The Library
The relative clinical and cost-effectiveness of three contrasting approaches to partner notification for curable sexually transmitted infections (STIs) : a cluster randomised trial in primary care
Tools
Tools
Tools
Cassell, J. A., Dodds, J., Estcourt, C., Llewellyn, C., Lanza, S., Richens, J., Smith, H., Symonds, M., Copas, A., Roberts, T. (Timothy), Walters, Kate, White, P., Lowndes, C., Mistry, Hema, Rossello, M. R., Smith, H. and Rait, G. (2015) The relative clinical and cost-effectiveness of three contrasting approaches to partner notification for curable sexually transmitted infections (STIs) : a cluster randomised trial in primary care. Health Technology Assessment, Volume 19 (Number 5). pp. 1-115. doi:10.3310/hta19050
Research output not available from this repository, contact author.
Official URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.3310/hta19050
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.
| Item Type: | Journal Article | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Subjects: | R Medicine > RA Public aspects of medicine > RA0421 Public health. Hygiene. Preventive Medicine | ||||
| Divisions: | Faculty of Medicine > Warwick Medical School > Health Sciences > Population, Evidence & Technologies (PET) Faculty of Medicine > Warwick Medical School > Health Sciences > Population, Evidence & Technologies (PET) > Warwick Evidence Faculty of Medicine > Warwick Medical School |
||||
| Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH): | Sexually transmitted diseases -- Prevention, Sexual health, Hospitals -- Medical staff -- Training of , Community health services , Medical centers | ||||
| Journal or Publication Title: | Health Technology Assessment | ||||
| Publisher: | NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme | ||||
| ISSN: | 1366-5278 | ||||
| Official Date: | January 2015 | ||||
| Dates: |
|
||||
| Volume: | Volume 19 | ||||
| Number: | Number 5 | ||||
| Page Range: | pp. 1-115 | ||||
| DOI: | 10.3310/hta19050 | ||||
| Status: | Peer Reviewed | ||||
| Publication Status: | Published | ||||
| Access rights to Published version: | Open Access | ||||
| Funder: | National Institute for Health Research (Great Britain) (NIHR) |
Request changes or add full text files to a record
Repository staff actions (login required)
 |
View Item |
