CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 29Adolescent Sexual and Reproductive HealthReproductive tract infections researchHIV/AIDS Research and Interventions

Adolescent Patient Preferences Surrounding Partner Notification and Treatment for Sexually Transmitted Infections

Open access
Reed, Jennifer L., Huppert, Jill S., Gillespie, Gordon L., Taylor, Regina G., Holland, Carolyn K., Alessandrini, Evaline A., Kahn, Jessica A.·2015·Academic Emergency Medicine
DOI 10.1111/acem.12557PMC PMC4318513
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Important barriers to addressing the sexually transmitted infection (STI) epidemic among adolescents are the inadequate partner notification of positive STI results and insufficient rates of partner testing and treatment. However, adolescent attitudes regarding partner notification and treatment are not well understood. The aim was to qualitatively explore the barriers to and preferences for partner notification and treatment among adolescent males and females tested for STIs in an emergency department (ED) setting and to explore the acceptability of ED personnel notifying their sexual partners. METHODS: This was a descriptive, qualitative study in which a convenience sample of 40 adolescents (18 females, 22 males) 14 to 21 years of age who presented to either adult or pediatric EDs with STI-related complaints participated. Individualized, semistructured, confidential interviews were administered to each participant. Interviews were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim by an independent transcriptionist. Data were analyzed using framework analysis. RESULTS: Barriers to partner notification included fear of retaliation or loss of the relationship, lack of understanding of or concern for the consequences associated with an STI, and social stigma and embarrassment. Participants reported two primary barriers to their partners obtaining STI testing and treatment: lack of transportation to the health care site and the partner's fear of STI positive test results. Most participants preferred to notify their main sexual partners of an STI exposure via a face-to-face interaction or a phone call. Most participants were agreeable with a health care provider (HCP) notifying their main sexual partners of STI exposure and preferred that the HCP notify the partner by phone call. CONCLUSIONS: There are several adolescent preferences and barriers for partner notification and treatment. To be most effective, future interventions to prevent adolescent STIs should incorporate these preferences and address the barriers to partner notification. In an ED setting, using HCPs to provide partner notification of STI exposures is acceptable to adolescent patients; however, the feasibility of this type of program needs further exploration.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/acem.12557

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Patients in many studies mentioned stigma due to being exposed as having been unfaithful, as well as blame and embarrassment, as motives not to want to notify sexual partners.

    “Additionally, patients in many studies mentioned stigma due to being exposed as having been unfaithful, as well as blame and embarrassment, as motives not to want to notify sexual partners (119, 124, 126, 136, 138, 141, 143, 149, 159, 160, 162, 165, 166).”

    From Updated recommendations for the treatment of Neisseria gonorrhoeae, Chlamydia trachomatis, and Treponema pallidum (syphilis) and new recommendations on syphilis testing and partner services (2024) · cites this paper as [126]

    The Results section, “Barriers to Partner Notification” (page unavailable), reports that participants cited embarrassment and social stigma as reasons not to notify partners. The Discussion says these barriers had also been demonstrated in previous literature. Our copy does not identify fear of being exposed as unfaithful or blame as motives, and this paper reports one study rather than findings from many studies. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 25

  1. [2]Reed JL Simendinger L Griffeth S Kim HG Huppert JS Point-of-care testing for sexually transmitted infections increases awareness and short-term abstinence in adolescent women J Adolesc Health 2010 46 270 7 20159505 PMC2824595
  2. [3]Burstein GR Snyder MH Conley D Boekeloo BO Quinn TC Zenilman JM Adolescent chlamydia testing practices and diagnosed infections in a large managed care organization Sex Transm Dis 2001 28 477 83 11473222
  3. [4]Orr DP Johnston K Brizendine E Subsequent sexually transmitted infection in urban adolescents and young adults: prevalence, incidence, natural history, and response to treatment of Trichomonas vaginalis infection among adolescent women Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2001 155 947 53 11483124
  4. [5]Van Der Pol B Williams JA Orr DP Batteiger BE Fortenberry JD Prevalence, incidence, natural history, and response to treatment of Trichomonas vaginalis infection among adolescent women J Infect Dis 2005 192 2039 44 16288365
  5. [6]Batteiger BE Tu W Ofner S Repeated Chlamydia trachomatis genital infections in adolescent women J Infect Dis 2010 201 42 51 19929379 PMC2791188
  6. [7]St Lawrence JS Montano DE Kasprzyk D Phillips WR Armstrong K Leichliter JS STD screening, testing, case reporting, and clinical and partner notification practices: a national survey of US physicians Am J Public Health 2002 92 1784 8 12406809 PMC1447329
  7. [8]Thurman AR Shain RN Holden AE Champion JD Perdue ST Piper JM Partner notification of sexually transmitted infections: a large cohort of Mexican American and African American women Sex Transm Dis 2008 35 136 40 17898679
  8. [9]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 8750422
  9. [10]Schillinger JA Kissinger P Calvet H 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 12514443
  10. [11]Khan A Fortenberry JD Juliar BE Tu W Orr DP Batteiger BE The prevalence of chlamydia, gonorrhea, and trichomonas in sexual partnerships: implications for partner notification and treatment Sex Transm Dis 2005 32 260 4 15788928 PMC2575652
  11. [12]Ritchie J Spencer L Qualitative Data Analysis for Applied Policy Research Bryman A Burgess RG Analyzing Qualitative Data New York, NY Routledge 1994 173 94
  12. [13]Lincoln YS Guba EG Naturalistic Inquiry Beverly Hills, CA Sage Publications 1985
  13. [14]Althaus CL Heijne JC Herzog SA Roellin A Low N Individual and population level effects of partner notification for Chlamydia trachomatis PloS One 2012 7 e51438 23251534 PMC3520891
  14. [15]Reddel S Edmiston N Contact tracing for STIs - new resources and supportive evidence Aust Fam Physician 2012 41 128 32 22396926
  15. [16]Decker MR Miller E McCauley HL Intimate partner violence and partner notification of sexually transmitted infections among adolescent and young adult family planning clinic patients Int J STD AIDS 2011 22 345 7 21680673 PMC3603561
  16. [17]Jones HE Holloway IW Pressman E Meier J Westhoff CL Women's preferences for testing and management of sexually transmitted infections among low-income New York City family planning clients Int J STD AIDS 2013 24 455 60 23970748
  17. [19]Secura GM Desir FA Mullersman JL Madden T Allsworth JE Peipert JF Predictors of male partner treatment for sexually transmitted infection Sex Transm Dis 2012 39 769 75 23001263 PMC3457019
  18. [20]Apoola A Radcliffe KW Das S Patient preferences for partner notification Sex Transm Infect 2006 82 327 9 16877586 PMC2564722
  19. [21]Azariah S Partner notification for sexually transmitted infections. Why can't we talk about it? N Z Med J 2012 125 62 70 22722217
  20. [22]Balfe M Brugha R O'Donovan D O'Connell E Vaughan D Young women's decisions to accept chlamydia screening: influences of stigma and doctor-patient interactions BMC Public Health 2010 10 425 20642845 PMC2918556
  21. [23]Brugha R Balfe M Conroy RM Young adults' preferred options for receiving chlamydia screening test results: a cross-sectional survey of 6085 young adults Int J STD AIDS 2011 22 635 9 22096047
  22. [24]Sylvan SP Hedlund J Efficacy of partner notification for Chlamydia trachomatis among young adults in youth health centres in Uppsala County, Sweden J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2009 23 517 22 19207561
  23. [25]Shoveller J Knight R Davis W Gilbert M Ogilvie G Online sexual health services: examining youth's perspectives Can J Public Health 2012 103 14 8 22338322 PMC6973649
  24. [26]Gotz HM van Rooijen MS Vriens P Initial evaluation of use of an online partner notification tool for STI, called ‘suggest a test': a cross sectional pilot study Sex Transm Infect 2014 90 195 200 24391062
  25. [27]Rietmeijer CA Westergaard B Mickiewicz TA Evaluation of an online partner notification program Sex Transm Dis 2011 38 359 64 21343844

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Reed, J. L., Huppert, J. S., Gillespie, G. L., Taylor, R. G., Holland, C. K., Alessandrini, E. A., & Kahn, J. A.
Affiliations
  • Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center (US)
  • University of Cincinnati (US)
Corresponding author
Reed, Jennifer L.
ORCID
Venue
Academic Emergency Medicine
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2014-12-24
Volume
22
Issue
1
Pages
61-66
ISSN
  • 1069-6563 (ISSN-L)
  • 1553-2712
DOI
10.1111/acem.12557
PMC
PMC4318513
OpenAlex
W2037177160
Cited by
29
References
1
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1
FWCI
6.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • Academic Emergency Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • Cincinnati Hospital Research Foundation
  • NICHD/NIH (K12HD051953)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Adolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Microbiology › Reproductive tract infections research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › HIV/AIDS Research and Interventions
Keywords
sexually transmitted infections, partner notification, adolescent patient, patient preferences, STI treatment, emergency department, social stigma, fear of retaliation, transportation barriers
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Emergency Service, Hospital, Fear, Female, Humans, Interviews as Topic, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Male, Sexual Partners, Sexually Transmitted Diseases, Telephone, Transportation, Contact Tracing, Young Adult, Patient Preference, Social Stigma

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