Table 1.
Descriptive characteristics of Zambian FSW in the study (n=419) comparing FSW who experienced client-initiated physical violence with those who did not
| Lifetime Violence | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total Sample (N=419) |
Yes (n=164) |
No (n=255) |
X2 | |
| n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | p-value | |
| Demographics | ||||
| Age | ||||
| 18–20 | 127 (30) | 52 (32) | 75 (29) | 0.497 |
| 21–25 | 142 (34) | 50 (30) | 92 (36) | |
| 26–45 | 150 (36) | 62 (38) | 78 (35) | |
| Education | ||||
| None | 35 (8) | 17 (11) | 18 (7) | 0.204 |
| Primary | 202 (48) | 71 (43) | 131 (51) | |
| Secondary or higher | 182 (44) | 76 (46) | 106 (42) | |
| Reason for entering sex work | ||||
| Financial | 354 (84) | 141 (86) | 213 (83) | 0.599 |
| Nothing to do | 11 (3) | 4 (2) | 7 (3) | |
| Peer pressure | 17 (4) | 4 (2) | 13 (5) | |
| Other | 37 (9) | 15 (10) | 22 (9) | |
| Sexual History | ||||
| Age at first sex | ||||
| ≤13 | 78 (19) | 24 (15) | 54 (21) | 0.288 |
| 14–15 | 134 (32) | 59 (36) | 75 (30) | |
| 16–19 | 174 (41) | 69 (42) | 105 (41) | |
| 20+ | 33 (8) | 12 (7) | 21 (8) | |
| Age at entry into sex work*n=2 | ||||
| ≤16 | 153 (36) | 62 (38) | 91 (36) | 0.798 |
| 17–19 | 146 (35) | 58 (35) | 88 (34) | |
| 20+ | 120 (29) | 44 (27) | 76 (30) | |
| Number of years in sex work*n=3 | ||||
| 1–3 | 140 (34) | 55 (34) | 85 (34) | 0.999 |
| 4–6 | 125 (30) | 50 (30) | 75 (30) | |
| 7–9 | 63 (15) | 25 (15) | 38 (15) | |
| 10+ | 85 (21) | 34 (21) | 51 (21) | |
| Sexual debut*n=1 | ||||
| Willingly | 293 (70) | 106 (65) | 187 (73) | 0.027 |
| Pressured verbally | 56 (13) | 21 (13) | 35 (14) | |
| Forced physically | 69 (17) | 37 (24) | 32 (13) | |
| Environment | ||||
| City | ||||
| Ndola | 271 (65) | 98 (60) | 173 (68) | 0.091 |
| Lusaka | 148 (35) | 66 (40) | 82 (32) | |
| Venue of recruitment (yes vs. no) | ||||
| Bar/Nightclub | 399 (95) | 158 (96) | 241 (95) | 0.391 |
| Street | 212 (51) | 96 (59) | 116 (45) | 0.009 |
| Lodge/Hotel*n=1 | 135 (32) | 61 (37) | 74 (29) | 0.085 |
| Where FSW lives | 64 (15) | 28 (17) | 36 (14) | 0.406 |
| Venue of sex work (yes vs. no) | ||||
| Where FSW lives*n=2 | 121 (29) | 54 (33) | 67 (26) | 0.138 |
| Where client lives | 178 (42) | 92 (56) | 86 (34) | 0.001 |
| Lodge/Hotel | 315 (75) | 129 (79) | 186 (73) | 0.186 |
| Car | 97 (23) | 49 (30) | 48 (19) | 0.009 |
| Outside | 109 (26) | 47 (29) | 62 (24) | 0.322 |
| Behaviour | ||||
| Ever use alcohol*n=3 | ||||
| No | 91 (22) | 27 (17) | 64 (25) | 0.040 |
| Yes | 325 (78) | 135 (83) | 190 (75) | |
| Number of clients in previous month*n=61 | ||||
| ≤8 | 131 (36) | 40 (30) | 91 (40) | 0.160 |
| 9–19 | 128 (36) | 53 (40) | 75 (33) | |
| 20+ | 99 (28) | 39 (30) | 60 (27) | |
| Sexual health screening | ||||
| Condom use with clients in previous month | ||||
| Always | 85 (20) | 32 (19) | 53 (21) | 0.012 |
| Sometimes | 238 (57) | 106 (65) | 132 (52) | |
| Never | 96 (23) | 26 (16) | 70 (27) | |
| Syphilis*n=11 | 40 (10) | 12 (7) | 28 (11) | |
| Negative | 368 (90) | 149 (93) | 219 (89) | 0.197 |
| Positive | 40 (10) | 12 (7) | 28 (11) | |
| Trichomonas vaginalis*n=15 | ||||
| Negative | 370 (92) | 145 (92) | 225 (91) | 0.913 |
| Positive | 34 (8) | 13 (8) | 21 (9) | |
*
Missing values
Yes vs. no: for venues of recruitment and sex work, only ‘yes’ responses are presented