Objective To establish the state of the evidence base around psychosocial interventions that support well-being in sex workers in order to inform policy and practice within a resource-rich geographical context.
Methods Published and unpublished studies were identified through electronic databases (PsychINFO, CINHAL Plus, MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library and Open Grey), hand searching and contacting relevant organisations and experts in the field. Studies were included if they were conducted in high-income settings with sex workers or people engaging in exchange or transactional sex, and evaluated the effect of a psychosocial intervention with validated psychological or well-being measures or through qualitative evaluation.
Results A total of 19 202 studies were identified of which 10 studies met the eligibility criteria. The heterogeneity found dictated a narrative synthesis across studies. Overall, there was very little evidence of good quality to make clear evidence-based recommendations. Despite methodological limitations, the evidence as it stands suggests that peer health initiatives improve well-being in female street-based sex workers. Use of ecological momentary assessment (EMA), a diary-based method of collecting real-life behavioural data through the use of twice-daily questionnaires via a smartphone, increased self-esteem and behaviour change intentions.
Conclusions Work with sex workers should be based on an evidence-based approach. Limitations to the existing evidence and the constraints of this work with vulnerable groups are recognised and discussed.
- health services accessibility
- sex education
- sexual Health
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Contributors KT and JM initiated the study and defined the research question. All authors contributed to developing the methodology. KT carried out all literature reviews. KT, DM and LS acted as data reviewers and extractors. JM provided reconciliation in the event of any discrepancies. KT drafted the protocol and the manuscript that was later edited by JM.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Disclaimer The findings and conclusions of this review are those of the authors and do not represent the official position of the University of the West of England Bristol or other institutions with which the authors are affiliated.
Competing interests None declared.
Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.