Skip to main content
Sexually Transmitted Infections logoLink to Sexually Transmitted Infections
. 2002 Feb;78(1):45–49. doi: 10.1136/sti.78.1.45

Sex difference in partner notification: results from three population based surveys in France

J Warszawski 1, L Meyer 1
PMCID: PMC1763705  PMID: 11872859

Abstract

Objectives: To estimate the proportion of individuals in the general population who did not notify their sexual partners at the time of an STD diagnosis, according to the sex of the patient and the type of partner.

Methods: We analysed behaviour at the time of diagnosis of a self reported STD, using data from three large French national population based surveys of adults (ACSF, Barométre Santé) and adolescents (ACSJ). Univariate and multivariate analyses took into account the complex sampling design.

Results: In the ACSF, 14% (95% CI: 4% to 24%) of men reported that they had not informed their main sexual partner compared with only 2% (95% CI: 0% to 5%) of women (p = 0.03). This sex difference was independent of the nature of the STD, the patient's age, level of education, and number of partners. Similarly, in the ACSJ, 51% (95% CI: 21% to 81%) of boys reported that they had not talked about this STD with their current sexual partner compared with only 9% (95% CI: 0% to 26%) of girls (p = 0.04). Notification by a sexual partner had led to discovery of the STD more frequently in male subjects than in female subjects, both in adults (32% of men compared with 4% of women (p=0.04)), and adolescents (36% of boys compared with 12% of girls). Most subjects, irrespective of sex, had not informed partners other than their main or current partner: 73% (95% CI: 62% to 84%) of adults and 86% (95% CI: 77% to 95%) of adolescents.

Conclusions: Procedures must be developed urgently to improve the notification of sexual partners, particularly female partners and adolescents, who are unlikely to be tested early without such notification.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (126.7 KB).

Selected References

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

  1. Brackbill R. M., Sternberg M. R., Fishbein M. Where do people go for treatment of sexually transmitted diseases? Fam Plann Perspect. 1999 Jan-Feb;31(1):10–15. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Chlamydia prevalence and screening practices--San Diego County, California, 1993. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 1994 May 27;43(20):366-9, 375. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Cowan F. M., French R., Johnson A. M. The role and effectiveness of partner notification in STD control: a review. Genitourin Med. 1996 Aug;72(4):247–252. doi: 10.1136/sti.72.4.247. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Golden M. R., Whittington W. L., Gorbach P. M., Coronado N., Boyd M. A., Holmes K. K. Partner notification for chlamydial infections among private sector clinicians in Seattle-King County: a clinician and patient survey. Sex Transm Dis. 1999 Oct;26(9):543–547. doi: 10.1097/00007435-199910000-00011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Gorbach P. M., Aral S. O., Celum C., Stoner B. P., Whittington W. L., Galea J., Coronado N., Connor S., Holmes K. K. To notify or not to notify: STD patients' perspectives of partner notification in Seattle. Sex Transm Dis. 2000 Apr;27(4):193–200. doi: 10.1097/00007435-200004000-00003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Mason D., Kerry S., Oakeshott P. Postal survey of management of cervical Chlamydia trachomatis infection in English and Welsh general practices. BMJ. 1996 Nov 9;313(7066):1193–1194. doi: 10.1136/bmj.313.7066.1193. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Owen P. A., Hughes M. G., Munro J. A. Study of the management of chlamydial cervicitis in general practice. Br J Gen Pract. 1991 Jul;41(348):279–281. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Rahm V. A., Gnarpe H., Odlind V. Chlamydia trachomatis among sexually active teenage girls. Lack of correlation between chlamydial infection, history of the patient and clinical signs of infection. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1988 Sep;95(9):916–919. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1988.tb06580.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Ross J. D. How much sexually transmitted disease is not seen by genitourinary physicians? Genitourin Med. 1995 Oct;71(5):333–333. doi: 10.1136/sti.71.5.333. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Ross J. D., Sutherland S., Coia J. Genital Chlamydia trachomatis infections in primary care. BMJ. 1996 Nov 9;313(7066):1192–1193. doi: 10.1136/bmj.313.7066.1192a. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Seubert D. E., Thompson I. M., Gonik B. Partner notification of sexually transmitted disease in an obstetric and gynecologic setting. Obstet Gynecol. 1999 Sep;94(3):399–402. doi: 10.1016/s0029-7844(99)00306-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

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

RESOURCES