"I do what I have to do to survive": an investigation into the perceptions, experiences and economic considerations of women engaged in sex work in Northern Namibia.

BACKGROUND: There is little published research investigating sex work in Namibia, particularly in rural areas. Therefore, the aim of this paper was to determine the views of women engaged in sex work in the Oshakati area of Namibia concerning the main factors influencing their use, or non-use, of male condoms during transactional sexual exchanges. METHODS: Qualitative interviews were used to better understand the perceptions, experiences and economic considerations of female sex workers in Namibia who were involved in a Behavior Change Communication Program encouraging safer sex practices among high-risk populations in 2006 and 2007. RESULTS: While the Behavior Change Communication Program has made significant strides in educating and empowering young women to negotiate more consistent condom use with sexual partners, the gendered economic inequalities and power imbalances within rural and semi-urban Namibian society that favor men hinder further advancement towards positive behavioral change for HIV prevention and also hinder the development of the loving relationships sought by some sex workers. CONCLUSION: This study found that sex workers and transactional sex encounters are heterogeneous entities dependent upon the characteristics of the man (known, stranger, wealthy, attractive to the woman) and the woman (in financial need, desiring love). These features all influence condom use. The 3 E's 'education, empowerment and economic independence' are critical factors needed to encourage and facilitate consistent condom use to prevent HIV transmission. Without financial independence and occupational alternatives building on their health education and empowerment, women who engage in sex work-and transactional sex more generally-will remain largely marginalized from Namibian society, and will continue engaging in risky sexual practices that facilitate HIV acquisition and transmission throughout the community.

Zika Virus in Ontario: Evaluating a Rapid Risk Assessment Tool for Emerging Infectious Disease Threats.

To determine the Ontario-specific risk of local and travel-related Zika virus transmission in the context of a public health emergency of international concern, Public Health Ontario (PHO) completed a rapid risk assessment (RRA) on January 29, 2016, using a newly developed RRA guidance tool. The RRA concluded that risk of local mosquito-borne transmission was low, with a high risk of imported cases through travel. The RRA was updated 3 times based on predetermined triggers. An independent evaluation assessed both the application of the RRA guidance tool (process evaluation) and the usefulness of the RRA (outcome evaluation). We conducted face-to-face, semi-structured interviews with 7 individuals who participated in the creation or review of the Zika virus RRA and 4 end-users at PHO and the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. An inductive thematic analysis of responses was undertaken, whereby themes were directly informed by the data. The process evaluation determined that most steps outlined in the RRA guidance tool were adhered to, including forming a cross-functional writing team, clarifying the scope and describing context, completing the RRA summary report, and updating the RRA based on predefined triggers. The outcome evaluation found that end-users judged the Zika virus RRA as evidence-informed, useful, consistent, and timely. The evaluation established that the locally tailored guidance tool, adapted from national and international approaches to RRAs, facilitated a systematic, evidence-informed, and timely formal RRA process at PHO for the Zika virus RRA, which met the needs of end-users. Based on the evaluation, PHO will modify future RRAs by incorporating some flexibility into the literature review process to support timeliness of the RRA, explicitly describing the limitations of studies used to inform the RRA, and refining risk algorithms to better suit emerging infectious disease threats. It is anticipated that these refinements will improve upon the timely assessment of novel or reemerging infectious diseases.

Measuring stigma affecting sex workers (SW) and men who have sex with men (MSM): A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Stigma involves discrediting a person or group based on a perceived attribute, behaviour or reputation associated with them. Sex workers (SW) and men who have sex with men (MSM) are key populations who are often at increased risk for the acquisition and transmission of HIV and who are affected by stigma that can negatively impact their health and well-being. Although stigma was included as an indicator in the US National HIV/AIDS Strategic Plan and there have been consultations focused on adding a stigma indicator within PEPFAR and the Global Fund in relation to potentiating HIV risks among key populations, there remains limited consensus on the appropriate measurement of SW- or MSM-associated stigma. Consequently, this systematic review summarizes studies using quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods approaches to measure stigma affecting sex workers and men who have sex with men. METHODS AND FINDINGS: This systematic review included English, French, and Spanish peer-reviewed research of any study design measuring SW- or MSM-associated stigma. Articles were published from January 1, 2004 to March 26, 2014 in PsycINFO, PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL Plus, Global Health, and World Health Organization Global Health Library Regional Indexes. Of the 541 articles reviewed, the majority measured stigma toward MSM (over 97%), were conducted in North America, used quantitative methods, and focused on internalized stigma. CONCLUSIONS: With the inclusion of addressing stigma in several domestic and international HIV strategies, there is a need to ensure the use of validated metrics for stigma. The field to date has completed limited measurement of stigma affecting sex workers, and limited measurement of stigma affecting MSM outside of higher income settings. Moving forward requires a concerted effort integrating validated metrics of stigma into health-related surveys and programs for key populations.

Off-label use of vaccines.

This article reviews the off-label recommendations and use of vaccines, and focuses on the differences between the labelled instructions on how to use the vaccine as approved by the regulatory authorities (or "label"1), and the recommendations for use issued by public health advisory bodies at national and international levels. Differences between public health recommendations and the product label regarding the vaccine use can lead to confusion at the level of vaccinators and vaccinees and possibly result in lower compliance with national vaccination schedules. In particular, in many countries, the label may contain regulatory restrictions and warnings against vaccination of specific population groups (e.g. pregnant women) due to a lack of evidence of safety from controlled trials at the time of initial licensure of the vaccine, while public health authorities may recommend the same vaccine for that group, based on additional post-marketing data and benefit risk analyses. We provide an overview of the different responsibilities between regulatory authorities and public health advisory bodies, and the rationale for off-label use2 of vaccines, the challenges involved based on the impact of off-label use in real-life. We propose to reduce off-label use of vaccines by requiring the manufacturer to regularly adapt the label as much as possible to the public health needs as supported by new evidence. This would require manufacturers to collect and report post-marketing data, communicate them to all stakeholders and regulators to extrapolate existing evidence (when acceptable) to other groups or to other brands of a vaccine (class effect3). Regulatory authorities have a key role to play by requesting additional post-marketing data, e.g. in specific target groups. When public health recommendations for vaccine use that are outside labelled indications are considered necessary, good communication between regulatory bodies, public health authorities, companies and health care providers or vaccinators is crucial. Recommendations as well as labels and label changes should be evidence-based. The rationale for the discrepancy and the recommended off-label use of a vaccine should be communicated to providers.