Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38754986›Full record

ArticleSexually transmitted infections2024

Digital interventions for STI and HIV partner notification: a scoping review.

Charlotte Woodward, Sonja Bloch, Amelia McInnes-Dean, Karen C Lloyd, Julie McLeod, John Saunders, Paul Flowers, Claudia S Estcourt, Jo Gibbs

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Sexually transmitted infections, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Attitudes toward partner notification ofFrontiers in public health · 2026
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. 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

9 authors.

Charlotte WoodwardInstitute for Global Health, University College London, London, UK.
Sonja BlochInstitute for Global Health, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1779-8616
Amelia McInnes-DeanInstitute for Global Health, University College London, London, UK a.mcinnes-dean@ucl.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-0520-6174
Karen C LloydInstitute for Global Health, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6310-6836
Julie McLeodSchool of Health & Life Sciences, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6787-1511
John SaundersInstitute for Global Health, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3020-9916
Paul FlowersSchool of Psychological Sciences and Health, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6239-5616
Claudia S EstcourtSchool of Health & Life Sciences, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5523-5630
Jo GibbsInstitute for Global Health, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5696-0260

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPartner notification (PN) is key to the control of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). Digital interventions have been used to facilitate PN. A scoping review was conducted to describe the interventions used, user preferences and acceptability of digital PN interventions from patient and partner perspectives.

methodsA systematic literature search was conducted of eight databases for articles published in English, available online with digital PN outcome data. Articles were assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Quantitative and qualitative data were synthesised and analysed using thematic analysis.

resultsTwenty-six articles met the eligibility criteria. Articles were heterogeneous in quality and design, with the majority using quantitative methods. Nine articles focused solely on bacterial STIs (five on syphilis; four on chlamydia), one on HIV, two on syphilis and HIV, and 14 included multiple STIs, of which 13 included HIV. There has been a shift over time from digital PN interventions solely focusing on notifying partners, to interventions including elements of partner management, such as facilitation of partner testing and treatment, or sharing of STI test results (between index patients and tested sex partners). Main outcomes measured were number of partners notified (13 articles), partner testing/consultation (eight articles) and treatment (five articles). Relationship type and STI type appeared to affect digital PN preferences for index patients with digital methods preferred for casual rather than established partner types. Generally, partners preferred face-to-face PN.

conclusionDigital PN to date mainly focuses on notifying partners rather than comprehensive partner management. Despite an overall preference for face-to-face PN with partners, digital PN could play a useful role in improving outcomes for certain partner types and infections. Further research needs to understand the impact of digital PN interventions on specific PN outcomes, their effectiveness for different infections and include health economic evaluations.

Indexed as

Contact TracingHIV InfectionsSexually Transmitted DiseasesSexual PartnersFemaleHumansMaleSyphilisCONTACT TRACINGHIVSEXUAL HEALTHSYSTEMATIC REVIEW

Identifiers

PMID38754986
PMCPMC11187395

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.