Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29843643›Full record

ArticleBMC infectious diseases2018

A pill for the partner via the chlamydia patient? Results from a mixed method study among sexual health care providers in the Netherlands.

Anita C Nanhoe, Maartje Visser, Jurriaan J Omlo, Anita J C M Watzeels, Ingrid V van den Broek, Hannelore M Götz

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 34% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Anita C NanhoeCenter for Research and Business Intelligence, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Maartje VisserCentre for Infectious Disease Control, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, The Netherlands.
Jurriaan J OmloCenter for Research and Business Intelligence, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Anita J C M WatzeelsCenter for Research and Business Intelligence, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Ingrid V van den BroekCentre for Infectious Disease Control, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, The Netherlands.
Hannelore M GötzCentre for Infectious Disease Control, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, The Netherlands. hm.gotz@rotterdam.nl.
Rotterdam University of Applied Sciences · NLNational Institute for Public Health and the Environment · NLErasmus MC · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundChlamydia prevalence in the Netherlands remains high despite targeted efforts. Effective Partner Notification (PN) and Partner Treatment (PT) can interrupt transmission and prevent re-infections. Patient Initiated Partner Treatment (PIPT) may strengthen chlamydia control. This study explores the current practice of PN and PT, and benefits of, and barriers and facilitators for PIPT among professionals in sexual health care in the Netherlands.

methodsA qualitative study was performed among GPs, GP-assistants (GPAs), physicians and nurses working at Sexual Health Clinics (SHC) and key-informants on ethnical diversity using topic lists in focus groups (N = 40) and semi-structured questionnaires in individual interviews (N = 9). Topics included current practices regarding PN and PT, attitude regarding PIPT, and perceived barriers and facilitators for PIPT. Interviews were taped, transcribed verbatim, and coded using ATLAS.ti. A quantitative online questionnaire on the same topics was sent to all physicians and nurses employed at Dutch SHC (complete response rate 26% (84/321)).

resultsThe qualitative study showed that all professionals support the need for more attention to PN, and that they saw advantages in PIPT. Mentioned barriers included unwilling PN-behaviour, Dutch legislation, several medical considerations and inadequate skills of GPs. Also, concerns about limited knowledge of cultural sensitivity around PN and PT were raised. Mentioned facilitators of PIPT were reliable home based test-kits, phone-contact between professionals and notified partners, more consultation time for GPs or GPAs and additional training. The online questionnaire showed that SHC employees agreed that partners should be treated as soon as possible, but also that they were reluctant towards PIPT without counselling and testing.

conclusionsProfessionals saw advantages in PIPT, but they also identified barriers hampering the potential introduction of PIPT. Improving PN and counselling skills with specific focus on cultural sensitivity is needed. PIPT could be considered for specific partners. PIPT in combination with home based testing and using e-healthcare should be further explored and developed.

Indexed as

Sexual PartnersAdultAnti-Bacterial AgentsChlamydia InfectionsChlamydia trachomatisContact TracingFemaleHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHealth PersonnelHumansMaleNetherlandsPhysicians, FamilyPractice Patterns, Physicians'Sexual HealthSurveys and QuestionnairesAnti-Bacterial AgentsTabletsChlamydia trachomatisExpedited partner therapyHealth Services ResearchPartner notificationPatient initiated partner therapySexually Transmitted Infections

Identifiers

PMID29843643
PMCPMC5975518
OpenAlexW2807570805

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.