Reviewer's report
Title:"I do what I have to do to survive": An ethnographic investigation into the
perceptions, experiences and economic considerations of women engaged in
sex work in Northern Namibia
Version: 2Date:1 June 2011
Reviewer: Melanie Rusch
Reviewer's report:
Minor Essential Revisions
The authors have revised the discussion extensively to address the issues raised
in the initial reviews; while the discussion is much improved, there are a few
minor points that could be addressed to further strengthen the manuscript.
1. It appears that the last paragraph of the results section was accidently added
here (it is a repeat of the last paragraph of the background section).
2. While it is clarified that this particular population of women are involved in
more transactional sex work, some of the findings are discussed in a more
generalized way that may not be appropriate. For example, paragraph 5 could be
somewhat tempered by making it explicit that these insights apply to a specific
type of sex work, rather than implying that they may apply generally.
3. The discussion surrounding the novelty of the findings may be more
appropriately framed by highlighting the lack of previous knowledge of sex work
in this region. The heterogeneity of sex work, the comparison of partner-types,
and the nature of transactional sex work are not in and of themselves novel;
rather, the description of these elements as they apply to sex work in
rural/semi-urban Namibia are what is novel.
4. The discussion point relating to the desire for loving relationships could benefit
from more explanation. It is clear from the results and parts of the discussion that
this desire can become a barrier to condom use; however in paragraph 5 and in
the conclusions it is listed in a slightly different context, without a good
explanation of what is meant. How do the authors propose to incorporate this
aspect into new strategies for promoting sexual health? Or how does
acknowledging this improve programs aimed at increasing condom use?
Discretionary Revisions
5. The last paragraph of the background section summarizes the purpose of the
paper, and while it is hinted at, the authors could highlight more explicitly the
value of this work in filling the gap of knowledge about sex work Namibia.
6. In paragraph six, the authors indicate why peer programs may be less
successful in the Namibian context. It would be useful to expand on this with a
discussion of how this may be overcome, or what alternatives may be more
useful.
7. The first two paragraphs of the discussion focus on highlighting the research
findings as unique and novel; however, these points do not set up the arguments
laid out in the discussion. The discussion would be easier to follow if the
introductory paragraph laid out the findings in relation to the subsequent
discussion (i.e. reasons why the KAB/BCC approach is limited, how these factors
can inform future strategies). The discussion of the importance/novelty of the
research can follow these main arguments, highlighting the strengths of the
study.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.