Cited by 21HIV/AIDS Research and InterventionsHIV, Drug Use, Sexual RiskMobile Health and mHealth Applications

Attitudes About the Use of Geosocial Networking Applications for HIV/STD Partner Notification: A Qualitative Study

Open access
Contesse, Marielle Goyette, Fredericksen, Rob J., Wohlfeiler, Dan, Hecht, Jen, Kachur, Rachel, Strona, F. V., Katz, David A.·2019·AIDS Education and Prevention

Abstract

Meeting sex partners through geosocial networking (GSN) apps is common among men who have sex with men (MSM). MSM may choose not to exchange contact information with partners met through GSN apps, limiting their own and health departments' ability to notify partners of HIV/STD exposure through standard notification methods. Using online focus groups (four groups; N = 28), we explored the perspectives of U.S. MSM regarding offer of partner notification features through GSN apps. Most participants were comfortable with HIV/STD partner notification delivered via GSN apps, either by partner services staff using a health department profile or through an in-app anonymous messaging system. While most participants expressed a responsibility to notify partners on their own, app-based partner notification methods may be preferred for casual or hard-to-reach partners. However, participants indicated that health departments will need to build trust with MSM app users to ensure acceptable and effective app-based delivery of partner notification.

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 · 10.1521/aeap.2019.31.3.273

Cites

28 of 29 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?

  • Other health workers preferred provider-assisted referral because they could give details about treatment to the partner and provide help or support to the patient, including to mitigate violent responses from sexual partners.

    “Other health workers preferred provider-assisted referral as they could give details about the treatment to the partner and provide help/support to the patient, including to mitigate violent responses from sexual partners (123, 131, 132).”

    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 [123]

    The Results (page unavailable) say some participants saw patient safety as a reason to use health-department staff for partner notification; others valued the health-related answers and resources providers could offer a notified partner. The study reports the views of men who have sex with men, not health workers’ preferences. It does not say staff preferred this approach to explain treatment or to help patients mitigate violent responses. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    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 [123]

    The Results (page unavailable) report that some participants lacked partners’ contact information and that blocking, deleted profiles, or changed usernames could make partners hard to find. The paper does not report notifications being ignored; it also says participants generally found partners easy to find again on apps unless those barriers arose. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    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
Contesse, M. G., Fredericksen, R. J., Wohlfeiler, D., Hecht, J., Kachur, R., Strona, F. V., & Katz, D. A.
Affiliations
  • University of Washington (US)
  • Building Healthy Online Communities, San Francisco, California.
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (US)
Venue
AIDS Education and Prevention
Published
2019-06
Volume
31
Issue
3
Pages
273-285
ISSN
0899-9546 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2947105845
Cited by
20
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 1
FWCI
2.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • AIDS Education and Prevention (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (CC999999)
  • National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (P30AI027757, P30AI050409)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › HIV/AIDS Research and Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › HIV, Drug Use, Sexual Risk
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
Keywords
geosocial networking apps, HIV partner notification, sexually transmitted infections, men who have sex with men, anonymous messaging, HIV exposure, dating apps
MeSH terms
Adult, Humans, Interviews as Topic, Male, Sexual Behavior, Sexual Partners, United States, HIV Infections, Contact Tracing, Homosexuality, Male, Internet, Qualitative Research, Social Networking, Mobile Applications

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