Table 1.

Socio-demographics, social rights, human rights violations, and health care indicators among FSW. Brazil, 2016

Variables	n	Percentage (%)	95% CI
Socio-demographics
Age group
18–29	2110	49.7	47.6–51.8
30–39	1118	26.3	24.6–28.1
40–49	650	15.3	13.9–16.8
50+	367	8.6	7.6–9.8
Educational level
Incomplete elementary school	626	14.9	13.5–16.4
Incomplete high school	1386	32.9	31.1–34.8
Complete high school	1096	26.0	24.3–27.8
Incomplete college or more	1104	26.2	24.5–28.0
Belonging to FSW NGO
Yes	326	7.8	6.8–8.9
No	3859	92.2	91.1–93.2
Human Rights violations
Required to give a percentage of their earnings to owner of the establishment
Yes	524	12.5	11.1–13.9
No	3681	87.5	86.1–88.9
Required to give a percentage of their earnings to a pimp
Yes	175	4.2	3.4–5.0
No	4026	95.8	95.0–96.6
Started sex work under 18 years old
Yes	1628	38.7	36.7–40.7
No	2580	61.3	59.3–63.3
The workplace required periodic HIV testing
Yes	265	6.3	5.4–7.4
No	3934	93.7	92.6–94.6
Health service utilization
Regular source of care
Does not have one	1193	29.0	27.2–30.9
Primary health care	2588	62.9	60.9–64.9
Public specialized health care	101	2.5	1.9–3.2
Private health care	230	5.6	4.8–6.5
Had Pap smear exam in
Less than 1 year ago	1315	31.5	29.7–33.3
1 to less 2 years ago	837	20.0	18.5–21.6
2 to less than 3 years ago	454	10.9	9.6–12.3
3 years or more ago	772	18.5	17.0–20.1
Never	802	19.2	17.7–20.8
Had HIV testing in
Less than 1 year ago	1642	39.3	37.4–41.2
1 year or more ago	1592	38.1	36.2–40.0
Never	946	22.6	21.0–24.3
Awareness of PEPa
Yes	1299	31.1	29.3–33.3
No	2880	68.9	67.0–70.7
Risk exposure in the past 6 months with PEP indicationb
Yes	2079	49.6	47.6–51.5
No	2116	50.4	48.5–52.4
PEP use among FSW exposed to risk
Yes	172	8.3	6.8–10.0
No	1907	91.7	90.0–93.2

^aPEP: post exposure prophylaxis

^b Condom broke, burst, slid at least once or was forced to have sex without a condom or the condom was removed during sex without permission at least once over the past 6 months