Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16877586›Full record

ArticleSexually transmitted infections2006

Patient preferences for partner notification.

A Apoola, K W Radcliffe, S Das, V Robshaw, G Gilleran, B S Kumari, M Boothby, R Rajakumar

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Adolescent patient preferences surrounding partner notification and treatment for sexually transmitted infections.Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 2015
    Article
  9. Partner notification.Medicine (Abingdon, England : UK ed.) · 2014
    Review
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

A ApoolaDepartment of Genitourinary Medicine, Derbyshire Royal Infirmary, London Road, Derby DE1 2QY, UK. apoola@yahoo.com
K W Radcliffe
S Das
V Robshaw
G Gilleran
B S Kumari
M Boothby
R Rajakumar
Royal Derby Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Contact TracingPatient SatisfactionSexual PartnersAdolescentAdultAgedChildFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedMultivariate AnalysisRisk FactorsSexually Transmitted Diseases

Identifiers

PMID16877586
PMCPMC2564722
OpenAlexW2023567474

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.