↓ Skip to main content

Sexual and reproductive health outcomes among female sex workers in Johannesburg and Pretoria, South Africa: Recommendations for public health programmes

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
226 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Sexual and reproductive health outcomes among female sex workers in Johannesburg and Pretoria, South Africa: Recommendations for public health programmes
Published in
BMC Public Health, July 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12889-017-4346-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mariette Slabbert, Francois Venter, Cynthia Gay, Corine Roelofsen, Samanta Lalla-Edward, Helen Rees

Abstract

The sexual and reproductive health (SRH) status of female sex workers is influenced by a wide range of demographic, behavioural and structural factors. These factors vary considerably across and even within settings. Adopting an overly standardised approach to sex worker programmes may compromise its impact on some sub-groups in local areas. Records of female sex workers attending clinic-, community-, or hotel-based health services in Johannesburg (n = 1422 women) and Pretoria (n = 408 women), South Africa were analysed. We describe the population's characteristics and identified factors associated with sexual and reproductive health outcomes, namely HIV status; previous symptomatic sexually transmitted infection (STI); modern contraceptive use and number of child dependents. The women in Johannesburg were less likely than those in Pretoria to have HIV (42.2% vs 52.9%), or previous symptomatic STIs (44.3% vs. 8.3%), and were 1.4 fold less likely to have child dependents (20.1% vs. 15.3%). About 43% of women in Johannesburg were Zimbabwean and 40% in Pretoria. Of concern, only about 15% of women in both sites were using modern contraceptives. Johannesburg women were also more likely to access health services at a hotel (85.0% vs. 80.6%) or clinic (5.7% vs. 0.5%), to have completed secondary education (57.1% vs. 36.0%), and moved house more than twice during the past year (19.6 vs. 2.0%). In both cities, risk of HIV rose rapidly with age (23.8%-58.2% vs. 22.0%-64.8%). Of interest, HIV prevalence was considerably higher in those with consistent condom use with one's main partner than inconsistent users. Sex worker populations are heterogeneous. Local health programmes must prioritise services that reflect the variety and complexity of sex worker needs and behaviours, and should be designed in consultation with sex workers. Segmenting sex worker populations according to age, country of origin and place of service delivery, and training healthcare providers accordingly, could help prevent new HIV infections, improve adherence to antiretroviral treatment and increase uptake of SRH services.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 226 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 226 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 45 20%
Researcher 26 12%
Student > Bachelor 25 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 5%
Other 41 18%
Unknown 55 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 53 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 42 19%
Social Sciences 20 9%
Arts and Humanities 7 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 3%
Other 32 14%
Unknown 66 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 July 2018.
All research outputs
#6,996,084
of 25,718,113 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#7,678
of 17,781 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#101,146
of 327,008 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#125
of 245 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,718,113 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 17,781 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 327,008 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 245 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.