StakeholderMapping:AdvancingResearchonSexualandReproductiveHealth(SRH)Policies andIncomeProtectionforCisgenderandTransgenderFemaleSexWorkersinBuenosAires, Argentina

Estefania Panizoni¹María Eugenia Esandi¹Virginia Zalazar¹Ines Aristegui¹Agustina Arguello¹Nadir Cardozo^1,2Georgina Orellano³Marcela Romero²Mona Loutfy⁴Sharon Walmsley⁵Valeria Fink^1*Adriana Duran⁶Zulma Ortiz¹

• ¹Fundacion Huesped, Buenos Aires, Argentina
• ²Asociación de Travestis, Transexuales y Transgenero de Argentina, Buenos Aires, Argentina
• ³Sindicato de trabajadoras sexuales, Buenos Aires, Argentina
• ⁴Women’s College Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
• ⁵University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada, Toronto, Canada
• ⁶Coordinación Salud Sexual, VIH e ITS , Ministerio de Salud, Ciudad de Buenos Aires, Dirección de VIH/Sida y Enfermedades de Transmisión Sexual del Ministerio de Salud de Argentina, Buenos Aires, Argentina

Introduction: In the initial steps towards the development of an implementation project aimed to support sexual and reproductivehealth(SRH)policiesandincomeprotectionforcisgenderandtransgendersexworkersinthe CiudadAutónomadeBuenosAires(CABA),weemployedstakeholdermapping. Thisisacrucialtoolin healthpolicyandsystemsandresearchtoidentify,categorize,andcharacterizekeystakeholdersinvolvedin policy planning and implementation. Methods:ProspectivestakeholdermappingwasconductedbetweenFebruaryandSeptember2023 througha series of internal meetings and consultations with relevant community organizations to identify key stakeholdersinvolvedinSRHoffemalesexworkers(FSWs)inCABA.Thestakeholdermappingincluded three stages: 1. Identification and categorization of stakeholders using primary and secondarysources;2. Analysis of stakeholder knowledge, level of agreement/interest, and level of influence/power; and 3. Characterizationofstakeholderpositioning.Theabsoluteandrelativefrequenciesofkeystakeholderswere estimated,andtheaveragevaluesofknowledge,power/influence,andinterest/agreementwerecalculatedfor eachcategory.Theresultswererepresentedinamatrixidentifyingsixtypesofpositions(promoter,supporter, neutral, observer, high-risk blocker, low-risk blocker). Results: A total of 147 key actors were identified across sectors, including government, civil society, academia, abolitionist community organizations, health services, media and national and jurisdictional governments. Only four categories had detailed knowledge of the SRH situation andpoliciesfocusedon FSWs.Thestakeholderswerecategorizedas16%aspromoters,68%assupporters,10%asblockers,3%as observers,and3%asneutral.Amongpromoters,nationalandjurisdictionalgovernmentsstoodout,whilethe supporters included the FSWs and the civil society organizations representing them, who also actively participated in the mapping process. Blockers mainly included abolitionist community organizations and security forces. Discussion:Stakeholdermappingprovedtobeavaluabletoolforunderstandingthepoliticallandscapewhile ethicallycenteringthevoicesofFSWs.Thefindingssupportthedevelopmentofinclusive,context-sensitive policies and provide a replicable methodology for similar initiatives in othersocio-political contexts.