ArticleSexually transmitted infections2006
Patient preferences for partner notification.
Article in Sexually transmitted infections, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.
- Advancing Partner Notification Through Electronic Communication Technology: A Review of Acceptability and Utilization Research.Journal of health communication · 2016Pooled it
- Next-Generation Methods for HIV Partner Services: A Systematic Review.Sexually transmitted diseases · 2015Pooled it
- Improved effectiveness of partner notification for patients with sexually transmitted infections: systematic review.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2007Pooled it
- Integrating partner notification and contact tracing services across Europe: findings from the Integrate project.BMC infectious diseases · 2021Article
- Health System Factors Influencing Partner Notification for STIs and HIV in Lilongwe Malawi. A Pre-intervention Phase Assessment for a Quality Improvement Project.Journal of infectious diseases and medicine · 2018Article
- Evaluating the utility of syndromic case management for three sexually transmitted infections in women visiting hospitals in Delhi, India.Scientific reports · 2017Article
- Understanding attitudes, barriers and challenges in a small island nation to disease and partner notification for HIV and other sexually transmitted infections: a qualitative study.BMC public health · 2015Article
- Adolescent patient preferences surrounding partner notification and treatment for sexually transmitted infections.Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 2015Article
- Partner notification.Medicine (Abingdon, England : UK ed.) · 2014Review
- Moving partner notification into the mainstream of routine sexual health care.Sexually transmitted infections · 2007Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo identify patient preferences for notification of sexual contacts when a sexually transmitted infection (STI) is diagnosed.
methodsA questionnaire survey of 2544 patients attending three large genitourinary clinics at Derby, Birmingham, and Coventry in the United Kingdom.
resultsThe median age of the respondents was 24 with 1474 (57.9%) women, 1835 (72.1%) white, 1826 (71.8%) single. The most favoured method of partner notification was patient referral, which was rated a "good" method by 65.8% when they had to be contacted because a sexual partner has an STI. Notifying contacts by letter as a method of provider partner notification is more acceptable than phoning, text messaging, or email. Respondents with access to mobile telephones, private emails, and private letters were more likely to rate a method of partner notification using that mode of communication as "good" compared to those without. With provider referral methods of partner notification respondents preferred to receive a letter, email, or text message asking them to contact the clinic rather than a letter, email or text message informing them that they may have an STI.
conclusionMost respondents think that being informed directly by a partner is the best method of being notified of the risk of an STI. Some of the newer methods may not be acceptable to all but a significant minority of respondents prefer these methods of partner notification. The wording of letters, emails, or text messages when used for partner notification has an influence on the acceptability of the method and may influence success of the partner notification method. Services should be flexible enough to utilise the patients' preferred method of partner notification.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.