Table 2.
Distribution of availability of water, soap, acceptable latrine and WASH score by venue type.
| Venue type | Nothing available (i.e., WASH score = 0) n (%) | Water available n (%) | Soap available n (%) | At least one acceptable latrine available for use of women n (%) | WASH score mean/median (range) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Street*, N = 3 | 0 (0) | 3 (100) | 2 (66.7) | 1 (33.3) | 2/2 (2–2) |
| Guest house, N = 5 | 1 (20) | 4 (80) | 3 (60) | 2 (40) | 1.8/2 (0–3) |
| Bar, N = 14 | 7 (50) | 7 (50) | 4 (28.6) | 5 (35.7) | 1.1/0.5 (0–3) |
| Brothel, N = 5 | 4 (80) | 1 (20) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0.2/0 (0–1) |
| Guest house and bar, N = 4 | 3 (75) | 1 (25) | 1 (25) | 1 (25.0) | 0.8/0 (0–3) |
| Restaurant and bar, N = 6 | 0 (0) | 5 (83.3) | 5 (83.3) | 6 (100) | 2.7/3 (1–3) |
| Guest house and restaurant and bar, N = 8 | 1 (12.5) | 5 (62.5) | 5 (62.5) | 5 (62.5) | 1.9/2 (0–3) |
| Total (% of 45) | 16 (35.6%) | 26 (57.8%) | 20 (44.4%) | 20 (44.4%) | 1.5/2 (0–3) |
*WASH conditions for street based sex work were assessed for the nearest location at which FSW had an agreement that they could use the facilities. These were (one was restaurant without bar and latrine was within building, the other two were bars with lodges and the latrines were within the premises), though sex work (solicitation, sex acts) was not reported to take place at these locations.