ArticleBMC public health2024
Jitegemee (rely on yourself): a multi-phase process of co-creating a personal savings intervention with female sex workers in western Kenya to reduce their HIV risk.
Article in BMC public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHIV prevalence among female sex workers (FSW) is significantly higher than among women in the general population. Studies have shown that FSW engage in unprotected sex which provides higher compensation when they face emergency situations. We co-created a savings intervention - Jitegemee (rely on yourself) - with FSW to encourage them to save part of their earnings to withdraw in emergency situations in order to reduce risk.
methodsWe undertook a five-phase intervention development process between February 2021 and July 2023: 1) qualitative interviews with FSW to identify essential intervention features; 2) pilot trial to assess intervention feasibility; 3) literature review of studies on economic empowerment of FSW; 4) scoring of key components of Phases 1-3 on a scale of 1-5 (1 = definitely exclude, 5 = definitely include), for inclusion in the intervention package; 5) workshops with FSW and other key stakeholders to co-design the intervention.
resultsIn phase 1, nearly all participants (99%) found the intervention acceptable to them and 95% believed it would be acceptable to other FSW. Participants suggested inclusion of financial literacy (75%), savings groups (38%) and goal-setting (24%). In the feasibility assessment, 41% saved, of whom 46% withdrew some savings. Condom use was higher among FSW who withdrew their savings compared to those who did not (χ
conclusionsA savings intervention for and by FSW was highly acceptable and feasible. Involving end-users in the design process is likely to result in greater economic security among FSW and lower engagement in higher risk transactional sex.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.