Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42156133›Full record

ReviewBMJ global health2026

Demanding solidarity, not salvation: sex work and global health.

Marlise Linda Richter, M H Ditmore, Jantina de Vries

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMJ global health, 2026. 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

3 authors.

Marlise Linda RichterThe EthicsLab, University of Cape Town Department of Medicine, Observatory, South Africa marlise.richter@uct.ac.za.ORCID 0009-0008-8133-1771
M H DitmorePrincipal of Clear Eyed Consulting, New York, New York, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1579-5235
Jantina de VriesThe EthicsLab, University of Cape Town Department of Medicine, Observatory, South Africa.ORCID 0000-0001-7192-2633

Funding

Wellcome Trust 225230/Z/22/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is increasing attention paid to solidarity in global health, but its substance and definitions remain contested. We explore the tensions between global health institutions' historic approaches to sex work, their commitment to health and human rights and how these are connected to or disconnected from solidarity. We foreground the protracted and incomplete evolution from international health approaches to sex workers as spreaders of pathogens that should be punished, to sex work health programmes that are situated within human rights principles. Thus, substantial resources and material changes to laws, policies and programmes are required to action claims of 'standing in solidarity' with sex workers. We argue that the drastic cuts to global health funding initiated by the Trump Administration in January 2025 require careful consideration of what 'solidarity' with the most marginalised entails and bold action.

Indexed as

Global HealthHuman RightsInternational CooperationSex WorkCOVID-19HumansCOVID-19Delivery of Health CareGlobal HealthSocial DiscriminationUniversal Health Care

Identifiers

PMID42156133
PMCPMC13202083

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.