Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24493858›Full record

ArticleSexually transmitted infections2014

The sexual health of female sex workers compared with other women in England: analysis of cross-sectional data from genitourinary medicine clinics.

Louise Mc Grath-Lone, Kimberly Marsh, Gwenda Hughes, Helen Ward

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Sexually transmitted infections, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
17.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

29 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 68 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Sex Worker Health Outcomes in High-Income Countries of Varied Regulatory Environments: A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Louise Mc Grath-LoneDepartment of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Kimberly MarshDepartment of HIV & STIs, Centre for Infectious Disease Surveillance and Control, Public Health England, London, UK.
Gwenda HughesDepartment of HIV & STIs, Centre for Infectious Disease Surveillance and Control, Public Health England, London, UK.
Helen WardDepartment of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Imperial College London · GBPublic Health England · GB

Funding

Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 090285/Z/09/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhile female sex workers (FSWs) are assumed to be at increased risk of sexually transmitted infections (STIs), there are limited comparative data with other population groups available. Using routine STI surveillance data, we investigated differences in sexual health between FSWs and other female attendees at genitourinary medicine (GUM) clinics in England.

methodsDemographic characteristics, STI prevalence and service usage among FSWs and other attendees in 2011 were compared using logistic regression.

resultsIn 2011, 2704 FSWs made 8411 recorded visits to 131/208 GUM clinics, (primarily large, FSW-specialist centres in London). FSWs used a variety of services, however, 10% did not have an STI/HIV test at presentation. By comparison with other female attendees, FSWs travelled further for their care and had increased risk of certain STIs (e.g., gonorrhoea ORadj: 2.76, 95% CI 2.16 to 3.54, p<0.001). Migrant FSWs had better sexual health outcomes than UK-born FSWs (e.g., period prevalence of chlamydia among those tested: 8.5% vs 13.5%, p<0.001) but were more likely to experience non-STI outcomes (eg, pelvic inflammatory disease ORadj: 2.92, 95% CI 1.57 to 5.41, p<0.001).

conclusionsFSWs in England have access to high-quality care through the GUM clinic network, but there is evidence of geographical inequality in access to these services. A minority do not appear to access STI/HIV testing through clinics, and some STIs are more prevalent among FSWs than other female attendees. Targeted interventions aimed at improving uptake of testing in FSWs should be developed, and need to be culturally sensitive to the needs of this predominantly migrant population.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAmbulatory Care FacilitiesCandidiasis, VulvovaginalCase-Control StudiesChlamydia InfectionsCross-Sectional StudiesEmigrants and ImmigrantsEnglandFemaleGeographyGonorrheaHepatitis BHepatitis B VaccinesHepatitis CHIV InfectionsHepatitis B VaccinesProstitutionSexual HealthSurveillanceWomen

Identifiers

PMID24493858
PMCPMC4033115
OpenAlexW2070344880

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.