ArticlePloS one2016
Optimizing Partner Notification Programs for Men Who Have Sex with Men: Factorial Survey Results from South China.
Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Characteristics of and Factors Associated With Partner Service Uptake Cascade Among People With Newly Reported HIV/AIDS Diagnoses in Southeastern China in 2022: Cross-Sectional Survey.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2024Article
- Digital interventions for STI and HIV partner notification: a scoping review.Sexually transmitted infections · 2024Article
- Perceptions, experiences, and preferences for partner services among Black and Latino men who have sex with men and transwomen in North Carolina.Ethnicity & health · 2022Article
- Partner Notification Among Persons With Early Syphilis in Shenzhen, China, 2011-2017: Implications for Practice and Policy.Sexually transmitted diseases · 2020Article
- A Comparison of Syphilis Partner Notification Outcomes by Reported Use of Internet-based Apps to Meet Sex Partners in North Carolina, 2013-2016.Sexually transmitted diseases · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSyphilis is prevalent among men who have sex with men (MSM) in China. Syphilis partner notification (PN) programs targeting MSM has been considered as one of effective strategies to prevention and control of the infection in the population. We examined willingness and preferences for PN among MSM to measure feasibility and optimize uptake.
methodsParticipation in a syphilis PN program was measured using a factorial survey from both the perspective of the index patient and the partner. Respondents were recruited from April-July 2011 using convenience sampling at two sites-a MSM sexually transmitted disease (STD) clinic and a MSM community based organization (CBO). Respondents first evaluated three factorial survey vignettes to measure probability of participation and then an anonymous sociodemographic questionnaire. A two-level mixed linear model was fitted for the factorial survey analysis.
resultsIn 372 respondents with mean age (± SD) 28.5 (± 6.0) years, most were single (82.0%) and closeted gays (66.7%). The Internet was the most frequent place to search for sex. Few (31.2%) had legal names for casual partners, but most had instant messenger (86.5%) and mobile phone numbers (77.7%). The mean probability of participation in a syphilis PN program was 64.5% (± 32.4%) for index patients and 63.7% (± 32.6%) for partners. Referral of the partner to a private clinic or MSM CBO for follow-up decreased participation compared to the local Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) or public STD clinic.
conclusionsEnhanced PN services may be feasible among MSM in South China. Internet and mobile phone PN may contact partners untraceable by traditional PN. Referral of partners to the local CDC or public STD clinic may maximize PN participation.
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.