Skip to main content

Table 2 Correlates of seeing mostly regular clients among sex workers in Metro Vancouver (n=925), AESHA 2010-2019

From: Seeing pre-screened, regular clients associated with lower odds of workplace sexual violence and condom refusal amidst sex work criminalization: findings of a community-based cohort of sex workers in Metro Vancouver, Canada (2010-2019)

Characteristic

Odds Ratio (95% CI)

Adjusted Odds Ratio (95% CI)

Individual factors

  Age (per year older)

1.05 (1.04-1.07)

1.03 (1.02-1.04)

  Non-injection drug usea

0.91 (0.76-1.08)

0.83 (0.68-1.02)

  Completed high school

0.91 (0.74-1.11)

b

Structural determinants

  Race

    White

ref

 

    Indigenous

1.08 (0.86-1.37)

 

    Woman of colour

0.43 (0.33-0.58)

 

  Time since im/migration

    Non-im/migrant

ref

 

    Im/migrated ≤5 years ago

0.24 (0.16-0.38)

 

    Im/migrated >5 years ago

0.49 (0.37-0.65)

 

Housing & income

  Any unstable housinga

1.02 (0.86-1.21)

 

  Homeless/living on streeta

0.60 (0.50-0.72)

0.77 (0.65-0.92)

  Average weekly income from sex worka (per $100 CAD)

0.94 (0.92-0.95)

 

  Currently financially supports dependents

1.12 (0.95-1.31)

 

Work environment

  Primary place serving clientsa

  

  Outdoor/public space

Ref

ref

  Informal indoor space

3.37 (2.82-4.02)

2.96 (2.48-3.52)

  Formal indoor venue

0.73 (0.55-0.96)

0.56 (0.41-0.78)

Average number of clients/montha (per client)

0.99 (0.98-0.99)

 

Any inconsistent condom usea

0.76 (0.62-0.93)

 

Violence & policing

  

  Police harassment while workinga

0.57 (0.48-0.68)

 

  Arrested/jailed while workinga

0.54 (0.33-0.89)

 

Health

  

  Experienced any barriers to health carea

0.89 (0.78-1.01)

 

  HIV testinga

  

    Did not have an HIV test

ref

 

    Had an HIV test

0.79 (0.66-0.93)

 

    Living with HIV

1.67 (1.25-2.21)

 

Interview conducted post-PCEPA

2.00 (1.72-2.32)

1.58 (1.35-1.85)

  1. aTime-updated measures (serial measures at each study visit using last 6 months as reference point)
  2. bVariable was included in multivariable analysis but was not retained in the best fitting model