Skip to main content
Sexually Transmitted Infections logoLink to Sexually Transmitted Infections
. 2000 Oct;76(5):371–374. doi: 10.1136/sti.76.5.371

Predictors of time spent on partner notification in four US sites

B Macke 1, M Hennessy 1, M McFarlane 1
PMCID: PMC1744202  PMID: 11141854

Abstract

Objective: To identify determinants of time spent on partner notification clients in four STD programmes in the United States.

Methods: 11 disease intervention specialists (DIS) in each of three urban sites (n=33) and seven DIS in one rural site recorded their activities and clients for 14 working days. The total amount of time for partner notification activities was computed for each client. Data were analysed using random effects regression.

Results: Across sites, 429 of 2506 (37.4%) recorded hours were spent on partner notification (PN) activities with 1148 clients. Client type, STD diagnosis, outcome, demographic characteristics, mileage, and study site explained 33.7% of the variance in the total time spent on partner notification clients. Clients who took significantly more time than the reference case included those who were both contacts and original patients, HIV/AIDS clients, non-primary and secondary (P&S) syphilis clients, STD clients who were infected and treated, and clients for whom travel was necessary. Demographic characteristics of both client and worker were not associated with the time spent on partner notification.

Conclusions: These data document the labour intensive nature of partner notification, especially for HIV and non-P&S syphilis clients. STD programmes that have a higher number of these clients are probably dedicating more resources to partner notification. More research is needed on additional predictors so that programmes can better understand and allocate staff and financial resources to partner notification activities.

Key Words: partner notification; STD; HIV

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (87.4 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Alary M., Joly J. R., Poulin C. Gonorrhea and chlamydial infection: comparison of contact tracing performed by physicians or by a specialized service. Can J Public Health. 1991 Mar-Apr;82(2):132–134. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Donner A. A regression approach to the analysis of data arising from cluster randomization. Int J Epidemiol. 1985 Jun;14(2):322–326. doi: 10.1093/ije/14.2.322. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Katz B. P., Danos C. S., Quinn T. S., Caine V., Jones R. B. Efficiency and cost-effectiveness of field follow-up for patients with Chlamydia trachomatis infection in a sexually transmitted diseases clinic. Sex Transm Dis. 1988 Jan-Mar;15(1):11–16. doi: 10.1097/00007435-198801000-00003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Landis S. E., Schoenbach V. J., Weber D. J., Mittal M., Krishan B., Lewis K., Koch G. G. Results of a randomized trial of partner notification in cases of HIV infection in North Carolina. N Engl J Med. 1992 Jan 9;326(2):101–106. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199201093260205. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Macke B. A., Hennessy M., McFarlane M. M., Bliss M. J. Partner notification in the real world: a four site time-allocation study. Sex Transm Dis. 1998 Nov;25(10):561–568. doi: 10.1097/00007435-199811000-00012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Wykoff R. F., Jones J. L., Longshore S. T., Hollis S. L., Quiller C. B., Dowda H., Gamble W. B. Notification of the sex and needle-sharing partners of individuals with human immunodeficiency virus in rural South Carolina: 30-month experience. Sex Transm Dis. 1991 Oct-Dec;18(4):217–222. doi: 10.1097/00007435-199110000-00004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Sexually Transmitted Infections are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES