Table A2.
Demographic and socio-economic characteristics by tier of sex work, Liuzhou FSWs recruited in the RDS sample, V-H adjusted proportions and means [% CI](a)
| Tier | Total | High tier | Middle tier | Low tier | Not venue-based |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unweighted N | 576 | 250 | 268 | 27 | 31 |
| Total proportions | 100 | 32.7 [5.8, 55.7] | 54.5 [30.9, 58.1] | 5.5 [3.6, 10.2] | 7.3 [3.5, 33.2] |
| Median ntwk size(b) | 10 | 15 | 8 | 8 | 6 |
| Age group | |||||
| 15-24 | 42.8 [13.0, 50.8] | 84.7 [70.7, 90.7] | 31.3 [22.7, 40.8] | 0 | 0 |
| 25-35 | 42.9 [34.6, 52.9] | 12.6 [7.7, 24.5] | 59.8 [50.3, 69.1] | 14.1 [2.7, 69.7] | 30.1 [10.5, 81.2] |
| 36+ | 14.3 [10.4, 40.0] | 2.8 [0, 8.0] | 8.9 [3.7, 14.4] | 85.9 [30.3, 97.3] | 69.9 [18.8, 89.5] |
| Education | |||||
| ≤ Primary | 25.3 [15.0, 60.9] | 6.7 [2.6, 13.2] | 31.7 [24.0, 39.5] | 84.2 [35.8, 100] | 38.4 [5.3, 61.4] |
| Junior high | 57.1 [15.7, 61.8] | 55.4 [46.1, 65.3] | 58.9 [51.3, 67.2] | 13.1 [0, 44.5] | 57.3 [34.9, 89.8] |
| Senior high | 17.5 [14.8, 58.7] | 37.9 [27.1, 47.6] | 9.4 [4.7, 14.5] | 2.7 [0, 32.0] | 4.3 [0, 13.3] |
| Marital status | |||||
| Not married | 62.2 [17.8, 55.3] | 92.5 [85.2, 96.7] | 53.7 [44.7, 63.5] | 3.3 [0, 12.3] | 29.4 [10.0, 69.0] |
| Married/cohabiting | 13.8 [16.7, 54.3] | 1.4 [0.2, 3.6] | 22.4 [14.2, 31.3] | 4.8 [0, 16.3] | 9.4 [0, 24.7] |
| Divorced/Widowed | 24.0 [18.3, 55.5] | 6.2 [2.1, 12.7] | 23.9 [16.3, 31.5] | 91.9 [77.5, 100] | 61.3 [22.6, 82.9] |
| Monthly income (RMB) | |||||
| ≤2,000(=USD 315) | 30.3 [11.0, 56.5] | 5.4 [1.2, 11.2] | 39.4 [30.8, 48.3] | 83.8 [48.9, 97.1] | 52.6 [22.2, 75.0] |
| 2,000-6,000 | 45.0 [11.7, 57.2] | 43.2 [32.1, 55.2] | 47.8 [39.5, 55.9] | 16.2 [2.9, 51.1] | 44.3 [18.4, 72.6] |
| >6000(=USD 1,000) | 24.7 [14.2, 56.8] | 51.4 [39.2, 62.6] | 12.7 [7.3, 19.6] | 0 | 3.1 [0, 19.3] |
| Number of clients last month | |||||
| ≤15 | 55.2 [44.7, 55.1] | 70.6 [52.8, 79.5] | 48.9 [39.4, 58.8] | 29.3 [0, 68.0] | 70.8 [53.4, 89.8] |
| >15 | 44.8 [44.9, 55.3] | 29.4 [20.5, 47.2] | 51.1 [41.2, 60.6] | 70.7 [32.0, 100] | 29.2 [10.2, 4 6.6] |
| History of syphilis infection (screening test) | |||||
| Positive | 8.0 [4.3, 10.5] | 3.7 [0.7, 8.9] | 2.8 [1.0, 4.7] | 69.8 [21.4, 82.1] | 42.2 [5.0, 65.6] |
| Negative | 85.5 [4.7, 86.6] | 90.5 [83.5, 95.2] | 90.2 [84.6, 95.0] | 29.2 [14.3, 72.5] | 52.2 [30.5, 87.2] |
| Rejected test | 6.5 [6.2, 89.1] | 5.8 [2.8, 10.3] | 7.1 [2.6, 12.6] | 1.0 [0, 28.3] | 5.6 [0, 17.6] |
Note: The sample size for all analyses in this table excludes the 7 seeds. High tier include FSW who solicit clients in karaoke bars, sauna or massage within star hotels, discos, night clubs; Middle tier include FSW working in hair salons, foot or body massage parlors, sauna and bathhouses; Low tier include FSW who solicit clients on the streets, parks, other public spaces and rented apartments; Not venue-based FSWs include women who reported telephone or private referral as the only mode of solicitation in the past six months.
Confidence intervals of V-H point estimates were generated using a modified bootstrap procedure similar to the one proposed by Salganik (2006), as presented in Weir et al. 2012 and Yamanis et al. 2013.
Medians are unadjusted