Comments(4)
RE: Unintended results of researchEric Druyts
(14 March 2009) British Columbia Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS We thank Dr. Goodyear for his response to our article. We fully agree with his concerns surrounding the recent coverage of our work on HIV prevalence in British Columbia, Canada. Dr. Goodyear has expressed difficulty in seeing how this study will benefit the individuals who participated in the research. Of note, estimates of HIV prevalence among at-risk groups are vital in planning for the development and provision of appropriate policy and programmatic responses. We wish to affirm that it is our overarching goal to ensure that there are adequate services for all individuals living with HIV infection in Vancouver. The WHO has consistently shown that less than 10% of sex workers have adequate access to HIV prevention and care resources. Competing interests None declared Engendering Knowledge about Sex Workers, Drug Use and HIV/AIDSCecilia Benoit
(27 March 2009) University of Victoria Cecilia Benoit, Centre for Addictions Research of BC & Dept of Sociology, University of Victoria Competing interests No competing interests to declare. Limitations and fallacies in sex work researchMichael Goodyear
(20 April 2009) Dalhousie University Benoit and Paterson provide a welcome opportunity to discuss the many issues to be considered when designing and interpreting research on sex work. Even the definition of sex worker requires careful consideration, since an act does not define a person. Much of sex work is private, invisible, and a part-time occupation across a very diverse background of education, and professional lives. By default then researchers have focussed on the more visible parts of the spectrum of sex work. Competing interests None Have something to say? Post a comment on this article! |





on Google Scholar







Unintended results of research
Michael Goodyear (07 March 2009) Dalhousie University
A fundamental principle of ethics in research is that the object of the research, in this case people infected with HIV, should benefit from the research. Those living in Vancouver will already be familiar with the political fallout from sensationalist media coverage of this article, stressing 'more than a quarter of female sex trade workers in city infected'.
Therefore, although unintended, the research subjects have been harmed, stigmatised and quite probably subjected to increased levels of violence. The health and social problems of Vancouver's Downtown Eastside (DES) are well known in Canada, and it is difficult to see how this research will benefit them.
This is one of many studies from the B.C. Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS, nearly all of which have been very high quality, and ethical and have aided those seeking to improve the lot of the local inhabitants. This long term research has been carried out with the collaboration of sex workers and service agencies in the area. Many of the publications have been models of community research and participatory-action research. Therefore everything should have gone right, but instead went horribly wrong. How did this happen?
This study took existing data and fitted it to a computer model of how HIV increased in prevalence in Vancouver, but in many ways ignores the geography of the city where HIV is mappable to discrete areas. The investigators used existing data on prevalence rates for what they considered three high risk groups (7% of the population), men who have sex with men, intravenous drug users (IDU) and female sex workers (FSW). They do not provide their raw data, but it can be extracted from their sources.
For the sex work data they estimated the population (which is fraught with uncertainty) as being 4% of the high risk group (0.2% of the population), however it appears they only counted the highest risk people amongst FSWs, survival workers, who have a high prevalence of iv drug use. They had three data points for prevalence of HIV. One from 1988-1992 was 6.2%, one from 1996-7 was 32% (however we know these were drawn from a sample of IDU, of which they represented 23%), and a more recent sample in 2006 which was 26%. We know the latter group were all survival sex workers from the DES whom we know have a very high prevalence of IDU. It is this last number which has hit the headlines.
While it is true that of the three groups studied, the estimated prevalence rates for 2006 were 15, 17 and 26%, the FSW represented a tiny proportion, and were almost completely confounded with IDU. Furthermore these were not representative samples but convenience samples from women seeking assistance at outreach centres, and are likely to be overestimates. Of course iv drug using survival sex workers from the DES are highly unrepresentative of Vancouver's sex worker population.
Therefore the media have focussed on known data from 2006 in which the prevalence rate was 26%, apparently higher than the 1992 data, if obtained from a comparable sample. The issue is really one of IDU not FSW. From other research we know that HIV rates amongst much wider samples of FSWs are actually very low, and almost always associated with iv drug use, and unprotected sex with intimate partners. HIV transmission from clients is uncommon, but as established in another paper from this group, it is the actions of the authorities which make FSWs vulnerable to being coerced into unsafe sex, and this should have been mentioned in this study.
It would be easy to dismiss this as merely irresponsible reporting, but it is not as simple as this. When women gave permission to be tested for HIV they did not anticipate that it would be used to stigmatise them, and presumably when they gave consent for it to be used for research they were not informed of that. Incidentally there is no mention of ethical oversight on the current paper.
The other ethical questions raised are the extent to which investigators, ethical committees, editors and reviewers should take responsibility for the dissemination and interpretation of their data, given their duty of care to the women who collaborated with them in this research. Misinterpretation of the paper might have been anticipated with more foresight.
The outcome unfortunately appears to be moral panic, stigmatisation of a disadvantaged group, likely escalation of violence against a population already subject to extremely high levels, and a destruction of trust. We can do better.
A broader issue is why there is so much emphasis on HIV rates amongst FSWs and not of their clients. This creates further victimisation of women by depicting them as vectors of disease.
All of this is in stark contrast with the role of the New Zealand Prostitutes' Collective, co-opted and funded by the Health Deartment as health educators, and widely credited with the control of HIV/AIDs in that country.
Competing interests
Reviewer for BMC
top