Is accelerated partner therapy a feasible and acceptable strategy for rapid partner notification in the UK?: a qualitative study of genitourinary medicine clinic attenders
Abstract
Partner notification (PN) in the UK is of limited effectiveness. Expedited partner therapy improves PN outcomes but does not comply with existing UK professional guidance. We developed two new strategies, known as accelerated partner therapy (APT), based on elements of PN practice for which there is evidence of efficacy, and which conform to UK prescribing guidance. We explored the acceptability and feasibility of these models qualitatively in genitourinary medicine clinic attenders. Both strategies were viewed favourably. Preference was influenced by age, relationship type, whether participants were delivering or receiving APT and whether the sex partner was aware of the participant's clinic visit. APT provides a new approach to PN, which has strong patient support and complies with existing UK regulations. The complex factors that influence patients' choice of PN method suggest that provision of a range of PN options including APT may be central to improving the effectiveness of PN in the UK.
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?
Some patients preferred provider-led interventions to decrease the burden of notifying partners and because providers could deliver correct information and provide support on communication and psychological support.
“Some patients preferred provider-led interventions to decrease the burden of having to notify the partner themselves (140), and they also felt that providers could better deliver correct information, and provide support to them on how to communicate with partners as well as give psychological support (108, 120, 123, 125, 132, 136, 141-145).”
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).”
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 13 · Cited by 16
- Authors
- Sutcliffe, L., Brook, M. G., Chapman, J. L., Cassell, J. M., & Estcourt, C. S.
- Affiliations
- Queen Mary University of London (GB)
- Central Middlesex Hospital (GB)
- Brighton and Sussex Medical School (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Sutcliffe, L
- Venue
- International Journal of STD & AIDS
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2009-09
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 603-606
- ISSN
- 0956-4624 (ISSN-L)
- 1758-1052
- OpenAlex
- W2003806414
- Cited by
- 16
- References
- 13
- Citations by year
- 2022: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 2.89
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- International Journal of STD & AIDS (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health
- Medical Research Council
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Microbiology › Reproductive tract infections research
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › HIV/AIDS Research and Interventions
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Syphilis Diagnosis and Treatment
- Keywords
- partner notification, sexually transmitted infections, acceptability, feasibility, patient preferences, relationship type
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Female, United Kingdom, Humans, Male, Sexual Partners, Sexually Transmitted Diseases, Contact Tracing, Female Urogenital Diseases, Male Urogenital Diseases
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