Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30087089›Full record

ArticleJMIR public health and surveillance2018

Estimating the Population Size of Female Sex Workers in Three South African Cities: Results and Recommendations From the 2013-2014 South Africa Health Monitoring Survey and Stakeholder Consensus.

Michael A Grasso, Albert E Manyuchi, Maria Sibanyoni, Alex Marr, Tom Osmand, Zachary Isdahl, Helen Struthers, James A McIntyre, Francois Venter, Helen V Rees and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR public health and surveillance, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

11 authors.

Michael A GrassoInstitute for Global Health Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9529-6542
Albert E ManyuchiAnova Health Institute, Johannesburg, South Africa.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7189-6201
Alex MarrInstitute for Global Health Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9226-2125
Tom OsmandInstitute for Global Health Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1252-5854
Zachary IsdahlInstitute for Global Health Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4933-3880
Helen StruthersAnova Health Institute, Johannesburg, South Africa.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7468-3148
James A McIntyreAnova Health Institute, Johannesburg, South Africa.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9150-1059
Francois VenterWits Reproductive Health and HIV Institute, University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4157-732X
Helen V ReesWits Reproductive Health and HIV Institute, University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1442-6734
Tim LaneInstitute for Global Health Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2351-1204

Funding

CGH CDC HHS U2G GH000251
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRobust population size estimates of female sex workers and other key populations in South Africa face multiple methodological limitations, including inconsistencies in surveillance and programmatic indicators. This has, consequently, challenged the appropriate allocation of resources and benchmark-setting necessary to an effective HIV response. A 2013-2014 integrated biological and behavioral surveillance (IBBS) survey from South Africa showed alarmingly high HIV prevalence among female sex workers in South Africa's three largest cities of Johannesburg (71.8%), Cape Town (39.7%), and eThekwini (53.5%). The survey also included several multiplier-based population size estimation methods.

objectiveThe objective of our study was to present the selected population size estimation methods used in an IBBS survey and the subsequent participatory process used to estimate the number of female sex workers in three South African cities.

methodsIn 2013-2014, we used respondent-driven sampling to recruit independent samples of female sex workers for IBBS surveys in Johannesburg, Cape Town, and eThekwini. We embedded multiple multiplier-based population size estimation methods into the survey, from which investigators calculated weighted estimates and ranges of population size estimates for each city's female sex worker population. Following data analysis, investigators consulted civil society stakeholders to present survey results and size estimates and facilitated stakeholder vetting of individual estimates to arrive at consensus point estimates with upper and lower plausibility bounds.

resultsIn total, 764, 650, and 766 female sex workers participated in the survey in Johannesburg, Cape Town, and eThekwini, respectively. For size estimation, investigators calculated preliminary point estimates as the median of the multiple estimation methods embedded in the IBBS survey and presented these to a civil society-convened stakeholder group. Stakeholders vetted all estimates in light of other data points, including programmatic experience, ensuring inclusion only of plausible point estimates in median calculation. After vetting, stakeholders adopted three consensus point estimates with plausible ranges: Johannesburg 7697 (5000-10,895); Cape Town 6500 (4579-9000); eThekwini 9323 (4000-10,000).

conclusionsUsing several population size estimates methods embedded in an IBBS survey and a participatory stakeholder consensus process, the South Africa Health Monitoring Survey produced female sex worker size estimates representing approximately 0.48%, 0.49%, and 0.77% of the adult female population in Johannesburg, Cape Town, and eThekwini, respectively. In data-sparse environments, stakeholder engagement and consensus is critical to vetting of multiple empirically based size estimates procedures to ensure adoption and utilization of data-informed size estimates for coordinated national and subnational benchmarking. It also has the potential to increase coherence in national and key population-specific HIV responses and to decrease the likelihood of duplicative and wasteful resource allocation. We recommend building cooperative and productive academic-civil society partnerships around estimates and other strategic information dissemination and sharing to facilitate the incorporation of additional data as it becomes available, as these additional data points may minimize the impact of the known and unknown biases inherent in any single, investigator-calculated method.

Indexed as

female sex workersHIVintegrated biological and behavioral surveillance surveyspopulation size estimationSouth Africa

Identifiers

PMID30087089
PMCPMC6104000

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.