Skip to main content

Table 1 Profile of female sex workers according to their status of having non-paying sexual partners in India

From: Non-paying partnerships and its association with HIV risk behavior, program exposure and service utilization among female sex workers in India

Background characteristics Number of FSWs Have non-paying partner (N = 5235) Have no non-paying partner (N = 2874) Total (N = 8107) P-value
% or mean (SD) % or mean (SD) % or mean (SD)
Age (in years), Mean (SD) 8,107 31.6 (7.0) 31.8 (8.1) 31.7 (7.3) 0.194
Had no formal education 4,898 52.2 56.2 53.4 0.001
Had no income other than sex work 4,573 38.3 57.3 43.8 <0.001
Had financial debt 5,271 75.6 64.3 72.3 <0.001
Localite* to the city/village of interview 5,903 72.6 73.5 72.8 0.378
Place of solicitation      
Home 1,259 14.8 14.8 14.8 1.000
Brothel/Lodge/Dhaba 1,851 10.3 17.7 12.5 <0.001
Street 4,997 74.9 67.5 72.7 <0.001
Cohabitation status     71.0  
Cohabiting husband 3,792 72.4    
Cohabiting non-paying partner 1,066 20.4    
Non-cohabiting non-paying partner 377 7.2    
Median duration of relationship (in years) 5,235 11    
Age at sex work debut, Mean (SD) 8,107 25.9 (6.0) 25.5 (6.7) 25.8 (6.2) 0.010
Had sex with 10+ clients in a week 3,458 36.5 36.1 36.4 0.734
Consumed alcohol in past one month 3,563 39.0 41.8 39.8 0.020
Experienced physical violence in past six months 1318 17.3 16.6 17.1 0.448
Vulnerability index1, Mean (SD) 8107 1.7 (0.7) 1.5 (0.8) 1.6 (0.8) <0.001
  1. SD: Standard deviation.
  2. 1FSWs who were soliciting at street based sites, had financial debt and experienced physical violence were considered to be vulnerable [See Methods].
  3. *Localite has been defined in the context of place of residence of FSWs. If the place of residence (city/town/village) and place of interview (city/town/village) is same, then individual was considered localite; otherwise non-localite.