Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20693936›Full record

ArticleSexually transmitted diseases2010

Improving partner services by embedding disease intervention specialists in HIV-clinics.

Melanie M Taylor, Tom Mickey, Michelle Winscott, Heather James, Kerry Kenney, Bob England

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Sexually transmitted diseases, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Guideline
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Viral loads among young HIV-infected men with early syphilis.Journal of the International Association of Providers of AIDS Care
    Article
  16. 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

6 authors.

Melanie M TaylorDivision of STD Prevention, National Center for HIV, STD and TB Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA. MDT7@cdc.gov
Tom Mickey
Michelle Winscott
Heather James
Kerry Kenney
Bob England

Funding

Intramural CDC HHS CC999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND/

objectivesNotifying partners of HIV-infected persons and referring them for testing and treatment is an effective method of disease control and identification of undiagnosed STD and/or HIV. To improve partner elicitation interviews, disease intervention specialists (DIS) were placed in 3 HIV clinics during 2008 and 2009.

methodsWe reviewed the Arizona state STD surveillance database for 2007 to identify the providers (outside of the public STD clinics) reporting the highest number of syphilis cases. DIS were placed in the clinics for half a day per week (2 clinics) or on an on-call basis (1 clinic) to deliver penicillin and interview patients. We calculated changes in the number of patients interviewed, days elapsed from specimen collection to treatment (time to treatment), days elapsed from specimen collection to initial DIS contact (time to interview), and number of reported and locatable partners from these 3 clinics before and after the clinic placement of DIS.

resultsBefore the placement of clinic-based DIS, 219 syphilis cases were diagnosed at the 3 clinics (January 2006 through January 2008). After DIS placement, 115 syphilis cases were diagnosed (February 2008 through September 2009) for a total of 334 cases in this analysis. A greater percent of patients completed a partner elicitation interview during the period of DIS placement (94% after vs. 81% before, P = 0.001). There were increases in the average number of locatable partners (1.1 after vs. 0.6 before, P = 0.004) and an increase in the average number of partners exposed and brought to treatment (CDC Disposition A) or infected and brought to treatment (CDC Disposition C) (0.6 after vs. 0.3 before, P = 0.02), and the time to interview decreased (18 days before vs. 9 days after, P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS/IMPLICATIONS: Placing DIS within community HIV clinics improved partner services. STD and/or HIV programs should consider this method to improve partner notification.

Indexed as

Ambulatory Care FacilitiesContact TracingSpecializationAdultArizonaDelivery of Health CareFemaleHealth PersonnelHIV InfectionsHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle AgedSexually Transmitted DiseasesSexual PartnersSyphilis

Identifiers

PMID20693936
PMCPMC6785747

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.