Introduction
Materials and Methods
Data
Background characteristics | Percentages and mean (SD) | ||
---|---|---|---|
BTS I (2010) | BTS II (2012) |
p Value | |
Age | 29.2 (5.3) | 29.3 (5.7) | |
Age | 0.003 | ||
<30 years | 53.3 | 52.0 | |
≥30 years | 46.7 | 48.0 | |
Marital status | 0.000 | ||
Never married | 9.2 | 6.6 | |
Currently married | 57.1 | 50.0 | |
Widowed/deserted/separated/divorced | 33.7 | 43.4 | |
Education | 0.000 | ||
No formal education | 44.4 | 62.3 | |
Having formal education | 55.6 | 37.7 | |
Main source of solicitation | 0.000 | ||
Brothel/lodge | 5.9 | 6.6 | |
Street/public places | 46.8 | 40.6 | |
Home | 10.0 | 5.1 | |
Mobile phones | 31.8 | 42.7 | |
Others | 5.6 | 4.9 | |
Currently under debt | 0.271 | ||
No | 14.7 | 20.0 | |
Yes | 85.3 | 80.0 | |
Source of income other than sex work | 0.000 | ||
Sex work only | 22.0 | 30.8 | |
Sell vegetable/flower | 14.6 | 8.6 | |
Work as daily laborer | 41.6 | 47.0 | |
Work as domestic help | 11.0 | 4.0 | |
Salaried employee | 2.3 | 2.1 | |
Others | 8.6 | 7.5 | |
Mobility for sex work | 0.000 | ||
No | 62.0 | 73.2 | |
Visited places and had sex in last 2 years | 38.0 | 26.8 | |
Average duration of practicing sex work (in years) | 4.4 (2.4) | 4.8 (3.3) | |
N1 = 1986 | N2 = 1973 |
Ethical Considerations
Measures
Community Collectivization Indicators
Outcome and Mediation Indicators
Data Analysis
Results
Behavioral Tracking Survey | |||
---|---|---|---|
Community mobilization indicators | 2010 (N = 1986) | 2012 (N = 1973) | p Value |
Community collectivization | |||
Collective efficacy:(H) | 89.0 (1768) | 85.0 (1671) | 0.000 |
Work together to keep each other safe from harm | 65.6 (1303) | 68.4 (1349) | 0.063 |
Work together to increase condom usage | 87.3 (1733) | 81.3 (1603) | 0.000 |
Work together to speaking for sex workers rights | 72.0 (1429) | 71.4 (1406) | 0.637 |
Coming together for improving lives of sex workers | 61.6 (1223) | 72.9 (1437) | 0.000 |
Collective agency:(H) | 50.7 (1006) | 42.3 (835) | 0.000 |
Negotiated or stood up against police | 45.0 (895) | 43.8 (864) | 0.447 |
Negotiated or stood up against madam/broker | 51.0 (1013) | 40.1 (791) | 0.000 |
Negotiated or stood up against local goon | 17.5 (348) | 39.1 (771) | 0.000 |
Negotiated or stood up against client/regular partner/other partner | 42.7 (849) | 40.8 (803) | 0.225 |
Collective action:(H) | 12.7 (253) | 28.5 (563) | 0.000 |
Come together to demand/help for ration card | 13.0 (258) | 30.2 (595) | 0.000 |
Come together to demand/help for voter card | 12.4 (247) | 29.3 (577) | 0.000 |
Come together to demand/help for bank account | 13.3 (264) | 28.4 (560) | 0.000 |
Come together to demand/help for free education for children | 17.7 (351) | 28.0 (553) | 0.000 |
Come together to demand/help for health insurance | 20.7 (412) | 28.0 (551) | 0.000 |
Come together to demand/help for representation govt. forum | 5.2 (103) | 19.9 (392) | 0.000 |
Come together to demand/help for better health services from the govt. | 15.2 (302) | 30.2 (594) | 0.000 |
Potential mediators | |||
Self-efficacy for condom use with clients | 63.4 (1260) | 72.5 (1430) | 0.000 |
Self-efficacy for condom use with regular partners | 36.2 (716) | 43.3 (852) | 0.000 |
Outcome indicators | |||
CCU with occasional clients | 72.3 (1436) | 85.3 (1682) | 0.000 |
CCU with regular clients | 64.3 (1260) | 76.0 (1478) | 0.000 |
CCU with regular partners | 15.3 (273) | 18.5 (284) | 0.007 |
CCU non regular nonpaying partners | 39.0 (187) | 57.0 (182) | 0.000 |
Collectivization | BTS I (2010) | BTS II (2012) | Time × collectivization | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
% | AOR (95 % CI) | % | AOR (95 % CI) | AOR (95 % CI) | p Value | |
Outcome indicators
| ||||||
Consistent condom use with occasional clients | ||||||
Collective efficacy | ||||||
Low | 72.0 | Ref | 59.0 | Ref | ||
High | 73.0 | 1.1 (0.8–1.5) | 90.1 | 6.3 (4.5–8.9) | 6.1 (3.8–9.8) | 0.000 |
Collective agency | ||||||
Low | 78.0 | Ref | 77.1 | Ref | ||
High | 66.7 | 0.6 (0.5–0.8) | 97.0 | 8.5 (5.1–14.0) | 14.4 (8.2–25.3) | 0.000 |
Collective action | ||||||
Low | 71.4 | Ref | 84.0 | Ref | ||
High | 78.1 | 1.4 (0.9–2.2) | 89.3 | 1.6 (1.1–2.3) | 1.1 (0.6–2.0) | 0.635 |
Consistent condom use with regular clients | ||||||
Collective efficacy | ||||||
Low | 60.0 | Ref | 52.7 | Ref | ||
High | 65.0 | 1.3 (0.9–1.8) | 80.1 | 3.5 (2.6–4.8) | 2.9 (1.9–4.5) | 0.000 |
Collective agency | ||||||
Low | 71.7 | Ref | 62.1 | Ref | ||
High | 57.3 | 0.6 (0.5–0.8) | 94.5 | 10.7 (7.4–15.4) | 19.0 (12.2–29.6) | 0.000 |
Collective action | ||||||
Low | 63.7 | Ref | 72.8 | Ref | ||
High | 68.3 | 1.2 (0.8–1.9) | 84.0 | 1.9 (1.4–2.5) | 1.6 (0.9–2.7) | 0.083 |
Potential mediators
| ||||||
High self-efficacy for condom use with clients | ||||||
Collective efficacy | ||||||
Low | 55.0 | Ref | 69.2 | Ref | ||
High | 64.5 | 1.5 (1.1–2.1) | 73.1 | 1.2 (0.9–1.7) | 0.8 (0.5–1.3) | 0.438 |
Collective agency | ||||||
Low | 60.3 | Ref | 62.1 | Ref | ||
High | 66.5 | 1.2 (0.9–1.6) | 86.7 | 4.1 (3.1–5.3) | 3.4 (2.3–5.0) | 0.000 |
Collective action | ||||||
Low | 61.8 | Ref | 73.6 | Ref | ||
High | 74.4 | 1.8 (1.2–2.9) | 70.0 | 0.7 (0.6–1.0) | 0.4 (0.3–0.7) | 0.001 |
BTS I (2010) | BTS II (2012) | Time × Collectivization | BTS I (2010) | BTS II (2012) | Time × Collectivization | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Collectivisation indicators and corresponding mediators | AOR for collectivizationa
(95 % CI) | AOR for collectivizationa
(95 % CI) | AOR for collectivizationa
(95 % CI) | p-value | AOR for mediatorsb
(95 % CI) | AOR for mediatorsb
(95 % CI) | AOR for mediatorsb
(95 % CI) | p-value |
Outcome indicators
| ||||||||
Consistent condom use with occasional clients | ||||||||
Collective efficacy and corresponding mediators self-efficacy for condom use with commercial partners | ||||||||
Low | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | ||||
High | 0.9 (0.7–1.4) | 6.3 (4.5–8.9) | 6.8 (4.3–11.0) | 0.000 | 3.1 (2.3–4.2) | 1.9 (1.4–2.6) | 0.7 (0.4–1.0) | 0.061 |
Collective agency and corresponding mediators self-efficacy for condom use with commercial partners | ||||||||
Low | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | ||||
High | 0.5 (0.4–0.7) | 8.0 (4.7–13.6) | 14.9 (8.2–27.0) | 0.000 | 3.3 (2.4–4.4) | 1.2 (0.9–1.7) | 0.4 (0.3–0.6) | 0.000 |
Collective action and corresponding mediators self-efficacy for condom use with commercial partners | ||||||||
Low | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | ||||
High | 1.2 (0.8–1.9) | 1.6 (1.1–2.4) | 1.4 (0.8–2.4) | 0.437 | 3.1 (2.3–4.2) | 2.0 (1.5–2.6) | 0.7 (0.5–1.1) | 0.069 |
Consistent condom use with regular clients | ||||||||
Collective efficacy and corresponding mediators self-efficacy for condom use with commercial partners | ||||||||
Low | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | ||||
High | 1.2 (0.9–1.6) | 3.5 (2.6–4.8) | 3.1 (2.0–4.9) | 0.001 | 3.1 (2.3–4.1) | 2.0 (1.5–2.6) | 0.7 (0.5–1.0) | 0.073 |
Collective agency and corresponding mediators self-efficacy for condom use with commercial partners | ||||||||
Low | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | ||||
High | 0.5 (0.4–0.7) | 10.2 (6.9–15.2) | 20.1 (12.6–32.3) | 0.000 | 3.2 (2.4–4.3) | 1.2 (0.9–1.7) | 0.4 (0.3–0.6) | 0.000 |
Collective action and corresponding mediators self-efficacy for condom use with commercial partners | ||||||||
Low | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | ||||
High | 1.1 (0.7–1.6) | 2.0 (1.5–2.7) | 1.9 (1.2–3.1) | 0.001 | 3.0 (2.3–4.0) | 2.0 (1.6–2.7) | 0.7 (0.5–1.1) | 0.583 |