ArticleSexually transmitted infections2025
Use of a five-category partner-type classification within a chlamydia and gonorrhoea service evaluation highlights opportunities for targeted partner notification to improve STI control.
Article in Sexually transmitted infections, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesPartner notification (PN) is a key component of sexually transmitted infection control. British Association for Sexual Health and HIV guidelines now recommend partner-centred PN outcomes using a five-category partner classification (established, new, occasional, one-off, sex worker). We evaluated the reporting of partner-centred PN outcomes in two contrasting UK sexual health services.
methodsUsing the electronic patient records of 40 patients with a positive gonorrhoea test and 180 patients with a positive chlamydia test, we extracted PN outcomes for the five most recent sexual contacts within the appropriate lookback period.
results180 patients with chlamydia reported 262 partners: 220 were contactable (103 established, 9 new, 43 occasional, 52 one-off, 13 unknown/unrecorded). 40 patients with gonorrhoea reported 88 partners: 53 were contactable (7 established, 1 new, 14 occasional, 10 one-off and 21 unknown/not recorded). No sex worker partners were reported. Most established partners of people with chlamydia (96/103) or gonorrhoea (7/7) were notified but fewer (60/103 and 6/7, respectively) attended for testing. Of those, 39 had a positive chlamydia test and two had a positive gonorrhoea test. For both chlamydia and gonorrhoea, most occasional and new partners were reported to be notified but there was a sharper decline in those tested. For both infections, one-off partners had the lowest rates of accessing services and testing. For chlamydia, 81% were notified (42/52), 23% accessed services (12/52) and 21% tested (11/52). However, 91% of those tested were positive (10/11). The number of contactable one-off gonorrhoea contacts was small and few attended.
conclusionsMeasuring partner-centred PN outcomes was feasible. There were differences in partner engagement with PN between the different infections and partner types. If these findings are replicated in larger samples, it suggests that interventions to target one-off partners who have low rates of PN engagement yet high levels of positivity could play a key role in reducing infection at population level.
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.