Table 4.
Additive interaction between seeing mostly regular clients and work environment on workplace sexual violence and client condom refusal among sex workers in Metro Vancouver, Canada (n=925), AESHA 2010-2019
| Outcome: Experienced workplace sexual violencea | ||
|---|---|---|
| Exposure | Unadjusted Odds Ratio (95% CI) | Adjusted Odds Ratio (95% CI) |
| Did not see mostly regular clients and primarily worked in outdoor/public or informal indoor spacesa | ref | ref |
| Saw mostly regular clients and primarily worked in outdoor/public or informal indoor spacesa | 0.50 (0.37-0.69) | 0.69 (0.49-0.95) |
| Did not see mostly regular clients and primarily worked in formal indoor venuesa | 0.26 (0.15-0.45) | 0.55 (0.28-1.08) |
| Saw mostly regular clients and primarily worked in formal indoor venuesa | 0.19 (0.06-0.61) | 0.41 (0.11-1.51) |
| Exposure | Outcome: Experienced client condom refusala | |
| Unadjusted Odds Ratio (95% CI) | Adjusted Odds Ratio (95% CI) | |
| Did not see mostly regular clients and primarily worked in outdoor/public or informal indoor spacesa | ref | ref |
| Saw mostly regular clients and primarily worked in outdoor/public or informal indoor spacesa | 0.57 (0.46-0.70) | 0.64 (0.52-0.80) |
| Did not see mostly regular clients and primarily worked in formal indoor venuesa | 0.39 (0.28-0.55) | 0.63 (0.41-0.95) |
| Saw mostly regular clients and primarily worked in formal indoor venuesa | 0.46 (0.27-0.79) | 0.78 (0.43-1.44) |
a Time-updated measures (serial measures at each study visit using last 6 months as reference point)
Both models adjusted for key confounders retained in the model fitting process including age, non-injection drug use and homelessnessa, and whether the interview was conducted post-end demand law reform