ArticleAmerican journal of public health2011
Estimating the likely public health impact of partner notification for a clinical service: an evidence-based algorithm.
Article in American journal of public health, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Optimising partner notification outcomes for bacterial sexually transmitted infections: a deliberative process and consensus, United Kingdom, 2019.Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin · 2022Pooled it
- Developing and testing accelerated partner therapy for partner notification for people with genital Chlamydia trachomatis diagnosed in primary care: a pilot randomised controlled trial.Sexually transmitted infections · 2015Trial
- Differences in Patterns of Alcohol Use and Sexual Risk-Taking Behaviours Among Sexually Active Australian and Overseas-Born Domestic and International University Students in Australia.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026Article
- Use of a five-category partner-type classification within a chlamydia and gonorrhoea service evaluation highlights opportunities for targeted partner notification to improve STI control.Sexually transmitted infections · 2025Article
- Impacts of COVID-19 on sexual behaviour in Britain: findings from a large, quasi-representative survey (Natsal-COVID).Sexually transmitted infections · 2022Article
- Going beyond 'regular and casual': development of a classification of sexual partner types to enhance partner notification for STIs.Sexually transmitted infections · 2022Article
- How can we objectively categorise partnership type? A novel classification of population survey data to inform epidemiological research and clinical practice.Sexually transmitted infections · 2017Article
- Article
- Partner notification.Medicine (Abingdon, England : UK ed.) · 2014Review
- The epidemiology of gonorrhoea in London: a Bayesian spatial modelling approach.Epidemiology and infection · 2014Article
- Individual and population level effects of partner notification for Chlamydia trachomatis.PloS one · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesWe present the first evidence-based method for estimating public health and cost impacts of partner notification (PN) that takes account of sexual partnership type.
methodsOur algorithm uses routine clinical data, probability survey data, and transmission parameters. We propose 2 new epidemiological concepts to quantify PN impact: "[the] absolute reduction in onward transmission" and its reciprocal, "[the] number needed to treat to interrupt transmission" (i.e., the number of partners who need to be treated to interrupt 1 onward transmission). We demonstrate these concepts for 273 chlamydia cases diagnosed at a UK genitourinary medicine clinic.
resultsThe number needed to treat to interrupt transmission (overall, for casual partners, and for regular partners, respectively) was 1.47, 1.11, and 2.50, respectively, for men younger than 25 years; 1.60, 0.83, and 1.25, respectively, for women younger than 25 years; 2.35, 1.39, and 2.08, respectively, for men older than 25 years; and 2.14, 0.93, and 2.08, respectively, for women older than 25 years.
conclusionsPN that targets casual partners, rather than regular or live-in partners, prevents more secondary transmissions per partnership; it is also more resource intensive, but the public health benefit is greater.
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.