Sexual Health Sexual Health Society
Publishing on sexual health from the widest perspective
RESEARCH ARTICLE

Survey of partner notification practices for sexually transmissible infections in the United States

Fidel A. Desir A B D , Jessica H. Ladd A and Charlotte A. Gaydos C

A Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 615 North Wolfe Street, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA.

B Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 855 North Wolfe Street, 530 Rangos Building, Baltimore, MD 21215, USA.

C Division of Infectious Diseases, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 1830 East Monument Street, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA.

D Corresponding author. Email: fdesir@jhmi.edu

Sexual Health 13(2) 162-169 http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/SH15136
Submitted: 7 July 2015  Accepted: 18 November 2015   Published: 4 February 2016

Abstract

Background: Partner notification (PN) for sexually transmissible infections (STIs) is a vital STI control method. The most recent evaluation of PN practices in the United States, conducted in 1999, indicated that few STI patients were offered PN services. The objectives of this study were to obtain a preliminary understanding of the current provision of PN services in HIV/STI testing sites throughout the US and to determine the types of PN services available. Methods: A convenience sample of 300 randomly selected testing sites was contacted to administer a phone survey about PN practices. These sites were from a large database maintained by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Sites were eligible to participate if they provided testing services for chlamydia, gonorrhoea, HIV or syphilis and were not hospitals or Planned Parenthood locations. Results: Of the 300 eligible sites called, 79 sites were successfully reached, of which 74 agreed to participate, yielding a response rate of 24.7% and a cooperation rate of 93.7%. Most surveyed testing sites provided some form of PN service (anonymous or non-anonymous) on site or through an affiliate for chlamydia (100%), gonorrhoea (97%), HIV (91%) and syphilis (96%) infection. Anonymous PN services were available at 67–69% of sites. Only 6–9% of sites offered Internet-based PN services. Conclusions: Most surveyed testing sites currently offer some type of PN service for chlamydia, gonorrhoea, HIV or syphilis infection. However, approximately one-third of surveyed sites do not offer anonymous services. Novel, Internet-based methods may be warranted to increase the availability of anonymous services.

Additional keywords: HIV/STI testing, patient-delivered partner therapy.


References

[1]  Kissinger PJ, Niccolai LM, Magnus M, Farley TA, Maher JE, Richardson-Alston G, Dorst D, Myers L, Peterman TA. Partner notification for HIV and syphilis: effects on sexual behaviors and relationship stability. Sex Transm Dis 2003; 30 75–82.
Partner notification for HIV and syphilis: effects on sexual behaviors and relationship stability.CrossRef | 12514447PubMed | open url image1

[2]  Parran T. Shadow on the land: syphilis. New York: Reynal & Hitchcock; 1937.

[3]  Mathews C, Coetzee N, Zwarenstein M, Lombard C, Guttmacher S, Oxman A, Schmid G. A systematic review of strategies for partner notification for sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV/AIDS. Int J STD AIDS 2002; 13 285–300.
A systematic review of strategies for partner notification for sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV/AIDS.CrossRef | 11972932PubMed | open url image1

[4]  Schillinger JA, Kissinger P, Calvet H, Whittington WL, Ransom RL, Sternberg MR, Berman SM, Kent CK, Martin DH, Oh MK, Handsfield HH, Bolan G, Markowitz LE, Fortenberry JD. Patient-delivered partner treatment with azithromycin to prevent repeated Chlamydia trachomatis infection among women: a randomized, controlled trial. Sex Transm Dis 2003; 30 49–56.
Patient-delivered partner treatment with azithromycin to prevent repeated Chlamydia trachomatis infection among women: a randomized, controlled trial.CrossRef | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD3sXivFKi&md5=f8bc69527a27628093eb977268d59b40CAS | 12514443PubMed | open url image1

[5]  Kerani RP, Fleming M, Golden MR. Acceptability and intention to seek medical care after hypothetical receipt of patient-delivered partner therapy or electronic partner notification postcards among men who have sex with men: the partner’s perspective. Sex Transm Dis 2013; 40 179–85.
| 23324981PubMed | open url image1

[6]  Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Legal status of Expedited Partner Therapy (EPT). Available online at: http://www.cdc.gov/std/ept/legal/default.htm [verified 1 April 2014].

[7]  Golden MR, Hogben M, Handsfield HH, St Lawrence JS, Potterat JJ, Holmes KK. Partner notification for HIV and STD in the United States: low coverage for gonorrhea, chlamydial infection, and HIV. Sex Transm Dis 2003; 30 490–6.
Partner notification for HIV and STD in the United States: low coverage for gonorrhea, chlamydial infection, and HIV.CrossRef | 12782949PubMed | open url image1

[8]  Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Prevention Information Network. Databases. Available at: http://www.cdcnpin.org/scripts/about/database.asp. Accessed April 1, 2014.

[9]  Landry DJ, Forrest JD. Public health departments providing sexually transmitted disease services. Fam Plann Perspect 1996; 28 261–6.
Public health departments providing sexually transmitted disease services.CrossRef | 1:STN:280:DyaK2s7hvVGktg%3D%3D&md5=ac93a1da4217591ff49899588bb99d57CAS | 8959416PubMed | open url image1

[10]  Chacko MR, Smith PB, Kozinetz CA. Understanding partner notification (Patient self-referral method) by young women. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol 2000; 13 27–32.
Understanding partner notification (Patient self-referral method) by young women.CrossRef | 1:STN:280:DC%2BD3c3gvFKjsQ%3D%3D&md5=e1a3fac5073d66e5871a5563aa589a9dCAS | 10742671PubMed | open url image1

[11]  Rosenthal SL, Baker JG, Biro FM, Stanberry LR. Secondary prevention of STD transmission during adolescence: partner notification. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol 1995; 8 183–7.
Secondary prevention of STD transmission during adolescence: partner notification.CrossRef | open url image1

[12]  Gorbach PM, Aral SO, Celum C, Stoner BP, Whittington WL, Galea J, Coronado N, Connor S, Holmes KK. To notify or not to notify: STD patients’ perspectives of partner notification in Seattle. Sex Transm Dis 2000; 27 193–200.
To notify or not to notify: STD patients’ perspectives of partner notification in Seattle.CrossRef | 1:STN:280:DC%2BD3c3kt1ygtg%3D%3D&md5=40879d711069cde37af3133f2d1084e4CAS | 10782740PubMed | open url image1

[13]  Oh MK, Boker JR, Genuardi FJ, Cloud GA, Reynolds J, Hodgens JB. Sexual contact tracing outcome in adolescent chlamydial and gonococcal cervicitis cases. J Adolesc Health 1996; 18 4–9.
Sexual contact tracing outcome in adolescent chlamydial and gonococcal cervicitis cases.CrossRef | 1:STN:280:DyaK28zmtFyjsg%3D%3D&md5=1593b7fc52d702098587de57e8915bb2CAS | 8750422PubMed | open url image1

[14]  Fortenberry JD, Brizendine EJ, Katz BP, Orr DP. The role of self-efficacy and relationship quality in partner notification by adolescents with sexually transmitted infections. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2002; 156 1133–7.
The role of self-efficacy and relationship quality in partner notification by adolescents with sexually transmitted infections.CrossRef | 12413343PubMed | open url image1

[15]  Mimiaga MJ, Fair AD, Tetu AM, Novak DS, VanDerwarker R, Bertrand T, Adelson S, Mayer KH. Acceptability of an internet-based partner notification system for sexually transmitted infection exposure among men who have sex with men. Am J Public Health 2008; 98 1009–11.
Acceptability of an internet-based partner notification system for sexually transmitted infection exposure among men who have sex with men.CrossRef | 17901442PubMed | open url image1

[16]  Bilardi JE, Fairley CK, Hopkins CA, Hocking JS, Temple-Smith MJ, Bowden FJ, Russell DB, Pitts M, Tomnay JE, Parker RM, Pavlin NL, Chen MY. Experiences and outcomes of partner notification among men and women recently diagnosed with chlamydia and their views on innovative resources aimed at improving notification rates. Sex Transm Dis 2010; 37 253–8.
| 20182407PubMed | open url image1

[17]  Ladd J, Gaydos A. Acceptability of innovative methods of anonymous STI partner notification among American adolescents. Analysis presented at the 2012 National STD Prevention Conference. March 2012. Minneapolis, MN: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2012.

[18]  Mimiaga MJ, Tetu AM, Gortmaker S, Koenen KC, Fair AD, Novak DS, Vanderwarker R, Bertrand T, Adelson S, Mayer KH. HIV and STD status among MSM and attitudes about Internet partner notification for STD exposure. Sex Transm Dis 2008; 35 111–6.
HIV and STD status among MSM and attitudes about Internet partner notification for STD exposure.CrossRef | 18007274PubMed | open url image1

[19]  Dorell CG, Sutton MY, Oster AM, Hardnett F, Thomoas PE, Gaul ZJ, Mena LA, Heffelfinger JD. Missed opportunities for HIV testing in health care settings among young African American men who have sex with men: implications for the HIV epidemic. AIDS Patient Care STDS 2011; 25 657–64.
Missed opportunities for HIV testing in health care settings among young African American men who have sex with men: implications for the HIV epidemic.CrossRef | 21923415PubMed | open url image1



Export Citation