Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28103896›Full record

ArticleReproductive health2017

Sexual and reproductive health services utilization by female sex workers is context-specific: results from a cross-sectional survey in India, Kenya, Mozambique and South Africa.

Yves Lafort, Ross Greener, Anuradha Roy, Letitia Greener, Wilkister Ombidi, Faustino Lessitala, Jolene Skordis-Worrall, Mags Beksinska, Peter Gichangi, Sushena Reza-Paul and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Reproductive health, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed
11.9field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  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

13 authors at 8 institutions in 6 countries.

Yves LafortInternational Centre for Reproductive Health, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium. yves.lafort@ugent.be.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1380-2064
Ross GreenerMatCH Research Unit (Maternal, Adolescent and Child Health Research Unit), Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Durban, South Africa.
Anuradha RoyAshodaya Samithi, Mysore, India.
Letitia GreenerMatCH Research Unit (Maternal, Adolescent and Child Health Research Unit), Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Durban, South Africa.
Wilkister OmbidiInternational Centre for Reproductive Health-Kenya, Mombasa, Kenya.
Faustino LessitalaInternational Centre for Reproductive Health-Mozambique, Maputo, Mozambique.
Jolene Skordis-WorrallInstitute for Global Health, University College London, London, UK.
Mags BeksinskaMatCH Research Unit (Maternal, Adolescent and Child Health Research Unit), Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Durban, South Africa.
Peter GichangiInternational Centre for Reproductive Health, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Sushena Reza-PaulUniversity of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada.
Jenni A SmitMatCH Research Unit (Maternal, Adolescent and Child Health Research Unit), Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Durban, South Africa.
Matthew ChersichInternational Centre for Reproductive Health, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Wim DelvaInternational Centre for Reproductive Health, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
University of the Witwatersrand · ZAGhent University Hospital · BEInternational Centre for Reproductive Health · MZInternational Centre for Reproductive Health Kenya · KEStellenbosch University · ZAUniversity College London · GBUniversity of Manitoba · CAUniversity of Nairobi · KE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFemale sex workers (FSWs) are extremely vulnerable to adverse sexual and reproductive health (SRH) outcomes. To mitigate these risks, they require access to services covering not only HIV prevention but also contraception, cervical cancer screening and sexual violence. To develop context-specific intervention packages to improve uptake, we identified gaps in service utilization in four different cities.

methodsA cross-sectional survey was conducted, as part of the baseline assessment of an implementation research project. FWSs were recruited in Durban, South Africa (n = 400), Mombasa, Kenya (n = 400), Mysore, India (n = 458) and Tete, Mozambique (n = 308), using respondent-driven sampling (RDS) and starting with 8-16 'seeds' identified by the peer educators. FSWs responded to a standardised interviewer-administered questionnaire about the use of contraceptive methods and services for cervical cancer screening, sexual violence and unwanted pregnancies. RDS-adjusted proportions and surrounding 95% confidence intervals were estimated by non-parametric bootstrapping, and compared across cities using post-hoc pairwise comparison tests with Dunn-Šidák correction.

resultsCurrent use of any modern contraception ranged from 86.2% in Tete to 98.4% in Mombasa (p = 0.001), while non-barrier contraception (hormonal, IUD or sterilisation) varied from 33.4% in Durban to 85.1% in Mysore (p < 0.001). Ever having used emergency contraception ranged from 2.4% in Mysore to 38.1% in Mombasa (p < 0.001), ever having been screened for cervical cancer from 0.0% in Tete to 29.0% in Durban (p < 0.001), and having gone to a health facility for a termination of an unwanted pregnancy from 15.0% in Durban to 93.7% in Mysore (p < 0.001). Having sought medical care after forced sex varied from 34.4% in Mombasa to 51.9% in Mysore (p = 0.860). Many of the differences between cities remained statistically significant after adjusting for variations in FSWs' sociodemographic characteristics.

conclusionThe use of SRH commodities and services by FSWs is often low and is highly context-specific. Reasons for variation across cities need to be further explored. The differences are unlikely caused by differences in socio-demographic characteristics and more probably stem from differences in the availability and accessibility of SRH services. Intervention packages to improve use of contraceptives and SRH services should be tailored to the particular gaps in each city.

Indexed as

Patient Acceptance of Health CareAdultContraceptionCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleFinancing, PersonalHumansIndiaKenyaMozambiquePregnancyReproductive Health ServicesSexual BehaviorSexual PartnersSex WorkersSouth AfricaCare seeking behaviourFemale sex workersIndiaSexual and reproductive healthSub-Saharan Africa

Identifiers

PMID28103896
PMCPMC5247811
OpenAlexW2576179038

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.