Partner notification of chlamydia infection in primary care: randomised controlled trial and analysis of resource use
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of a practice nurse led strategy to improve the notification and treatment of partners of people with chlamydia infection. DESIGN: Randomised controlled trial. SETTING: 27 general practices in the Bristol and Birmingham areas. PARTICIPANTS: 140 men and women with chlamydia (index cases) diagnosed by screening of a home collected urine sample or vulval swab specimen. INTERVENTIONS: Partner notification at the general practice immediately after diagnosis by trained practice nurses, with telephone follow up by a health adviser; or referral to a specialist health adviser at a genitourinary medicine clinic. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was the proportion of index cases with at least one treated sexual partner. Specified secondary outcomes included the number of sexual contacts elicited during a sexual history, positive test result for chlamydia six weeks after treatment, and the cost of each strategy in 2003 sterling prices. RESULTS: 65.3% (47/72) of participants receiving practice nurse led partner notification had at least one partner treated compared with 52.9% (39/68) of those referred to a genitourinary medicine clinic (risk difference 12.4%, 95% confidence interval -1.8% to 26.5%). Of 68 participants referred to the clinic, 21 (31%) did not attend. The costs per index case were 32.55 pounds sterling for the practice nurse led strategy and 32.62 pounds sterling for the specialist referral strategy. CONCLUSION: Practice based partner notification by trained nurses with telephone follow up by health advisers is at least as effective as referral to a specialist health adviser at a genitourinary medicine clinic, and costs the same. Trial registration Clinical trials: NCT00112255.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Across 22 studies, STI partner services were generally found to be affordable and cost-effective in both high-income countries and low- and middle-income countries.
“Across 22 studies (95, 101, 116, 171-189), STI partner services were generally found to be affordable and cost-effective in both high-income countries (HICs) and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).”
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Trelle, S., Shang, A., Nartey, L., Cassell, J. A., & Low, N. (2007) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.39079.460741.7c · Cited by 199 · see citing works
Self-citationAlthaus, C. L., Turner, K. M., Mercer, C. H., Auguste, P., Roberts, T. E., Bell, G., Herzog, S. A., Cassell, J. A., Edmunds, W. J., White, P. J., et al. (2014) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta18020 · Cited by 101 · see citing works
Self-citationHoare, K. J., Mills, J., & Francis, K. (2012) · Journal of Advanced Nursing · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2011.05870.x · Cited by 77 · see citing works
Wilson, T. E., Hogben, M., Malka, E. S., Liddon, N., McCormack, W. M., Rubin, S. R., & Augenbraun, M. A. (2009) · American Journal of Public Health · doi:10.2105/ajph.2007.112128 · Cited by 54 · see citing works
Clark, J. L., Segura, E. R., Oldenburg, C. E., Salvatierra, H. J., Rios, J., Perez-Brumer, A. G., Gonzales, P., Sheoran, B., Sanchez, J., & Lama, J. R. (2018) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.9821 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
“However, evidence of the effect of referral cards in developing country settings is limited, and their use within MSM partnerships has not, to our knowledge, been evaluated in any previous randomized controlled trials (RCTs) [21-23].”
Adolescent Sexually Transmitted Infections: A Community Epidemic
Reed, J. L., & Huppert, J. S. (2011) · Journal of Prevention & Intervention in the Community · doi:10.1080/10852352.2011.576973 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
- Authors
- Low, N., McCarthy, A., Roberts, T. E., Huengsberg, M., Sanford, E., Sterne, J. A. C., Macleod, J., Salisbury, C., Pye, K., Holloway, A., Morcom, A., Patel, R., Robinson, S. M., Horner, P., Barton, P. M., & Egger, M.
- Affiliations
- University of Bristol (GB)
- University of Birmingham (GB)
- University of Bern (CH)
- Corresponding author
- Low, Nicola
- ORCID
- Venue
- BMJ
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2005-12-15
- Volume
- 332
- Issue
- 7532
- Pages
- 14-19
- ISSN
- 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
- 0959-8138
- 1468-5833
- PMC
- PMC1325126
- OpenAlex
- W2158458739
- Cited by
- 75
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 11 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 7.54
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- BMJ (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- BORIS (University Library Bern) (submittedVersion)
- Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
- University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (submittedVersion)
- Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Microbiology › Reproductive tract infections research
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Nursing Roles and Practices
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › HIV/AIDS Research and Interventions
- Keywords
- chlamydia, partner notification, practice nurses, telephone follow-up, primary care, resource utilization (health care), cost-effectiveness, sexually transmitted infections
- MeSH terms
- Chlamydia Infections, Costs and Cost Analysis, England, Family Practice, Female, Health Resources, Humans, Male, Nurse Practitioners, Referral and Consultation, Specimen Handling, Contact Tracing
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