Collective efficacy is the belief of the affected community in its power to work together to effect change. Among both FSWs, it was measured based on responses to the question: how confident are you that in your community can work together to achieve the following goals: (1) keep each other safe from harm, (2) increase condom use with clients, (3) speak up for your rights and (4) improve your lives? Responses to these questions included not at all (coded as 1), somewhat (coded as 2), very (coded as 3) and completely confident (coded as 4). These responses were combined to calculate an index with values ranging from 1 to 4 (Cronbach's α =0.928). The index values were divided into three categories: low (scale range: 1–1.999), medium (scale range: 2.0–2.999) and high (3.0–4). Additionally, the direct question assessing whether FSWs in the community would come together in case of a problem that may affect the community (Yes=1, No=0) was presented as a measure of collective efficacy.

Collective agency is the choice, control and power that poor or marginalised groups have to act for themselves to claim their rights (whether civil, political, economic, social or cultural) and to hold others accountable for these rights. It was measured based on responses to the question: in the past 6 months, have you negotiated with or stood up against the following stakeholders (police, madam/broker, local goon (gang member), clients or any other sexual partner) in order to help a fellow sex worker or to help fellow sex workers? FSWs who responded that they negotiated with any of the key stakeholders to help fellow sex workers were categorised as ‘Yes’ (coded as 1) else categorised as ‘No’ (coded as 0), and this measure is named collective agency.

Collective action is the strategic and organised activity by mobilised community members to increase the community's visibility in wider society and present or enact its agenda for change (eg, through rallies, demonstrations or meetings with stakeholders). It was measured based on responses to seven questions, asking whether the community members come together to demand/ask help for the following: (1) ration card, (2) voter card, (3) bank account, (4) free education for children, (5) health insurance, (6) representation in government forums and (7) better health services from the government. A separate question was asked for each of the above social entitlements and services with the possible binary response categories ‘Yes’ (coded as 1) and ‘No’ (coded as 0). A composite dichotomous index (Yes=1, No=0) was constructed that represented FSWs' ability to come together to demand at least one of the above-mentioned social entitlements and services (Cronbach's α =0.899). The second indicator was derived from a direct question asking whether the FSW received help from other FSWs in the community when she was last arrested by the police (Yes=1, No=0). The third indicator was derived from a question asking whether the FSW had received help from other community members when she was last blackmailed/threatened by the media (Yes=1, No=0). Similarly, the fourth indicator was derived from a direct question asked to assess whether the FSW had received help from the community when a client or partner was violent (Yes=1, No=0).

↵* Differences between the districts were tested using χ² test.

↵† Among those who were ever arrested by police.

↵‡ Among those who were ever blackmailed/threatened by stringers (media).

↵§ Among those who ever had a violent client/partner.

FSW, female sex workers.