4.0 Review

Sexually transmissible infections among female sex workers: an international review with an emphasis on hard-to-access populations

Journal

SEXUAL HEALTH
Volume 5, Issue 1, Pages 9-16

Publisher

CSIRO PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1071/SH07024

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Women who work commercially in sex work (female sex workers [FSW]) are considered a high-risk group for sexually transmissible infections (STI), yet the level of reported pathogens varies in studies around the world. This study reviewed STI rates reported in 42 studies of FSW around the world published between 1995 and 2006 and analysed the trends and types of populations surveyed, emphasising difficult to access FSW populations. Methods: Studies were retrieved by PUBMED and other search engines and were included if two or more pathogens were studied and valid laboratory methods were reported. Results: The five most commonly assessed pathogens were Neisseria gonorrhea (prevalence 0.5-41.3), Chlamydia trachomatis (0.61-46.2), Treponema pallidum (syphilis; 1.5-60.5), HIV (0-76.6), and Trichomonas vaginalis (trichmoniasis; 0.11-51.0). Neisseria gonorrhea and C. trachomatis were the most commonly tested pathogens and high prevalence levels were found in diverse areas of the world. HIV was highly prevalent mostly in African countries. Although human papillomavirus infection was surveyed in few studies, prevalence rates were very high and its aetiological role in cervical cancer warrant its inclusion in future FSW monitoring. Hard-to-access FSW groups tended to have higher rates of STI. Conclusions: The five most commonly detected pathogens correspond to those that are highly prevalent in the general population, however there is an urgent need to develop rapid testing diagnostics for all five pathogens to increase prevention and treatment, especially in outreach programs to the most vulnerable groups among FSW

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available