Cited by 10Reproductive tract infections researchHIV/AIDS Research and InterventionsHealth Policy Implementation Science

Is Accelerated Partner Therapy partner notification for sexually transmissible infections acceptable and feasible in general practice?

Shackleton, Thomas, Sutcliffe, Lorna, Estcourt, Claudia·2011·Sexual Health

Abstract

Background: Partner notification in primary care is problematic and of limited effectiveness despite enthusiasm from primary care providers to engage with sexually transmissible infection (STI) management. Innovative partner notification strategies must be relevant to the primary care context. The aim of the present study was to explore the opinions of general practitioners (GP) and practice nurses on the acceptability and feasibility of a new form of partner notification developed in the specialist setting known as Accelerated Partner Therapy (APT), for sex partners of those diagnosed with a bacterial STI in general practice. APT is defined as partner notification strategies that reduce time for sex partners to be treated, and include partner assessment by appropriately qualified health care professionals and here involve telephone and community pharmacy assessment. Methods: Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of GP and practice nurses in East London, UK. Results: All participants appreciated the importance of partner notification in STI management and felt that APT would improve their practice. They supported prioritising antibiotic provision for the sex partners with provision for future comprehensive STI screening. Although both models were acceptable and feasible, the majority preferred the sexual health clinic telephone assessment over the pharmacy model. Conclusions: GP and practice nurses welcome new strategies for partner notification and believe APT could provide rapid and convenient treatment of sex partners in general practice. This supports further evaluation of APT models as a partner notification strategy in primary care.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1071/sh10031

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Shackleton, T., Sutcliffe, L., & Estcourt, C.
Affiliations
  • Blizard Institute (GB)
  • ABlizard Institute of Cell and Molecular Science, Barts, London ECIA 7BE, UK.
Venue
Sexual Health
Published
2011-01-24
Volume
8
Issue
1
Pages
17-22
ISSN
  • 1448-5028 (ISSN-L)
  • 1449-8987
OpenAlex
W2165311210
Cited by
9
References
17
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 3 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
0.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Sexual Health (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Microbiology › Reproductive tract infections research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › HIV/AIDS Research and Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
Keywords
partner notification, sexually transmitted infections, bacterial STIs, general practitioners, practice nurses, acceptability, feasibility, antibiotic prescribing, community pharmacy, telephone assessment, sexual health clinics, primary care
MeSH terms
Adult, Ambulatory Care, Anecdotes as Topic, Female, Humans, London, Male, Middle Aged, Nurse Practitioners, Patient Acceptance of Health Care, Professional-Patient Relations, Surveys and Questionnaires, Referral and Consultation, Sexual Partners, Sexually Transmitted Diseases, Contact Tracing, General Practice

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review