Table 2.
Number of male clients seen in an average working week among female sex workers by cases with oropharyngeal gonorrhea and controls (N=664).
|
|
Cases (n=83) | Controls (n=581) | P valuea | |||||
| Number of male clients seen in an average working week, median (IQR)b | 10 (5-15) | 10 (6-20) | .18 | |||||
| Tongue kissed male clients in an average working week, n (%) | .02 | |||||||
|
|
No | 9 (10.8) | 146 (25.1) |
|
||||
|
|
Yes | 51 (61.4) | 348 (59.9) |
|
||||
|
|
Declined to report | 23 (27.7) | 87 (15) |
|
||||
| Number of clients tongue kissed, median (IQR) | 2 (0-9) | 2 (0-6) | .17 | |||||
| Proportion of clients tongue kissed (%), median (IQR)c | 40 (10-90) | 50 (10-80) | .43 | |||||
| Perform fellatio on male clients in an average working week, n (%) | .05 | |||||||
|
|
No | 2 (2.4) | 54 (9.3) |
|
||||
|
|
Yes | 63 (75.9) | 447 (76.9) |
|
||||
|
|
Declined to report | 18 (21.7) | 80 (13.8) |
|
||||
| Number of clients performed fellatio on, median (IQR) | 5 (2-9) | 7 (2-14) | .12 | |||||
| Proportion of clients performed fellatio on (IQR)c | 90 (50-100) | 70 (30-99) | .02 | |||||
| Perform condomless fellatio on male clients in an average working week, n (%) | <.001 | |||||||
|
|
No | 17 (20.5) | 346 (59.6) |
|
||||
|
|
Yes | 48 (57.8) | 144 (24.8) |
|
||||
|
|
Declined to report | 18 (21.7) | 91 (15.7) |
|
||||
| Number of clients performed condomless fellatio on, median (IQR) | 1 (0-3) | 0 (0-0) | <.001 | |||||
| Proportion of clients performed condomless fellatio on (IQR)c | 50 (40-80) | 50 (20-90) | .29 | |||||
| Receive cunnilingus from male clients in an average working week, n (%) | .14 | |||||||
|
|
No | 5 (6) | 75 (12.9) |
|
||||
|
|
Yes | 57 (68.7) | 422 (72.6) |
|
||||
|
|
Declined to report | 21 (25.3) | 84 (14.5) |
|
||||
| Number of clients received cunnilingus from, median (IQR) | 3 (1-7) | 4 (1-8) | .62 | |||||
| Proportion of clients received cunnilingus from (%), median (IQR)c | 40 (10-50) | 50 (20-70) | .08 | |||||
| Vaginal sex with clients in an average working week, n (%) | .24 | |||||||
|
|
No | 9 (10.8) | 54 (9.3) |
|
||||
|
|
Yes | 45 (54.2) | 428 (73.7) |
|
||||
|
|
Declined to report | 29 (34.9) | 99 (17) |
|
||||
| Number of clients had vaginal sex with, median (IQR) | 5 (2-15) | 8 (3-15) | .11 | |||||
| Proportion of clients had vaginal sex with (IQR)c | 90 (60-100) | 95 (80-100) | .69 | |||||
| Condomless vaginal sex with clients in an average working week, n (%) | .03 | |||||||
|
|
No | 43 (51.8) | 392 (67.5) |
|
||||
|
|
Yes | 17 (20.5) | 78 (13.4) |
|
||||
|
|
Declined to report | 23 (27.7) | 111 (19.1) |
|
||||
| Number of clients had condomless vaginal sex with, median (IQR) | 0 (0-0) | 0 (0-0) | .001 | |||||
| Proportion of clients had condomless vaginal sex with (IQR)c | 20 (20-70) | 50 (10-90) | .37 | |||||
| Anal sex with clients in an average working week, n (%) | .40 | |||||||
|
|
No | 45 (54.2) | 395 (68) |
|
||||
|
|
Yes | 6 (7.2) | 77 (13.3) |
|
||||
|
|
Declined to report | 32 (38.6) | 109 (18.8) |
|
||||
| Number of clients had anal sex with, median (IQR) | 0 (0-0) | 0 (0-0) | .92 | |||||
| Proportion of clients had anal sex with (%), median (IQR)c | 35 (5-80) | 10 (5-30) | .21 | |||||
| Condomless anal sex with clients in an average working week, n (%) | .03 | |||||||
|
|
No | 8 (9.6) | 127 (21.9) |
|
||||
|
|
Yes | 10 (12) | 56 (9.6) |
|
||||
|
|
Declined to report | 65 (78.3) | 398 (68.5) |
|
||||
| Number of clients had condomless anal sex with, median (IQR)c | 0 (0-0) | 0 (0-0) | .37 | |||||
| Proportion of clients had condomless anal sex with (IQR)c | 100 (100-100) | 100 (99-100) | N/Ad | |||||
| Use sex toys with clients in an average working week, n (%) | .19 | |||||||
|
|
No | 41 (49.4) | 321 (55.2) |
|
||||
|
|
Yes | 12 (14.5) | 147 (25.3) |
|
||||
|
|
Declined to report | 30 (36.1) | 113 (19.4) |
|
||||
| Number of clients had sex with involving toys, median (IQR) | 0 (0-0) | 0 (0-0) | .57 | |||||
| Proportion of clients had sex with involving toys (IQR)c | 20 (10-50) | 10 (5-20) | .14 | |||||
aP values were calculated excluding those who declined to report each practice using the chi-square test for categorical variables and Mann-Whitney U test for continuous variables.
bThere were 15 cases and 71 controls who declined to report the number of clients and, thus, were excluded from this analysis.
cPartner number for each activity was calculated by multiplying the proportion of clients with whom they performed each activity by the total number of clients seen in an average working week.
dN/A: not applicable.