U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Cover of The relative clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of three contrasting approaches to partner notification for curable sexually transmitted infections: a cluster randomised trial in primary care

The relative clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of three contrasting approaches to partner notification for curable sexually transmitted infections: a cluster randomised trial in primary care

Health Technology Assessment, No. 19.5

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , and .

Author Information and Affiliations
Southampton (UK): NIHR Journals Library; .

Headline

The study found that it was not possible to identify the best method of partner notification as a result of failure to identify a sufficient number of people diagnosed with chlamydia in general practice settings. There were further difficulties experienced in clearly defining patient, provider and contract referral and matching this to current health advisor policy in the active setting.

Abstract

Background:

Partner notification is the process of providing support for, informing and treating sexual partners of individuals who have been diagnosed with sexually transmitted infections (STIs). It is traditionally undertaken by specialist sexual health services, and may involve informing a partner on a patient’s behalf, with consent. With an increasing proportion of STIs diagnosed in general practice and other community settings, there is a growing need to understand the best way to provide partner notification for people diagnosed with a STI in this setting using a web-based referral system.

Objective:

We aimed to compare three different approaches to partner notification for people diagnosed with chlamydia within general practice.

Design:

Cluster randomised controlled trial.

Setting:

General practices in England and, within these, patients tested for and diagnosed with genital chlamydia or other bacterial STIs in that setting using a web-based referral system.

Interventions:

Three different approaches to partner notification: patient referral alone, or the additional offer of either provider referral or contract referral.

Main outcome measures:

(1) Number of main partners per index patient treated for chlamydia and/or gonorrhoea/non-specific urethritis/pelvic inflammatory disease; and (2) proportion of index patients testing negative for the relevant STI at 3 months.

Results:

As testing rates for chlamydia were far lower than expected, we were unable to scale up the trial, which was concluded at pilot stage. We are not able to answer the original research question. We present the results of the work undertaken to improve recruitment to similar studies requiring opportunistic recruitment of young people in general practice. We were unable to standardise provider and contract referral separately; however, we also present results of qualitative work aimed at optimising these interventions.

Conclusions:

External recruitment may be required to facilitate the recruitment of young people to research in general practice, especially in sensitive areas, because of specific barriers experienced by general practice staff. Costs need to be taken into account together with feasibility considerations. Partner notification interventions for bacterial STIs may not be clearly separable into the three categories of patient, provider and contract referral. Future research is needed to operationalise the approaches of provider and contract partner notification if future trials are to provide generalisable information.

Trial registration:

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN24160819.

Funding:

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 19, No. 5. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Contents

Article history

The research reported in this issue of the journal was funded by the HTA programme as project number 07/43/01. The contractual start date was in January 2010. The draft report began editorial review in June 2013 and was accepted for publication in November 2013. The authors have been wholly responsible for all data collection, analysis and interpretation, and for writing up their work. The HTA editors and publisher have tried to ensure the accuracy of the authors’ report and would like to thank the reviewers for their constructive comments on the draft document. However, they do not accept liability for damages or losses arising from material published in this report.

Declared competing interests of authors

none

Copyright © Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2015. This work was produced by Cassell et al. under the terms of a commissioning contract issued by the Secretary of State for Health. This issue may be freely reproduced for the purposes of private research and study and extracts (or indeed, the full report) may be included in professional journals provided that suitable acknowledgement is made and the reproduction is not associated with any form of advertising. Applications for commercial reproduction should be addressed to: NIHR Journals Library, National Institute for Health Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, Alpha House, University of Southampton Science Park, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK.

Included under terms of UK Non-commercial Government License.

Bookshelf ID: NBK269482DOI: 10.3310/hta19050

Views

  • PubReader
  • Print View
  • Cite this Page
  • PDF version of this title (1.2M)

Other titles in this collection

Related information

Similar articles in PubMed

See reviews...See all...

Recent Activity

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...