Search

Previous studies have examined sex workers' attitudes to work but not their levels of job satisfaction compared with other occupations. The job satisfaction levels and standards of living of sex workers in licensed brothels in Victoria were compared with Australian women. Responses to a questionnaire that included questions about sex work and their 'most likely alternative job.' Survey data was compared with identical questions from the Households, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia Survey. A structured survey was undertaken with sex workers in Victoria attending a a sexual health service. Of the 112 sex workers who agreed to participate in the study, 85 (76%) completed the survey. The median years women had been working as sex workers was three (range 0.1-18). The main reasons women started sex work was because 'they needed the money' (69%), were attracted to the flexible hours (44%) or had a particular goal in mind (43%). The two biggest concerns women had about sex work were their safety (65%) and the risk of sexually transmitted infections (65%). When compared with the median job satisfaction scores of Australian women working in sex workers' 'most likely alternative jobs,' 50% of sex workers reported a higher median satisfaction score for sex work in relation to hours worked, 47% in relation to flexibility, 43% in relation to total pay, 26% in relation to job security, 19% in relation to the work itself, and 25% in relation to overall job satisfaction. Women reported that they primarily do sex work for financial gain although a significant minority prefer it to other work they would be likely to do. These results should be interpreted in the context that the presence of personality disorders that are common among sex workers were not measured in this study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Targeted chlamydia screening has been advocated to reduce chlamydia associated reproductive sequelae. General practitioners are well positioned to play a major role in chlamydia control. The primary aim of this pilot study was to measure the effect of offering an online sexual health assessment tool, Youth Check Your Risk, on chlamydia testing rates among young people attending general practices. The secondary aim was to test the acceptability of the tool among general practitioners and young people. Methods: General practitioners at three practices in Melbourne, Australia, referred patients aged 16 to 24 years to Youth Check Your Risk http://www.checkyourrisk.org.au for use post-consultation between March to October 2007. The proportion of young people tested for chlamydia before and during the implementation of the tool was compared. Acceptability was assessed through a structured interviewer-administered questionnaire with general practitioners, and anonymous online data provided by Youth Check Your Risk users. Results: The intervention did not result in any significant increases in the proportion of 16 to 24 year old males (2.7% to 3.0%) or females (6.3% to 6.4%) tested for chlamydia. A small increase in the proportion of 16 to 19 year old females tested was seen (4.1% to 7.2%). Of the 2997 patients seen during the intervention phase, 871 (29.1%) were referred to Youth Check Your Risk and 120 used it (13.8%). Major reasons for low referral rates reported by practitioners included lack of time, discomfort with raising the issue of testing, and difficulty in remembering to refer patients. Conclusion: Offering an online sexual risk assessment tool in general practice did not significantly increase the proportion of young people tested for chlamydia, with GPs identifying a number of barriers to referring young people to Youth Check Your Risk. Future interventions aimed at increasing chlamydia screening in general practice with the aid of an online risk assessment tool need to identify and overcome barriers to testing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The risk factors for oropharyngeal gonorrhea have not been examined in sex workers despite the increasing prevalence of gonorrhea infection., Objective: This study aims to determine the risk factors for oropharyngeal gonorrhea in female and gender-diverse sex workers (including cisgender and transgender women, nonbinary and gender fluid sex workers, and those with a different identity) and examine kissing, oral sex, and mouthwash practices with clients., Methods: This mixed methods case-control study was conducted from 2018 to 2020 at 2 sexual health clinics in Melbourne, Victoria, and Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. We recruited 83 sex workers diagnosed with oropharyngeal gonorrhea (cases) and 581 sex workers without (controls). Semistructured interviews with 19 sex workers from Melbourne were conducted., Results: In the case-control study, the median age of 664 sex workers was 30 (IQR 25-36) years. Almost 30% of sex workers (192/664, 28.9%) reported performing condomless fellatio on clients. Performing condomless fellatio with clients was the only behavior associated with oropharyngeal gonorrhea (adjusted odds ratio 3.6, 95% CI 1.7-7.6; P=.001). Most participants (521/664, 78.5%) used mouthwash frequently. In the qualitative study, almost all sex workers reported kissing clients due to demand and generally reported following clients' lead with regard to kissing style and duration. However, they used condoms for fellatio because they considered it a risky practice for contracting sexually transmitted infections, unlike cunnilingus without a dental dam., Conclusions: Our study shows that condomless fellatio is a risk factor for oropharyngeal gonorrhea among sex workers despite most sex workers using condoms with their clients for fellatio. Novel interventions, particularly targeting the oropharynx, will be required for oropharyngeal gonorrhea prevention., (©Tiffany R Phillips, Christopher K Fairley, Kate Maddaford, Anna McNulty, Basil Donovan, Rebecca Guy, Ruthy McIver, Rebecca Wigan, Rick Varma, Jason J Ong, Denton Callander, Gabrielle Skelsey, Mish Pony, Dylan O'Hara, Jade E Bilardi, Eric PF Chow. Originally published in JMIR Public Health and Surveillance (https://publichealth.jmir.org), 20.05.2024.)

Background: Pre-clinical studies suggest maternal dietary creatine supplementation during pregnancy could protect babies against hypoxic intrapartum events, however creatine has not been used as a supplement in pregnancy. The aim of this study was to explore pregnant women and healthcare professional's general knowledge, behaviours, and attitudes toward nutritional supplements, and their thoughts on introducing creatine as a pregnancy supplement., Methods: Pregnant women (n = 42) and partners (n = 23), attending a tertiary care pregnancy service in Melbourne, Australia, participated in focus groups or semi-structured interviews. Health professionals (n = 100), completed a semi-structured online survey. Descriptive data were analyzed using SPSS 25.0 and qualitative data was managed using NVivo 22.0., Results: Use of branded nutritional supplements in pregnancy was commonplace and acceptable. All primary healthcare respondents discussed supplements with their patients at first consultation. Supplements consumed corresponded closely to those recommended. Women had good general awareness of commonly recommended nutritional supplements, however, were less aware of the rationale for supplement use. This aligned with health professional's perceptions. Women would consider taking creatine if recommended by their health professional. Health professionals would require detailed safety, beneficence, and efficacy information before recommending creatine supplementation. They would also be more likely to recommend a new supplement in higher-risk pregnancies, where benefits may outweigh any perceived side-effects., Conclusion: There is high acceptance of current recommended nutritional supplements in pregnancy. Implementing creatine as a new supplement will require substantive empirical evidence and changes to clinical guidelines. Public awareness and education would also be essential to consumer acceptability of creatine., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors of this manuscript have no conflicts to declare., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: Financial incentives have been used for many years internationally to improve quality of care in general practice. The aim of this pilot study was to determine if offering general practitioners (GP) a small incentive payment per test would increase chlamydia testing in women aged 16 to 24 years, attending general practice., Methods: General practice clinics (n = 12) across Victoria, Australia, were cluster randomized to receive either a $AUD5 payment per chlamydia test or no payment for testing 16 to 24 year old women for chlamydia. Data were collected on the number of chlamydia tests and patient consultations undertaken by each GP over two time periods: 12 month pre-trial and 6 month trial period. The impact of the intervention was assessed using a mixed effects logistic regression model, accommodating for clustering at GP level., Results: Testing increased from 6.2% (95% CI: 4.2, 8.4) to 8.8% (95% CI: 4.8, 13.0) (p = 0.1) in the control group and from 11.5% (95% CI: 4.6, 18.5) to 13.4% (95% CI: 9.5, 17.5) (p = 0.4) in the intervention group. Overall, the intervention did not result in a significant increase in chlamydia testing in general practice. The odds ratio for an increase in testing in the intervention group compared to the control group was 0.9 (95% CI: 0.6, 1.2). Major barriers to increased chlamydia testing reported by GPs included a lack of time, difficulty in remembering to offer testing and a lack of patient awareness around testing., Conclusions: A small financial incentive alone did not increase chlamydia testing among young women attending general practice. It is possible small incentive payments in conjunction with reminder and feedback systems may be effective, as may higher financial incentive payments. Further research is required to determine if financial incentives can increase testing in Australian general practice, the type and level of financial scheme required and whether incentives needs to be part of a multi-faceted package., Trial Registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry ACTRN12608000499381.