Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37735382›Full record

SynthesisBMC public health2023

Assessing complex interventions: a systematic review of outcomes used in randomised controlled trials on STI partner notification in high-income countries.

Victoire Sawras, Sylvie Deuffic-Burban, Marie Préau, Bruno Spire, Yazdan Yazdanpanah, Karen Champenois

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC public health, 2023. 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
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 29% 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

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

Victoire SawrasUniversité Paris Cité and Université Sorbonne Paris Nord, Inserm, IAME, Paris, F-75018, France.
Sylvie Deuffic-BurbanUniversité Paris Cité and Université Sorbonne Paris Nord, Inserm, IAME, Paris, F-75018, France.
Marie PréauInstitut de Psychologie, Université Lumière Lyon 2, Inserm, U1296, Lyon, France.
Bruno SpireAix Marseille Univ, Inserm, IRD, SESSTIM, ISSPAM, Marseille, France.
Yazdan YazdanpanahUniversité Paris Cité and Université Sorbonne Paris Nord, Inserm, IAME, Paris, F-75018, France.
Karen ChampenoisUniversité Paris Cité and Université Sorbonne Paris Nord, Inserm, IAME, Paris, F-75018, France. karen.champenois@inserm.fr.
Inserm · FRUniversité Claude Bernard Lyon 1 · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPartner notification interventions are complex and assessing their effectiveness is challenging. By reviewing the literature on the effectiveness of partner notification interventions, our aim was to evaluate the choice, collection, and interpretation of outcomes and their impact on study findings.

methodsWe conducted a systematic review of individual-level randomised controlled trials evaluating the effectiveness of partner notification interventions for bacterial STIs, HIV or sexually transmitted HCV in high-income countries since 2000. Partner notification interventions included assisted patient referral interventions and expedited treatment. The content analysis was carried out through a narrative review.

resultsIn the 9 studies that met the inclusion criteria, 16 different outcomes were found. In most studies, one or two outcomes assessing partner notification practices were associated with an outcome reflecting STI circulation through index case reinfections. These outcomes assessed the main expected effects of partner notification interventions. However, partner notification is composed of a succession of actions between the intervention on the index case and the testing and/or treatment of the notified partners. Intermediate outcomes were missing so as to better understand levers and barriers throughout the process. Potential changes in participants' sexual behaviour after partner notification, e.g. condom use, were outcomes reported in only two studies assessing interventions including counselling. Most outcomes were collected through interviews, some weeks after the intervention, which might lead to desirability and attrition biases, respectively. Assessment of the effectiveness of partner notification interventions on partner testing/treatment was limited by the collection of data from index cases. Few data describing index cases and their partners were provided in the studies. Additional data on the number and type of exposed partners and the proportion of partners already aware of their infection before being notified would help to interpret the results.

conclusionsThese insights would help to understand why and under what conditions the intervention is considered effective and therefore can be replicated or adapted to other populations and contexts.

Indexed as

Contact TracingSexually Transmitted DiseasesAwarenessDeveloped CountriesHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSexual BehaviorComplex interventionsHIVOutcomesPartner notificationRandomised controlled trialsSTI

Identifiers

PMID37735382
PMCPMC10512513
OpenAlexW4386935073

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.