Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41211413›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in public health2025

Stakeholder mapping: advancing research on sexual and reproductive health policies and income protection for cisgender and transgender female sex workers in Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Estefania Panizoni, María Eugenia Esandi, Virginia Zalazar, Ines Aristegui, Agustina Argüello, Nadir Cardozo, Georgina Orellano, Marcela Romero, Mona Loutfy, Sharon Walmsley and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

14 authors.

Estefania Panizoni *Fundación Huésped, Research Department, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
María Eugenia Esandi *Fundación Huésped, Research Department, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Virginia ZalazarFundación Huésped, Research Department, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Ines AristeguiFundación Huésped, Research Department, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Agustina ArgüelloFundación Huésped, Research Department, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Nadir CardozoFundación Huésped, Research Department, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Georgina OrellanoSindicato de Trabajadoras Sexuales, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Marcela RomeroAsociación de Travestis, Transexuales y Transgenero de Argentina, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Mona LoutfyWomen's College Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Sharon WalmsleyWomen's College Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Valeria FinkFundación Huésped, Research Department, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Adriana DuranCoordinación Salud Sexual, VIH e ITS, Ministerio de Salud, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Zulma OrtizFundación Huésped, Research Department, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
MAS por Nosotras Study Group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: In the initial steps towards the development of an implementation project aimed to support sexual and reproductive health (SRH) policies and income protection for cisgender and transgender sex workers in the Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires (CABA), we employed stakeholder mapping. This is a crucial tool in health policy and systems and research to identify, categorize, and characterize key stakeholders involved in policy planning and implementation. Methods: Prospective stakeholder mapping was conducted between February and September 2023 through a series of internal meetings and consultations with relevant community organizations to identify key stakeholders involved in SRH of female sex workers (FSWs) in CABA. The stakeholder mapping included three stages: 1. Identification and categorization of stakeholders using primary and secondary sources; 2. Analysis of stakeholder knowledge, level of agreement/interest, and level of influence/power; and 3. Characterization of stakeholder positioning. The absolute and relative frequencies of key stakeholders were estimated, and the average values of knowledge, power/influence, and interest/agreement were calculated for each category. The results were represented in a matrix identifying six types of positions (promoter, supporter, neutral, observer, high-risk blocker, low-risk blocker). Results: A total of 147 key actors were identified across sectors, including government, civil society, academia, abolitionist community organizations, health services, media and national and jurisdictional governments. Only four categories had detailed knowledge of the SRH situation and policies focused on FSWs. The stakeholders were categorized as 16% as promoters, 68% as supporters, 10% as blockers, 3% as observers, and 3% as neutral. Among promoters, national and jurisdictional governments stood out, while the supporters included the FSWs and the civil society organizations representing them, who also actively participated in the mapping process. Blockers mainly included abolitionist community organizations and security forces. Discussion: Stakeholder mapping proved to be a valuable tool for understanding the political landscape while ethically centering the voices of FSWs. The findings support the development of inclusive, context-sensitive policies and provide a replicable methodology for similar initiatives in other socio-political contexts.

Indexed as

Health PolicyReproductive HealthSex WorkSex WorkersArgentinaFemaleHumansIncomeMaleReproductive Health ServicesSexual HealthStakeholder ParticipationTransgender PersonsArgentinacommunity-based participatory researchfemale sex workerssexual and reproductive healthstakeholder mappingtransgender and cisgender female sex workerstransgender female sex workers

Identifiers

PMID41211413
PMCPMC12588998

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.