care provider.Of 731 FSWs, 353 (51%) reported facing barriers when seeking sexual and reproductive healthcare. Financial problems (72%), shame about receiving care (52.3%), unwillingness of service providers to provide care (39.9%), unfriendly behavior of the provider (24.4%), and distance to care (16.9%) were mentioned as barriers. Only one-third of the respondents reported an overall satisfaction score of more than fifty percent (a score of between 9 and16) with formal healthcare. Inadequacy or lack of SRH services and referral problems (e.g., financial charge at referral centers, unsustainable referral provision, or unknown location of referral) were reported by the qualitative FSWs as the major barriers to accessing and utilizing SRH care.These findings are useful for program implementers and policy makers to take the necessary steps to reduce or remove the barriers in the health system that are preventing FSWs from accessing SRH care, and ultimately meet the unmet healthcare needs of FSWs.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".