Cited by 34Reproductive tract infections researchHIV/AIDS Research and InterventionsHealth Policy Implementation Science

Better than nothing? Patient-delivered partner therapy and partner notification for chlamydia: the views of Australian general practitioners

Open access
Pavlin, Natasha L, Parker, Rhian M, Piggin, Anna K, Hopkins, Carol A, Temple-Smith, Meredith J, Fairley, Christopher K, Tomnay, Jane E, Bowden, Francis J +4 more·2010·BMC Infectious Diseases

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Genital chlamydia is the most commonly notified sexually transmissible infection (STI) in Australia and worldwide and can have serious reproductive health outcomes. Partner notification, testing and treatment are important facets of chlamydia control. Traditional methods of partner notification are not reaching enough partners to effectively control transmission of chlamydia. Patient-delivered partner therapy (PDPT) has been shown to improve the treatment of sexual partners. In Australia, General Practitioners (GPs) are responsible for the bulk of chlamydia testing, diagnosis, treatment and follow up. This study aimed to determine the views and practices of Australian general practitioners (GPs) in relation to partner notification and PDPT for chlamydia and explored GPs' perceptions of their patients' barriers to notifying partners of a chlamydia diagnosis. METHODS: In-depth, semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with 40 general practitioners (GPs) from rural, regional and urban Australia from November 2006 to March 2007. Topics covered: GPs' current practice and views about partner notification, perceived barriers and useful supports, previous use of and views regarding PDPT.Transcripts were imported into NVivo7 and subjected to thematic analysis. Data saturation was reached after 32 interviews had been completed. RESULTS: Perceived barriers to patients telling partners (patient referral) included: stigma; age and cultural background; casual or long-term relationship, ongoing relationship or not. Barriers to GPs undertaking partner notification (provider referral) included: lack of time and staff; lack of contact details; uncertainty about the legality of contacting partners and whether this constitutes breach of patient confidentiality; and feeling both personally uncomfortable and inadequately trained to contact someone who is not their patient. GPs were divided on the use of PDPT--many felt concerned that it is not best clinical practice but many also felt that it is better than nothing.GPs identified the following factors which they considered would facilitate partner notification: clear clinical guidelines; a legal framework around partner notification; a formal chlamydia screening program; financial incentives; education and practical support for health professionals, and raising awareness of chlamydia in the community, in particular amongst young people. CONCLUSIONS: GPs reported some partners do not seek medical treatment even after they are notified of being a sexual contact of a patient with chlamydia. More routine use of PDPT may help address this issue however GPs in this study had negative attitudes to the use of PDPT. Appropriate guidelines and legislation may make the use of PDPT more acceptable to Australian GPs.

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 · 10.1186/1471-2334-10-274

Cites

23 of 23 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 noted that they were more likely to notify current partners.

    “Patients noted that they were more likely to notify current partners (127, 134, 135, 141, 142, 147, 149-151, 159, 161, 165, 167).”

    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 [135]

    The Results section, “Barriers to partner notification and treatment” (page unavailable), reports GPs’ views that whether a relationship is ongoing affects notification; one GP thought patients would be reluctant to contact former partners. This is consistent with current partners being more likely to be notified, but the paper interviewed GPs, not patients, and does not report patients saying so. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Health workers indicated that to deliver services effectively they would need support, including training, data management tools, funding, more staff time, and supportive policies.

    “Health workers also indicated that to deliver services effectively they would need support, including training, data management tools, funding, more staff time allocated to complete certain tasks, and supportive policies (124, 127, 132-139).”

    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 [135]

    The Results sections on facilitators and barriers report that Australian GPs wanted education, practical support, clear guidelines, a legal framework and financial incentives, and identified insufficient time and staff as barriers to partner notification. The paper does not specifically identify data management tools or general funding as requested support; its findings also concern GPs providing chlamydia partner-notification services, rather than health workers and services generally. (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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pavlin, N. L., Parker, R. M., Piggin, A. K., Hopkins, C. A., Temple-Smith, M. J., Fairley, C. K., Tomnay, J. E., Bowden, F. J., Russell, D. B., Hocking, J. S., Pitts, M. K., & Chen, M. Y.
Affiliations
  • The University of Melbourne (AU)
  • Australian National University (AU)
  • Cairns Hospital (AU)
  • La Trobe University (AU)
Corresponding author
Pavlin, Natasha L
Venue
BMC Infectious Diseases
Published
2010-09-20
Volume
10
Issue
1
Pages
274-274
ISSN
1471-2334 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1995294545
Cited by
33
References
23
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 2
FWCI
1.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Infectious Diseases (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ResearchOnline - JCU (James Cook University) (submittedVersion)
  • Minerva Access (University of Melbourne) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • ANU Open Research (Australian National University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Australian Government
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
patient-delivered partner therapy, partner notification, chlamydia, general practitioners, referral, provider referral, stigma, confidentiality, chlamydia screening, clinician attitudes, sexually transmitted infections, Australia, rural and regional health services, youth, financial incentives, clinical guidelines
MeSH terms
Australia, Female, Humans, Interviews as Topic, Lymphogranuloma Venereum, Male, Rural Population, Sexual Partners, Urban Population, Contact Tracing, General Practitioners

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