CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 18Reproductive tract infections researchHealth Policy Implementation ScienceHIV/AIDS Research and Interventions

Barriers to and facilitators of partner notification for chlamydia trachomatis among health care professionals

Open access
Theunissen, Kevin ATM, Schipper, Pim, Hoebe, Christian JPA, Crutzen, Rik, Kok, Gerjo, Dukers-Muijrers, Nicole HTM·2014·BMC Health Services Research
DOI 10.1186/s12913-014-0647-5PMC PMC4279885
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Partner notification (PN) is an essential case-finding tool in the management of sexually transmitted infections (STIs). Yet, data on the effectiveness and factors impacting implementation of PN in the Netherlands are lacking. With the aim of further exploring and improving the PN process, the current study assessed perceived barriers and facilitators among health care professionals in the STI clinical setting. In particular, we explored the management of PN in young heterosexual patients diagnosed with Chlamydia trachomatis (Ct). METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews among 22 health care professionals (response rate 52%) from 5 of the 8 national STI clinics in the Netherlands. We carried out qualitative content analysis using a framework approach. All participants were nurses, aged mid 20's to late 50's, and all but one were female. RESULTS: All health care professionals felt comfortable discussing PN. Other perceived facilitators for PN included: time, one-on-one consultations, interviewing skills (i.e. Motivational Interviewing) and a proactive helping style. Important barriers were identified as: sub-optimal guidelines, inaccurate sexual history, a lack of feedback regarding the motivational strategies that were used, and the lack of feedback regarding overall PN effectiveness. The health care professionals placed an emphasis on the care and treatment of the individual index patient rather than on discussion of PN, or on motivating and helping patients to engage in PN. CONCLUSIONS: Health care professionals identified several barriers that need to be overcome, and facilitators which need to be maintained. Future efforts should concentrate on introducing PN protocols, providing feedback on both the effectiveness of strategies used by health care professionals, and on the PN process as a whole, and educating health care professionals about Motivational Interviewing strategies. Moreover, the possible implementation of an Internet-based PN system should be explored.

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/s12913-014-0647-5

Cites

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 [127]

    In Results (Perceived patient-related facilitators; page unavailable), health care professionals report that patients in steady relationships often say they have already notified their partners. This supports a tendency to notify ongoing partners, but the paper does not report patients directly comparing current with former partners or saying they were more likely to notify current partners. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Another common issue was the difficulty of retrieving and/or having the correct contact information for all sexual partners, in addition to notifications being ignored.

    “Another common issue was the difficulty of retrieving and/or having the correct contact information for all sexual partners, in addition to notifications being ignored (123, 124, 127, 132, 137, 138, 140, 144, 149, 151, 152, 155, 158, 167-170).”

    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 [127]

    The Results section on perceived patient-related barriers reports that patients sometimes lack partners’ contact information, making notification impossible. The section on organisational barriers says professionals often did not know whether partners had been contacted; it does not establish that notifications were ignored. The paper also does not characterize missing contact information as a common issue affecting all partners. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    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 [127]

    The Discussion’s Recommendations table calls for partner-notification training, information systems, and clearer guidelines, supporting those parts of the claim. It does not report that the interviewed workers needed funding or more staff time; the Results’ Perceived organisational facilitators section says almost all reported sufficient time to conduct and discuss partner notification. The findings concern partner notification for chlamydia, rather than service delivery generally (page numbers unavailable in our copy). (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Some health workers prefer simple patient referral because they feel it is the patient's responsibility to inform partners and because it assures the patient's privacy.

    “Some health workers prefer simple patient referral for the reason that they feel it is the patient's responsibility to inform their partners (127) and because it assures the patient's privacy (120, 128-130).”

    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 [127]

Self-check

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

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

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 36 · Cited by 18

Research works printed but not linked: 25

  1. [1]Alam N, Chamot E, Vermund S, Streatfield K, Kristensen S: Partner notification for sexually transmitted infections in developing countries: a systematic review.BMC Public Health 2010, 10:19. PMC2821362 20082718
  2. [2]Bell G Potterat J Partner notification for sexually transmitted infections in the modern world: a practitioner perspective on challenges and opportunities Sex Trans Infect 2011 87 ii34 eii36 10.1136/sextrans-2011-050109.30 PMC3610390 22110152 · DOI
  3. [3]Macke BA Maher JE Partner notification in the United States: an evidence-based review Am J Prev Med 1999 17 230 242 10.1016/S0749-3797(99)00076-8 10987639 · DOI
  4. [4]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 of STD AIDS 2002 13 285 300 10.1258/0956462021925081 11972932 · DOI
  5. [5]Trelle S, Shang A, Nartey L, Cassell JA, Low N: Improved effectiveness of partner notification for patients with sexually transmitted infections: systematic review.BMJ 2007. doi:10.1136/bmj.39079.460741.7c PMC1801006 17237298 · DOI · Paper page
  6. [6]Hogben M St Lawrence JS Montano DE Kasprzyk D Leichliter JS Philips WR Physicians’ opinions about partner notification methods: case reporting, patient referral, and provider referral Sex Trans Infect 2004 80 30 34 10.1136/sti.2003.004937 PMC1758392 14755032 · DOI
  7. [8]Bangor-Jones RD McCloskey J Crooks AML Bastian LA Attitudes of WA GPs to chlamydia partner notification- a survey Australian family physician 2009 38 448 452 19530376
  8. [9]Burnet Institute: Partner Notification of Sexually Transmitted Infections In New South Wales: an informed literature review. Australia: Burnet Institute Centre for Population Health; 2010.
  9. [10]Dukers-Muijrers NHTM, van Liere GAFS, Hoebe CJPA. Re-screening chlamydia trachomatis positive subjects: a comparison of practices between an STI clinic, general practitioners and gynaecologists.Sex Trans Infect 2012, 89(1):25–27. 22941863
  10. [11]Rogers WA Ethical issues in public health: a qualitative study of public health practice in Scotland J Epidemiol Community Health 2004 58 446 450 10.1136/jech.2003.013417 15143108 PMC1732787 · DOI
  11. [12]Thomas JC Sage M Dillenberg J Guillory VJ A code of ethics for Public Health Am J Public Health 2002 92 1057 1059 10.2105/AJPH.92.7.1057 12084677 PMC1447186 · DOI
  12. [13]Edelman EJ, Cole CA, Richardson W, Boshnack N, Jenkins H, Rosenthal MS. Opportunities for Improving Partner Notification for HIV: Results from a Community-Based Participatory Research Study. AIDS Behav 2014. doi:10.1007/s10461-013-0692-9. 24469221 · DOI
  13. [15]Haggerty CL Gottlieb SL Taylor BD Low N Xu F Ness RB Risk of Sequelae after Chlamydia trachomatis Genital Infection in Women J Infect Dis 2010 201 S134 S155 10.1086/652395 20470050 · DOI
  14. [16]Clark JP Godlee F Jefferson T How to peer review a qualitative manuscript Peer Review in Health Sciences 2003 Second London BMJ Books 219 235
  15. [17]Ritchie J, Spencer L. Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research. In: Bryman A, Burgess R, eds. Analysing qualitative data. London: Routledge; 1994:173–94
  16. [18]Hogben M: Partner Notification for Sexually Transmitted Diseases. CID 2007, 44(suppl3):S160–S174 17342669
  17. [19]Aar F Schreuder I Weert Y Spijker R Götz H Op de Coul E The Partner Notification GroupCurrent practices of partner notification among MSM with HIV, gonorrhoea and syphilis in the Netherlands: an urgent need for improvement BMC Infectious Diseases 2012 12 114 10.1186/1471-2334-12-114 22583517 PMC3472393 · DOI
  18. [20]Temple-Smith M Hopkins C Fairley JT Pavlin N Parker R Russell D Bowden F Hocking J Pitts M Chen M The right thing to do: patients’ views and experiences of telling partners about chlamydia Family Practice 2010 27 418 423 10.1093/fampra/cmq028 20444842 · DOI
  19. [21]Darroch J Myers L Cassell J Sex differences in the experience of testing positive for genital chlamydia infection: a qualitative study with implications for public health and for a national screening programme Sex Transm Inf 2003 79 372 374 10.1136/sti.79.5.372 PMC1744751 14573831 · DOI
  20. [22]Brewer DD Garrett SB Kulasingam S Forgetting as a cause of incomplete reporting of sexual and drug injection partners Sex Trans Dis 1999 26 3 166 176 10.1097/00007435-199903000-00008 10100775 · DOI
  21. [24]Centers for disease control and prevention: Recommendations for Partner Services Programs for HIV Infection, Syphilis, Gonorrhea, and Chlamydial Infection. Atlanta; 2008 http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/rr/rr5709.pdf 18987617
  22. [26]Op de Coul EL Spijker R van Aar F van Weert Y de Bruin M With whom did you have sex? Evaluation of a partner notification training for STI professionals using motivational interviewing Patient Educ Couns 2013 93 3 596 603 10.1016/j.pec.2013.08.025 24054950 · DOI
  23. [27]Bilardi JE Hopkins CA Fairley CK Hocking JS Tomnay JE Pavlin NL Parker RM Temple-Smith MJ Bowden FJ Russell DB Pitts M Chen MY Innovative resources could help improve partner notification for chlamydia in primary care Sex Trans Dis 2009 36 779 783 10.1097/OLQ.0b013e3181b357f6 19704390 · DOI
  24. [28]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 Trans Dis 2010 37 253 258 10.1097/OLQ.0b013e3181d707f1 20182407 · DOI
  25. [29]Kevin ATM T Christian CJPA H Rik C Chakib K-Z de Vries NK van Bergen JEAM van der Sande MAB Nicole HTM D-M Using intervention mapping for the development of a targeted secure web-based outreach strategy named SafeFriend, for Chlamydia trachomatis testing in young people at risk BMC Public Health 2013 13 996 10.1186/1471-2458-13-996 24148656 PMC4015304 · DOI

Authors
Theunissen, K. A., Schipper, P., Hoebe, C. J., Crutzen, R., Kok, G., & Dukers-Muijrers, N. H.
Affiliations
  • GGD Zuid Limburg (NL)
  • Maastricht University Medical Centre (NL)
  • Maastricht University (NL)
Corresponding author
Theunissen, Kevin ATM
ORCID
Venue
BMC Health Services Research
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2014-12
Volume
14
Issue
1
Pages
647-647
ISSN
1472-6963 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1186/s12913-014-0647-5
PMC
PMC4279885
OpenAlex
W2157443345
Cited by
18
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 3
FWCI
1.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • BMC Health Services Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Microbiology › Reproductive tract infections research
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › HIV/AIDS Research and Interventions
Keywords
partner notification, Chlamydia trachomatis, sexually transmitted infections, healthcare workers, nurses, barriers and facilitators, motivational interviewing, sexual history, STD clinics
MeSH terms
Adult, Chlamydia Infections, Chlamydia trachomatis, Female, Health Personnel, Humans, Interviews as Topic, Male, Middle Aged, Netherlands, Referral and Consultation, Sexual Behavior, Sexually Transmitted Diseases, Contact Tracing, Internet, Young Adult, Motivational Interviewing

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