Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2021 May 6;16(5):e0250117. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0250117

Sexually transmitted infections and factors associated with risky sexual practices among female sex workers: A cross sectional study in a large Andean city

Luz Marina Llangarí-Arizo 1,2,3,*, S Tariq Sadiq 4,5,#, Cynthia Márquez 1,#, Philip Cooper 1,5,#, Martina Furegato 4,#, Liqing Zhou 4,5,, Luisa Aranha 6,, Miguel Martín Mateo 1,2,3,, Natalia Romero-Sandoval 1,3,
Editor: Andrew R Dalby7
PMCID: PMC8101946  PMID: 33956840

Abstract

Background

There are limited published data on factors related to risky sexual practices (RSP) affecting sexually transmitted infections (STIs) among female sex workers (FSWs) in Ecuador.

Methods

Cross-sectional study of FSWs presenting for a consultation in a primary health care centre during 2017. A questionnaire was administered to collect information on RSP and potential risk factors including age, membership of an FSW association, self-report of previous STI diagnosis, previous treatment for suspected STI and temporary migration for sex work. Associations between RSP and potential risk factors were estimated by logistic regression. The proportion of STI was estimated from vaginal swabs by real-time PCR for four sexually transmitted pathogens (Neisseria gonorrhoeae, Trichomonas vaginalis, Chlamydia trachomatis, and Mycoplasma genitalium).

Results

Of 249 FSWs recruited, 22.5% had reported RSPs at least once during sex work. Among FSWs reporting unprotected vaginal sex in the previous three months, 25.5% had at least one other RSP type. 17.6% (95%CI 13.3–22.8) had at least one active STI. Prevalence of co-infections was 2.4% (95%CI 1.1–5.2). In multivariable analysis, RSP was associated with age (adjusted OR 1.06; 95%CI 1.02–1.10), membership of an FSWs association (aOR 3.51; 95%CI 1.60–7.72) and self-reported previous STI (aOR 3.43; 95%CI 1.28–9.17).

Conclusions

Among a population of female sex workers with high proportion of STIs, increasing age and belonging to an FSWs association was associated with a higher likelihood of engaging in RSP with clients. Engaging with FSWs organisations may reduce the burden of STI among sex workers.

Introduction

An estimated 376 million new infections worldwide occur annually with one of four sexually transmitted infections (STIs): chlamydia, gonorrhoea, syphilis and trichomoniasis [1]. In addition, for gonorrhoea, there has been a significant increase in global prevalence of antimicrobial resistance (AMR), particularly to fluoroquinolones and azithromycin as well as worrying emergence of AMR to extended spectrum cephalosporins [2]. Importantly, less is currently known about AMR in South America.

Risky sexual practices (RSP) are defined as any sexual activity that increases the risk of contracting STIs [3]. This may involve sexual activity with multiple partners, inconsistent condom use, having sex under the influence of drugs, or initiating sexual activity before the age of 18 years [4]. Female sex workers (FSWs), due to the dynamic of sex work and other individual and social circumstances, face several factors that make them vulnerable to RSP and therefore to STIs. Previous studies show that age, migration for sex work, place of soliciting clients or place where FSW engage in sex and community organization are associated with RSP [58]. On the other hand, some studies mention that a prior history of STI could be an indicator of RSP [9, 10]. In Ecuador, previously published data on RSP and STIs risk have focused largely on HIV infection [11, 12], men who have sex with men [13, 14] or transgender persons [15] while information for female sex workers (FSWs) is outdated and limited [16, 17]. In developing countries there are few health programs in sex work environments coupled with limited STI surveillance and weak or non-existent structural approaches to RSP [18, 19].

Sex work is legal in Ecuador where it operates either outdoors or within closed establishments (known as “casas de tolerancia” [20, 21] or brothels. All brothels must be licensed, and FSWs, to work within such brothels, must obtain an “Integral Health Carnet” (IHC), an occupational license provided by the Ministry of Health that registers medical care, screening tests and vaccines, as well as educational and prevention activities, that is valid for 1 month. To obtain and maintain a validated IHC, FSWs must be over 18 years and regularly test negative for syphilis and HIV [22].

FSWs’ occupational associations aim to support occupational rights and to protect against violence and police harassment mainly when the work is on the street [21]. Sex work is present throughout the country but is concentrated in large cities where it is a major social and health issue related to poverty [20].

Exploring factors related to RSP is important because this information can be biased or limited due to the stigma and discrimination that exists around sex work: better knowledge of RSP among FSWs helps to improve the effectiveness of prevention programs.

In the present study, we analysed potential factors associated with RSP among FSWs in the Andean city of Quito. The specific objectives of this study were to identify factors related to unprotected oral, vaginal, or anal intercourse and to estimate the proportion of common STIs (gonorrhoea, trichomonas, chlamydia, and Mycoplasma genitalium) in a population of FSWs. These pathogens were considered together because of shared symptomatology and to provide a broader view of the potential public health consequences of RSP.

Materials and methods

Study design and sample collection

A descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted among FSWs over 18 years of age in a primary health centre in Quito, a large Andean City, during the last quarter of 2017. The women were enrolled using a convenience sample.

Women attending for a health check-up at a public clinic required for validation of their IHC to allow them to continue to engage in sex work. In addition, women members of an association of FSWs were contacted through visits to their workplaces (streets and “casas de tolerancia”) and asked to attend the same clinic for evaluation. FSWs where excluded if they attended the medical consultation more than once, if pregnant or if unwilling to provide questionnaire data. All participants provided written informed consent and none of them received any compensation for their participation. On each sample collection day all FSWs attending the clinic and willing to participate were enrolled consecutively prior to their medical consultation. A single study identifier was used to link questionnaire with the biological samples.

The number of female sex workers who agreed to participate, 249, makes it possible to estimate an expected prevalence of, 20% + -5%.

Participants were interviewed by a local study investigator (LMLLA) using a questionnaire designed for the study, provided as a S2 File.

Variables

Included variables were age, membership of an FSW association, whether participants had temporarily left the city for sex work, self-report of being previously diagnosed with an STI (gonorrhoea, trichomonas, chlamydia, syphilis) and previous treatment (oral antibiotics, ‘pain pills’, vaginal ovules and creams) for suspected STI or genital infection at some point during sex work prescribed by a physician, having previously chronic pelvic pain at least once during their sex work, and number of medical and health-related consultations in the previous year.

The variable of interest in this study is RSP that was defined as having oral (UPOS), vaginal (UPVS), or anal (UPAS) intercourse without a condom at some point during sex work and during last three months.

Clinical samples collection and DNA preparation

A vulvo-vaginal sample was collected using Xpert® CT/NG patient-collected Vaginal Swab Specimen Collection kit (Cepheid), in addition to that required for routine clinical evaluation. DNA was extracted using the PureLink Genomic DNA Mini Kit (Thermo Fisher Scientific) according to manufacturer´s instructions. The quantity and quality of the DNA were measured by spectrophotometry, using the Nanodrop ND-1000 (Thermo Scientific).

PCR screening for STI

Real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) was done for N. gonorrhoeae, T. vaginalis, C. trachomatis and M. genitalium. Gene targets and primers for PCR detection are shown in S1 Table. RT-PCR was done using Applied Biosystems 7500 Fast Real Time PCR System in a volume of 10 μl/reaction containing 5μl of Taqman Fast Universal PCR Master Mix, 1μl of 10x Exogenous Internal Positive Control (IPC) Mix, 0.2 ul 50x IPC DNA, 250 nM each of the primers, 100 Nm each of the probes and 50 ng of templates DNA. The cycling parameters were 95°C for 10 min, followed by 40 cycles of 95°C for 15 s. 60°C for 1 min.

Currently diagnosed with an STI was defined as having at least one positive reaction for any of the 4 pathogens and co-infection was defined as detection of two or more pathogens. Four samples were insufficient for PCR and these individuals were excluded from the estimation of the proportion.

Statistical analysis

Data entry and analysis were done using IBM® SPSS® version 24 computer software. Comparisons of age by FSW membership of an association and RSP was done using t-tests. A p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Univariate and multivariable logistic regression models were used to explore associations between RSP and potential factors.

Ethical considerations

The study was conducted according to the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Ethical Committee of Universidad Internacional del Ecuador (02-02-17).

Results

Demographic and social characteristics

Of 251 FSWs invited, 249 consented to participate. Median age of participants was 35 years (range 18–61 years). Among participants, mean age was higher in those that belonged to a FSW association (78/249; 31.3%) compared to those not belonging (40.1 years vs. 32.9, p<0.001) but was similar among those reporting that they temporarily migrate for sex work (79/249; 31.7%) compared to those who did not (34.1 years vs 35.6; p> 0.05). 24 (9.6%) self-reported a previous STI diagnosis at least once during their sex work (Table 1); previous gonorrhoea was reported by 13(5.3%), trichomoniasis by 6 (2.4%), chlamydia by 5 (2.0%) and syphilis by 6 (2.4%) participants. About twenty five percent of respondents had previous chronic pelvic pain. 185 (74.3%) declared treatment for an STI at least once during their sex work. 34 (13.7%) had only one medical visit in the last year including this study visit while approximately 50% reported between nine and eleven consultations which they received at least one of the following health-related services: information about STIs; examination or treatment for STIs symptoms; HIV test and prevention information, and receipt of free condoms and instructions on their use.

Table 1. Background characteristics of female sex workers, Quito, 2017.

Background Characteristics % or Mean Number
Age (in years) 35.2
Membership of an FSWs association 31.3 78
Self-report of a previous STI diagnosis 9.6 24
Currently diagnosed with an STI 17.3 43
Previous treatment for suspected STI 74.3 185
Temporary migration for sex work 31.7 79
Risk sexual practices (RSP) 22.5 56

Risky sexual practices (RSP)

Fifty-six (22.5%; 95% CI 17.8–28.6) FSWs reported engaging in RSP at least once during sex work. Among the 196 women who declared protected vaginal sex, three had some RSP: 1/196 (0.5%) UPAS and 3 (1.5%) UPOS. The mean age for those in the RSP group was greater than those in the non-RSP group (40.8 vs. 33.5 years, p<0.001).

In the last three months, 47/53 (88.7%) women who reported having vaginal sex had UPVS, 7/8 (87.5%) women who reported anal sex had UPAS and 12/12 (100%) women who reported oral sex had UPOS. Of the FSWs that reported UPVS in the last three months, 12/47 (25.5%) had at least one other RSP: 7/47 (14.9%) UPAS and 9/47 (19.1%) UPOS.

Vulvo-vaginal proportion of STI

Of the 245 vulvo-vaginal samples, positivity rates were: N. gonorrhoeae (NG) 1.2% (95%CI 0.4–3.5), T. vaginalis (TV) 9.8% (95%CI 6.7–14.2), C. trachomatis (CT) 4.9% (95%CI 2.8–8.4), and M. genitalium (MG) 4.9% (95%CI 2.8–8.4). Overall, 17.6% (95%CI 13.3–22.8) of FSWs had at least one STI. Co-infection was detected in 2.4% (95%CI 1.1–5.2) and they were: 2 CT/TV, CT/NG, NG/TV, CT/NG/TV, and CT/TV/MG. Of all women currently infected, four (9.3%) reported having had any STI in the past.

Factors associated with RSP

Univariate analyses factors showed significant association between RSP with age, membership of an FSWs association, self-report of a previous STI diagnosis and currently diagnosed with an STI. Previous treatment for suspected STI and temporary migration for sex work were not significant. In multivariable analysis showed that age (adjusted OR 1.06, 95%CI 1.02–1.10), membership of an FSW association (aOR 3.51; 95% CI 1.60–7.72) and self-report of a previous STI diagnosis (aOR 3.43 95% CI 1.28–9.17) remained significant Table 2.

Table 2. Univariate and multivariable analysis of factors associated with RSP among FSWs of this study.

Variables n (%) Crude OR 95% CI p- value Adjusted OR 95% CI p- value
Age Mean, 35.2 years 1.09 1.05–1.13 <0.01 1.06 1.02–1.10 0.002
Membership of an FSWs association 78 31.3 4.26 2.28–7.94 <0.01 3.51 1.60–7.72 0.002
Self-report of a previous STI diagnosis 24 9,6 5.00 2.10–11.92 <0.01 3.43 1.28–9.17 0.01
Currently diagnosed with an STI 43 17.3 2.16 1.06–4.40 0.03 1.29 0.57–2.94 0.54
Previous treatment for suspected STI 185 74.3 0.83 0.42–1.61 0.577 1.25 0.56–2.78 0.59
Temporary migration for sex work 79 31.7 1.09 0.57–2.06 0.802 1.80 0.83–3.93 0.14

Discussion

In the present study, we set out to improve our understanding of risky sexual practices (RSP), understood to mean genital or extragenital sexual intercourse without a condom, among a group of FSWs working in poor areas in central Quito, a large Andean city. Almost one in four FSWs participating in this study reported RSP, and among the FSWs that reported unprotected vaginal sex in the last three months, 25.5% had at least one other RSP type.

This study reported that RSP was independently and positively associated with age, membership of an FSW association and previous STI diagnosis. Risk by age increased 1.06 odds for each year and is consistent with previous studies reporting older FSWs to be more likely to engage in RSP to attract clients [5, 23].

Previous studies have reported that FSWs belonging to an association, support networks or peer groups are better at negotiating use of condoms with clients [24]; however, the results of our study showed that belonging to an FSWs’ association increased the likelihood of engaging in RSP independently of age. This could be explained by the fact that FSWs belonging to the association are more likely to be engaged in informal sex work on the street and consequently have a reduced capacity to negotiate condom use [21, 25] to attract clients. Enforcing condom use is probably easier in the more ‘regulated’ and protected environment of brothels [8]. In this study, the main role of the FSWs’ association was to protect unregulated working spaces in cities [20, 21] and no to ensure implementation of effective preventive health education messages. Therefore, it is important to focus on these particularities of sex worker groups to improve STI prevention programs.

In this study, temporary migrations between cities, that serve to obtain more clients and income, were not affected by age, and did not affect RSP. Other studies show that some mobile FSWs groups are unable to turn away clients for unprotected sex [5, 6].

This study observed that a self-report of a previous STI diagnosis was associated with RSP but a previous STI treatment was not. The discrepancies may be due to recall bias or social desirability bias related to self-reporting of STIs. Nevertheless, information about STI diagnosis could be an indirect indicator of unprotected sexual behaviour [9].

The inconsistent condom uses in FSWs increase the risk of contracting STI through multiple factors including a large number of sexual partners, unsafe working conditions, and barriers to negotiation a consistent condom use [26]. Moreover, their vulnerability is exacerbated by the social and health inequalities which they face [27, 28].

In this study, the proportion of N. gonorroheae (1.2%) and C. trachomatis (4.9%) was lower than the reported in previous studies in Mexico (2.9% and 15.3%) [29] and Perú (1.6% and 16.4%) [30]. Regarding, the proportion of T. vaginalis (9.8%), it was higher than the rates reported in Peru (7.9%) [30], China (2.1%) [31] and Iran (6.1%) [32]. We observed a proportion of M. genitalium of 4.9%, somewhat lower than a 15.9% estimated among FSWs worldwide from a meta-analysis of studies between 1991 and 2016 [33]. To our knowledge, this is the first estimate of STI proportion in a group of FSWs in Ecuador using a highly sensitive molecular method (RT-PCR). Because of the sampling method, our study findings are not necessarily representative of the entire population of FSWs. The low relatively proportion of STIs observed here could indicate the importance of regulating and legalizing sex work and allowing FSWs access to health services. However, more data are needed to understand better the different elements of sex work at both city and country levels.

The study had several potential limitations. Because all participants were FSWs attending a state health clinic for validation of their IHC, there may have been reduced heterogeneity with respect to potential risk factors. We did not study various risk factors that might have underestimated RSP such as sexual behaviour with stable or occasional non-paying partners, educational level, and alcohol or drug use [23]. The study recruited FSWs attending health clinics for IHC validation potentially leading in bias resulting from pressure to provide ‘correct’ responses [34]. There was also potential selection bias as a significant number of FSWs, not represented in this sample, are thought to engage informally in RSP without IHCs. Finally, the findings of this study may not be generalizable to FSWs working outside Quito in smaller cities and towns, where FSWs tend to be less organized and more vulnerable and consequently may have higher rates of RSPs.

Conclusions

In Quito, older FSWs, previously diagnosed with an STI and belonging to an FSW association, are more likely to engage in RSP with their clients. This study provides new information about the current proportion of STIs in FSW. Our data provide surprising and important elements that will inform and strengthen the capacity of public health interventions to reduce RSP and impact of STI among FSWs, key factors to improve their sexual health.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Gene targets and primers used for current diagnosed of STIs in this study.

(DOCX)

S1 Data

(XLSX)

S1 File. Regression model.

(PDF)

S2 File. Questionnaire English and Spanish version.

(PDF)

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the FSWs associations for supporting the development of this study.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting information files.

Funding Statement

This study was supported by a grant from the University Internacional del Ecuador [Grant Number UIDE-EDM04-2016-2017] https://www.uide.edu.ec/, Wellcome Trust Institutional Strategic Support Fund https://wellcome.org/what-we-do/our-work/institutional-strategic-support-fund and St George’s, University of London https://www.sgul.ac.uk/. The funders had no role in the study design, data collection, and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.WHO. Report on global sexually transmitted infection surveillance 2018. 2018;978-92-4-156569-11. WHO | Report on global sexually transmitted infection surveillance 2018. In: WHO [Internet]. World Health Organization; [cited 23 Apr 2020]. http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/stis-surveillance-2018/en/
  • 2.Wi T, Lahra MM, Ndowa F, Bala M, Dillon J-AR, Ramon-Pardo P, et al. Antimicrobial resistance in Neisseria gonorrhoeae: Global surveillance and a call for international collaborative action. PLOS Medicine. 2017;14: e1002344. 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002344 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Muche AA, Kassa GM, Berhe AK, Fekadu GA. Prevalence and determinants of risky sexual practice in Ethiopia: Systematic review and Meta-analysis. Reprod Health. 2017;14. 10.1186/s12978-017-0376-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Folch C, Álvarez JL, Casabona J, Brotons M, Castellsagué X. Determinantes de las conductas sexuales de riesgo en jovenes de Cataluña. Revista Española de Salud Pública. 2015;89: 471–485. 10.4321/S1135-57272015000500005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Mahapatra B, Lowndes CM, Mohanty SK, Gurav K, Ramesh BM, Moses S, et al. Factors Associated with Risky Sexual Practices among Female Sex Workers in Karnataka, India. PLOS ONE. 2013;8: e62167. 10.1371/journal.pone.0062167 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Sinha S. “Flying” Female Sex Workers Perceptions of HIV Risk and NGOs Sexual Health Outreach Projects: A Case Study of HIV Prevention in Kolkata, India. Affilia. 2014;29: 206–223. 10.1177/0886109913516450 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Bharat S, Mahapatra B, Roy S, Saggurti N. Are Female Sex Workers Able to Negotiate Condom Use with Male Clients? The Case of Mobile FSWs in Four High HIV Prevalence States of India. PLOS ONE. 2013;8: e68043. 10.1371/journal.pone.0068043 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Jain AK, Saggurti N. The Extent and Nature of Fluidity in Typologies of Female Sex Work in Southern India: Implications for HIV Prevention Programs. J HIV AIDS Soc Serv. 2012;11: 169–191. 10.1080/15381501.2012.678136 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Folch C, Casabona J, Sanclemente C, Esteve A, González V. Tendencias de la prevalencia del VIH y de las conductas de riesgo asociadas en mujeres trabajadoras del sexo en Cataluña. Gaceta Sanitaria. 2014;28: 196–202. 10.1016/j.gaceta.2013.11.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Onoya D, Zuma K, Zungu N, Shisana O, Mehlomakhulu V. Determinants of multiple sexual partnerships in South Africa. Journal of Public Health. 2015;37: 97–106. 10.1093/pubmed/fdu010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Cabezas MC, Fornasini M, Dardenne N, Borja T, Albert A. A cross-sectional study to assess knowledge about HIV/AIDS transmission and prevention measures in company workers in Ecuador. BMC Public Health. 2013;13: 139. 10.1186/1471-2458-13-139 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Beckman AL, Wilson MM, Prabhu V, Soekoe N, Mata H, Grau LE. A qualitative view of the HIV epidemic in coastal Ecuador. PeerJ. 2016;4: e2726. 10.7717/peerj.2726 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Solomon MM, Nureña CR, Tanur JM, Montoya O, Grant RM, McConnell J. Transactional sex and prevalence of STIs: a cross-sectional study of MSM and transwomen screened for an HIV prevention trial. Int J STD AIDS. 2015;26: 879–886. 10.1177/0956462414562049 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Hernandez I, Reina-Ortiz M, Johnson A, Rosas C, Sharma V, Teran S, et al. Risk Factors Associated With HIV Among Men Who Have Sex With Men (MSM) in Ecuador. Am J Mens Health. 2017;11: 1331–1341. 10.1177/1557988316646757 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Solomon MM, Mayer KH, Glidden DV, Liu AY, McMahan VM, Guanira JV, et al. Syphilis predicts HIV incidence among men and transgender women who have sex with men in a preexposure prophylaxis trial. Clinical Infectious Diseases. 2014;59: 1020–1026. 10.1093/cid/ciu450 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Gutiérrez JP, Molina-Yépez D, Samuels F, Bertozzi SM. Uso inconsistente del condón entre trabajadoras sexuales en ecuador: resultados de una encuesta de comportamientos. salud pública de méxico. 2006;48: 104–112. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Solomon MM, Smith MJ, Del Rio C. Low educational level: a risk factor for sexually transmitted infections among commercial sex workers in Quito, Ecuador. International journal of STD & AIDS. 2008;19: 264–267. 10.1258/ijsa.2007.007181 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Dhana A, Luchters S, Moore L, Lafort Y, Roy A, Scorgie F, et al. Systematic review of facility-based sexual and reproductive health services for female sex workers in Africa. Global Health. 2014;10: 46. 10.1186/1744-8603-10-46 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Kinsler JJ, Blas MM, Cabral A, Carcamo C, Halsey N, Brown B. Understanding STI Risk and Condom Use Patterns by Partner Type Among Female Sex Workers in Peru. Open AIDS J. 2014;8: 17–20. 10.2174/1874613601408010017 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Álvarez S, Sandoval M. El Trabajo Sexual en el Centro Histórico de Quito. Edited by Esteban Crespo; 2013. https://www.institutodelaciudad.com.ec/documentos/LibrosICQ/trabajosexualchq.pdf
  • 21.Jessica Meir V. Sex Work and the Politics of Space: Case Studies of Sex Workers in Argentina and Ecuador. Social Sciences. 2017;6: 42. 10.3390/socsci6020042 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.MSP. Atención Integral en Salud en personas que ejercen el trabajo sexual. Manual. 2017. https://aplicaciones.msp.gob.ec/salud/archivosdigitales/documentosDirecciones/dnn/archivosm/ac_0109_2017%20ago%2004.pdf
  • 23.Andrews CH, Faxelid E, Sychaerun V, Phrasisombath K. Determinants of consistent condom use among female sex workers in Savannakhet, Lao PDR. BMC Women’s Health. 2015;15: 63. 10.1186/s12905-015-0215-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Bhattacharjee P, Prakash R, Pillai P, Isac S, Haranahalli M, Blanchard A, et al. Understanding the role of peer group membership in reducing HIV-related risk and vulnerability among female sex workers in Karnataka, India. AIDS Care. 2013;25: S46–S54. 10.1080/09540121.2012.736607 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Kakchapati S, Singh DR, Rawal BB, Lim A. Sexual risk behaviors, HIV, and syphilis among female sex workers in Nepal. In: HIV/AIDS—Research and Palliative Care [Internet]. 27 January 2017. [cited 10 May 2018]. 10.2147/HIV.S123928 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Medhi GK, Mahanta J, Paranjape RS, Adhikary R, Laskar N, Ngully P. Factors associated with HIV among female sex workers in a high HIV prevalent state of India. AIDS Care. 2012;24: 369–376. 10.1080/09540121.2011.608787 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Teresita Rocha-Jiménez, Sonia Morales-Miranda, Carmen Fernández-Casanueva, Brouwer Kimberly C., Goldenberg Shira M. Stigma and unmet sexual and reproductive health needs among international migrant sex workers at the Mexico–Guatemala border. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics. 2018;0. 10.1002/ijgo.12441 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Baral S, Beyrer C, Muessig K, Poteat T, Wirtz AL, Decker MR, et al. Burden of HIV among female sex workers in low-income and middle-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis. The Lancet infectious diseases. 2012;12: 538–549. 10.1016/S1473-3099(12)70066-X [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Patterson TL, Strathdee SA, Semple SJ, Chavarin CV, Abramovitz D, Gaines TL, et al. Prevalence of HIV/STIs and correlates with municipal characteristics among female sex workers in 13 Mexican cities. Salud publica de Mexico. 2019;61: 116–124. 10.21149/8863 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Cárcamo CP, Campos PE, García PJ, Hughes JP, Garnett GP, Holmes KK. Prevalences of sexually transmitted infections in young adults and female sex workers in Peru: a national population-based survey. Lancet Infect Dis. 2012;12: 765–773. 10.1016/S1473-3099(12)70144-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Su S, Chow EPF, Muessig KE, Yuan L, Tucker JD, Zhang X, et al. Sustained high prevalence of viral hepatitis and sexually transmissible infections among female sex workers in China: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Infectious Diseases. 2016;16: 2. 10.1186/s12879-015-1322-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Karamouzian M, Nasirian M, Ghaffari Hoseini S, Mirzazadeh A. HIV and Other Sexually Transmitted Infections Among Female Sex Workers in Iran: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Arch Sex Behav. 2020;49: 1923–1937. 10.1007/s10508-019-01574-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Baumann L, Cina M, Egli-Gany D, Goutaki M, Halbeisen FS, Lohrer G-R, et al. Prevalence of Mycoplasma genitalium in different population groups: systematic review andmeta-analysis. Sexually transmitted infections. 2018;94: 255–262. 10.1136/sextrans-2017-053384 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Oral sex practices, oral human papillomavirus and correlations between oral and cervical human papillomavirus prevalence among female sex workers in Lima, Peru—B Brown, M M Blas, A Cabral, C Carcamo, P E Gravitt, N Halsey, 2011. [cited 23 May 2018]. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1258/ijsa.2011.010541?url_ver=Z39.88–2003&rfr_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub%3dpubmed [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]

Decision Letter 0

Andrew R Dalby

23 Dec 2020

PONE-D-20-32212

Sexually transmitted infections and behavioural factors associated with risky sexual practices among female sex workers: a cross sectional study in a large Andean city

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Llangarí,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

You need to address the methodological and statistical issues pointed out by the referees. There is also the question of the alignment of the conclusions to the aims and hypotheses in the paper as currently these are not in agreement. I suspect that some of these issues might be a question of translation.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 06 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Andrew R. Dalby, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please list the name and version of any software package used for statistical analysis, alongside any relevant references. For more information on PLOS ONE's expectations for statistical reporting, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines.#loc-statistical-reporting.

3. In your Methods section, please provide additional information about the participant recruitment method and the demographic details of your participants. Please ensure you have provided sufficient details to replicate the analyses such as:

- the recruitment date range (month and year)

- a description of any inclusion/exclusion criteria that were applied to participant recruitment

- a table of relevant demographic details

- a statement as to whether your sample can be considered representative of a larger population

- a description of how participants were recruited.

4. Please include additional information regarding the survey or questionnaire used in the study and ensure that you have provided sufficient details that others could replicate the analyses. For instance, if you developed a questionnaire as part of this study and it is not under a copyright more restrictive than CC-BY, please include a copy, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information.

5. In the Methods, please clarify that participants provided oral consent. Please also state in the Methods:

- Why written consent could not be obtained

- Whether the Institutional Review Board (IRB) approved use of oral consent

- How oral consent was documented

For more information, please see our guidelines for human subjects research: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This study aims to describe risk factors for risk factors for risky sexual practices and prevalence of STI in a population of female sex workers in Quito, Ecuador. This is an important and understudied topic but challenging to study due to the social standing and limited resources of this population. The authors should consider a major revision to the manuscript highlighting the major limitations of these data.

Major comments:

Study aims:

The study aims in this manuscript are not well described. Outlining specific aims and describing the variables and statistical analyses required for each aim will make the study much clearer. This appears to be a descriptive or exploratory study. If that is the case, this should be stated explicitly. Furthermore, the rationale for the exposures and outcomes in this study does not seem well supported. For example, why would previous STI be a risk factor for current risky sexual practices? Would the relationship be the other direction, with RSP causing STI? If the authors hypothesize previous STI lessens the risk of current RSP, this should be stated. In fact, justification for all associations tested should be included.

On the other hand, if this is solely a descriptive study, multivariable regression and other inferential statistics may not be appropriate. However, given this is a convenience sample, the authors have to be very cautious in their interpretations of prevalence.

Sampling:

The manuscript states a convenience sample was used and “cases were recruited through contacts with the association of sex workers in Quito.” There are several things that need to be clarified regarding the sampling methods. First, it is unclear why the word “cases” was used here as not everyone, presumably, was a case. Perhaps the authors intended to use the word participants. In addition, it is unclear how these female sex workers were recruited. More detail needs to be added, such as whether this was a snowball sampling method or something similar. Although these data may not exist, it would also be helpful to know how many women were approached and how many declined. Finally, what is meant by association of sex workers? Is this one organization to which registered all sex workers belong? If so, were all sex workers given an opportunity to participate? If not, what was the strategy for engaging this association? Did the researchers send a formal letter or approach the offices in person? In addition, the manuscript states samples were collected as the women attended a medical consultation required to validate their IHC during the last quarter of 2017. Does this mean only women who had a scheduled medical consultation during this time were eligible to participate? Were the samples collected as part of the routine exam or as an additional measure collected during the study? Much more detail is needed in this section.

Measurement of exposure and outcome:

More detail is needed regarding the collection of data on the exposures. Were they all collected via a self-reported questionnaire? Or were things like FSW association membership collected from other records? Why wasn’t previous STI validated with medical records if the women were attending a clinic? Were the medical records unavailable to the researchers? The authors mention in one sentence that they’re exploring variables associated with being a FSW and then elsewhere they discuss RSP as an outcome variable. Moreover, the authors have not presented a theoretical (or otherwise) justification for studying age or leaving the city for sex work as it relates to membership in a FWS organization.

STIs are associated with a great deal of stigma and may not be reported reliably. Self-reported RSP suffers from the same limitations. Social response/social desirability bias and recall bias may be of concern here. The authors mention this briefly in the limitations section of the conclusion but don’t discuss how this may impact their results. Would this be differential or non-differential misclassification? In other words, would those with STI be more or less likely to report RSP? This should be discussed.

Statistical methods:

As stated above, estimating prevalence from a convenience sample is highly problematic, particularly given we don’t know the characteristics of the entire population and whether these women are representative of all sex workers in Quito.

The authors need to provide more detail about how they conducted the regressions and how they constructed Table 1. Why are the n’s so much greater for some variables than the women who participated in the study? What variables were included in the adjusted OR? How were those variables selected? How was missingness of variables handled?

Finally, why were t tests for age only done for FSW membership and RSP? In addition, were homogeneity of variance and normality considered?

Conclusions:

The authors discuss how membership in an FSW may have affected their results as these sex workers are less likely to work in regulated brothels. This information should be in the introduction as it is important. Also, there is no discussion of why previous report of STI is associated with RSP but treatment for STI is not. Finally, the incidence of various STIs in this sample is somewhat low. This is good news. The authors should consider implications for practice/policy with regard to organized/legal sex work in the country as well as similar countries with legal sex work.

Minor comments:

There appear to be some word spacing and formatting issues throughout the manuscript. For example, sometimes there is a space between the citation and sometimes there is not. Also, some words have several spaces between them and others only one.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 May 6;16(5):e0250117. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0250117.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


23 Mar 2021

Academic editor comments

Comment 1: Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming.

Response 1: We appreciate the Academic editor comments. We have ensured the manuscript meets PLOS ONE´s style requirements.

Comment 2: Please list the name and version of any software package used for statistical analysis, alongside any relevant references.

Response 2: We have now added the name and version of the software package on Statistical analysis, page 6

Comment 3: In your Methods section, please provide additional information about the participant recruitment method and the demographic details of your participants. Please ensure you have provided sufficient details to replicate the analyses such as:

- the recruitment date range (month and year)

- a description of any inclusion/exclusion criteria that were applied to participant recruitment

- a table of relevant demographic details

- a statement as to whether your sample can be considered representative of a larger population

- a description of how participants were recruited.

Response 3: We have added additional information (Material and methods, page 5 and Results, pages 7,8)

Comment 4. Please include additional information regarding the survey or questionnaire used in the study and ensure that you have provided sufficient details that others could replicate the analyses. For instance, if you developed a questionnaire as part of this study and it is not under a copyright more restrictive than CC-BY, please include a copy, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information.

Response 4. We have included the questionary as Supporting information 4. The Data were added as Supporting information 3.

Comment 5. In the Methods, please clarify that participants provided oral consent. Please also state in the Methods:

- Why written consent could not be obtained

- Whether the Institutional Review Board (IRB) approved use of oral consent

- How oral consent was documented

Response 5: In the methods, page 5, we explain that “Written and oral informed consent was obtained from all participants”

Comments from reviewer #1

This study aims to describe risk factors for risk factors for risky sexual practices and prevalence of STI in a population of female sex workers in Quito, Ecuador. This is an important and understudied topic but challenging to study due to the social standing and limited resources of this population. The authors should consider a major revision to the manuscript highlighting the major limitations of these data.

Major comments:

Study aims:

Reviewer´s comment 1: The study aims in this manuscript are not well described. Outlining specific aims and describing the variables and statistical analyses required for each aim will make the study much clearer.

Response 1: We appreciate the reviewer´s positive comments. We have outlined specific aims on Introduction, page 4

Reviewer´s comment 2: This appears to be a descriptive or exploratory study. If that is the case, this should be stated explicitly. Furthermore, the rationale for the exposures and outcomes in this study does not seem well supported. For example, why would previous STI be a risk factor for current risky sexual practices? Would the relationship be the other direction, with RSP causing STI? If the authors hypothesize previous STI lessens the risk of current RSP, this should be stated. In fact, justification for all associations tested should be included.

Response 2: We have added information about the kind of study on Methods, page 5; information about associations on Introduction, page 3-4 and on Discussion, page 11 (information about diagnosis of STI could be an indirect indicator of RSP)

Reviewer´s comment 3: On the other hand, if this is solely a descriptive study, multivariable regression and other inferential statistics may not be appropriate. However, given this is a convenience sample, the authors have to be very cautious in their interpretations of prevalence.

Response 3: It is a multivariate descriptive that seeks association, does not seek causality. It was not the objective of the study to estimate rates at a national level, but rather to estimate proportion of STI in this population of female sex workers.

Sampling:

Reviewer´s comment 4: The manuscript states a convenience sample was used and “cases were recruited through contacts with the association of sex workers in Quito.” There are several things that need to be clarified regarding the sampling methods. First, it is unclear why the word “cases” was used here as not everyone, presumably, was a case. Perhaps the authors intended to use the word participants.

Response 4: We have added a statement that clarified convenience sampling on Methods, page 5. We have corrected de word “cases” by participants.

Reviewer´s comment 5: In addition, it is unclear how these female sex workers were recruited. More detail needs to be added, such as whether this was a snowball sampling method or something similar. Although these data may not exist, it would also be helpful to know how many women were approached and how many declined.

Response 5: We have added a statement that clarified convenience sampling on Methods, page 5 and we mentioned on the Results, page 7 “Of 251 FSWs invited, 249 consented to participate”

Reviewer´s comment 6: Finally, what is meant by association of sex workers? Is this one organization to which registered all sex workers belong? If so, were all sex workers given an opportunity to participate? If not, what was the strategy for engaging this association? Did the researchers send a formal letter or approach the offices in person?

Response 6: We explained what is a FSWs association on Introduction, page 5, added a statement on Methods, page 5 and on Discussion, page 11.

Reviewer´s comment 7: In addition, the manuscript states samples were collected as the women attended a medical consultation required to validate their IHC during the last quarter of 2017. Does this mean only women who had a scheduled medical consultation during this time were eligible to participate?

Response 7: The women who were eligible to participate were who attended to medical consultation and the women from FSW´s association.

Reviewer´s comment 8: Were the samples collected as part of the routine exam or as an additional measure collected during the study? Much more detail is needed in this section.

Response 8: An extra sample was collected during the routine exam. We added this information on Clinical samples collection and DNA preparation, page 6

Measurement of exposure and outcome:

More detail is needed regarding the collection of data on the exposures.

Reviewer´s comment 9: Were they all collected via a self-reported questionnaire? Or were things like FSW association membership collected from other records? Why wasn’t previous STI validated with medical records if the women were attending a clinic? Were the medical records unavailable to the researchers?

Response 9: On Methods, page 5. We wrote that “Participants were interviewed by a local study investigator (LMLLA) using a questionnaire”. We did not have access to medical records.

Reviewer´s comment 10: The authors mention in one sentence that they’re exploring variables associated with being a FSW and then elsewhere they discuss RSP as an outcome variable. Moreover, the authors have not presented a theoretical (or otherwise) justification for studying age or leaving the city for sex work as it relates to membership in a FWS organization.

Response 10: The outcome variable is RSP. We have clarified that there are factors related with RSP on Introduction, page 4 and Discussion, page 12

Reviewer´s comment 11: STIs are associated with a great deal of stigma and may not be reported reliably. Self-reported RSP suffers from the same limitations. Social response/social desirability bias and recall bias may be of concern here. The authors mention this briefly in the limitations section of the conclusion but don’t discuss how this may impact their results. Would this be differential or non-differential misclassification? In other words, would those with STI be more or less likely to report RSP? This should be discussed.

Response 11: We agree that the self- report about RSP could result in underreporting for that we suggest that ask regarding some aspects of STI is another way to get more reliable information about sexual behaviour. We have provided a statement on Discussion, page 12.

Reviewer´s comment 12:

Statistical methods:

As stated above, estimating prevalence from a convenience sample is highly problematic, particularly given we do not know the characteristics of the entire population and whether these women are representative of all sex workers in Quito.

Response 12. We have clarified that for the sampling method the results cannot be extrapolated to the entire FSW population. Discussion, page 13.

Reviewer´s comment 13: The authors need to provide more detail about how they conducted the regressions and how they constructed Table 1. Why are the n’s so much greater for some variables than the women who participated in the study? What variables were included in the adjusted OR? How were those variables selected? How was missingness of variables handled?

Response 13: There was a mistake in the Table’s format and the numbers in columns were joined. Correction was made.

This is a descriptive study; the model was not introduced step by step but with the entire block of variables. The selected variables correspond to a previous working hypothesis. Our variable of interest is RSP. We added the regression model as Supporting information.

We could not get the PCR information about four samples hence these were no considered in the STI’s proportion calculating. We have indicated this on Methods-PCR screening for STI, page 6

Reviewer´s comment 14: Finally, why were t tests for age only done for FSW membership and RSP? In addition, were homogeneity of variance and normality considered?

Response 14: The t test for age was performed for the other variables, but it was not significant. Although, the variable is not normal, the means are calculated by the Central Limit Theorem as normal. Using Levene's test, the homogeneity of variances was considered. Once the homogeneity of variances has been established, the t test is robust and detects differences when there are any.

Conclusions:

Reviewer´s comment 15: The authors discuss how membership in an FSW may have affected their results as these sex workers are less likely to work in regulated brothels. This information should be in the introduction as it is important.

Response 15: We have added a statement about the place of work of members of association. Introduction, page 4

Reviewer´s comment 16: Also, there is no discussion of why previous report of STI is associated with RSP but treatment for STI is not.

Response 16: The information about STI and RSP could be under-reported by recall bias leading in inaccurate response. We have added information on Discussion, page 12

Reviewer´s comment 17: Finally, the incidence of various STIs in this sample is somewhat low. This is good news. The authors should consider implications for practice/policy regarding organized/legal sex work in the country as well as similar countries with legal sex work.

Response 17: We have considered this on Discussion, page 13.

Minor comments:

Reviewer´s comment 18: There appear to be some word spacing and formatting issues throughout the manuscript. For example, sometimes there is a space between the citation and sometimes there is not. Also, some words have several spaces between them and others only one.

Response 18: We have revised that.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Respond to Reviewers_Llangari et-al_STI-FSW.docx

Decision Letter 1

Andrew R Dalby

31 Mar 2021

Sexually transmitted infections and factors associated with risky sexual practices among female sex workers: a cross sectional study in a large Andean city

PONE-D-20-32212R1

Dear Dr. Llangarí,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Andrew R. Dalby, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Andrew R Dalby

27 Apr 2021

PONE-D-20-32212R1

Sexually transmitted infections and factors associated with risky sexual practices among female sex workers: a cross sectional study in a large Andean city 

Dear Dr. Llangarí-Arizo:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Andrew R. Dalby

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Table. Gene targets and primers used for current diagnosed of STIs in this study.

    (DOCX)

    S1 Data

    (XLSX)

    S1 File. Regression model.

    (PDF)

    S2 File. Questionnaire English and Spanish version.

    (PDF)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Respond to Reviewers_Llangari et-al_STI-FSW.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting information files.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES