4.1 Article

Unprotected fellatio between female sex workers and their clients in Sydney, Australia

Journal

SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED INFECTIONS
Volume 88, Issue 8, Pages 581-584

Publisher

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/sextrans-2011-050430

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives To assess the frequency and predictors of inconsistent condom use for fellatio at work by female sex workers (FSW) in Sydney and the prevalence of pharyngeal gonorrhoea and other sexually transmitted infections in these women. Methods Cross-sectional study including all FSW attending the Sydney Sexual Health Centre for sexually transmitted infection screening between May 2009 and January 2011 and reporting fellatio at work. Univariate and multivariate regression was used to identify predictors of inconsistent condom use for fellatio. Results Of 1540 FSW who offered fellatio at work, 372 (25%) reported inconsistent condom use for this fellatio. In multivariate analysis, speaking Mandarin or Cantonese rather than English (adjusted OR (AOR) 2.03, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.86), reporting inconsistent condom use for vaginal sex at work (AOR 10.82, 95% CI 6.13 to 19.09), reporting no vaginal sex at work (AOR 7.48, 95% CI 2.42 to 23.12) and being a new client to the clinic (AOR 2.10, 95% CI 1.56 to 2.83) were associated with inconsistent condom use for fellatio. Thai-speaking women were less likely to report unprotected fellatio (AOR 0.36, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.57). 17 women were diagnosed with pharyngeal gonorrhoea (AOR 1.1%, 95% CI 0.6% to 1.7%). Conclusions Condom use for fellatio by Sydney FSW varies by work location and language spoken. Health promotion targeting these at-risk women is warranted. Women working in brothels masquerading as massage parlours were particularly likely to report inconsistent condom use for fellatio. Local government reluctance to approve brothels may be contributing to this problem.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available