ArticleAIDS patient care and STDs2024
Electronic Partner Notification for Sexually Transmitted Infections: A Qualitative Assessment of Patient, Clinical Staff, and State Field Epidemiologist Perspectives.
Article in AIDS patient care and STDs, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Implementation Considerations for Electronic Partner Notification for Sexually Transmitted Infections: A Qualitative Analysis Using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.Sexually transmitted diseases · 2026Article
- Perspectives of Local Health Departments Among People Receiving HIV Services in a Southern "Ending the HIV Epidemic" Region: A Qualitative Study.Journal of the International Association of Providers of AIDS CareArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
In Massachusetts (MA), partner notification is routinely offered for new HIV and infectious syphilis cases, but there are no formal partner notification services for gonorrhea and chlamydia. Electronic partner notification (ePN), which allows patients to anonymously notify their partners of sexually transmitted infection exposure, could fill this gap. We evaluated the acceptability of and ideal characteristics for a statewide ePN service in MA. We performed semistructured interviews with patients at a Boston area sexual health clinic and conducted focus groups with clinicians and Massachusetts Department of Public Health Field Epidemiologists (FEs). We developed a codebook and thematically analyzed interview and focus group data; 25% of interviews were double coded. We identified six main themes from our data: (1) partner notification is a relational process and (2) partner notification is situation dependent. There are three pairs of challenges and core values for an effective ePN system: (3) stigmatization versus inclusivity, (4) trust versus mistrust, and (5) privacy versus helpful information sharing. Therefore, (6) a statewide ePN platform must be customizable at each possible step. Although ePN was acceptable across all three groups, the likelihood of individual use was grounded in a patient's sociocultural context, interpersonal relationships, trust in the platform and health authorities, desire to avoid stigmatization, and privacy needs. These factors are best accommodated by a platform that adapts to users' preferences and needs. ePN presents an opportunity to link partners at risk for gonorrhea or chlamydia to clinical care that is complementary to the more labor-intensive FE role.
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.