TABLE 1.

Study Descriptions and Reported Outcomes Related to Use of Technology for STD-related Partner Services

Author/Year of Publication	Study Location and Year of Data Collection	Population	Disease Type	Means of Contact Exposure or Intervention	No. Index Cases	No. Partners Notified	No. Partners Evaluated/Screened/Tested	No. New Infections
(1) Klausner et al., 20003	San Francisco, June to August 1999	MSM syphilis cases	Syphilis	Online chat room	2	NR	20*	4*
(2) Pioquinto et al., 200713	Los Angeles, case 1 in December 2002; case 2 in January 2003	MSM syphilis cases	Syphilis	Email messages	2	Case 1:29 (26%) of 111 partners notified Case 2: 13 of 16 partners (81%)	Case 1: NR Case 2: 7 (54%) of 13	NR
(3) Vest et al., 200710	Austin or Travis Co, TX; January 1, 2004 to June 30, 2006	Cases: 53 partners of HIV and/or syphilis index patients for whom only email addresses were known Controls: 265 partners of HIV and/or early syphilis index patients for whom traditional contact information was known	HIV or early syphilis	Cases: Email sent to partners. Controls: Traditional contact (letter, face to face, telephone)	Cases: 53 Controls: (traditional): 265	Cases: 88 (49.7%) of 177 Controls: 372 (69.7%) of 534	Cases: 71 (80.7%) of 88 Controls: 355 (95.4%) of 372	Cases: 19 (26.8%) Controls: 106 (29.9%)
(4) Ehlman et al., 200812	Washington, DC, January 2007 to June 2008	Patients with early syphilis infections (primary, secondary, and early latent)	Early syphilis	Emails to named partners	27	291 (76%) of 381	101 (35%) of 291	7 (7%)
(5) Hightow-Wiedman etal.,201411	State of North Carolina IPN data from July 1,2011 to June 30, 2012; Traditional PN from January 1 to December 31, 2010 Evaluation of pilot TxtPN program, November 21, 2011 to June 30, 2012	Clients diagnosed with HIV or syphilis	HIV and syphilis	Emails, social or sexual networking sites, mobile phone text messages	Internet: 362 Text: 29	Internet: 230 (63.5%) of 362 Text: 14† (48.3%) of 29	Internet: NR Text: NR	Internet: 7 HIV (3.0%‡) 11 (4.8%‡) syphilis Text: 2 (14%) syphilis 1 (7%) HIV
(6) Udeagu et al., 201414	New York City, NY January 2011 to October 2012	HIV-diagnosed patients and their named partners	HIV	Emails, messages sent to social and dating/hook-up websites, mobile phone text messages	Traditional PS: 2604 Internet: 275 Text: 368	Traditional: 1803 (69%) contacted 1770 (98%) notified Internet: 112 (41%) contacted§ 100 (89%) notified¶ Text: 285 (77%) contacted§ 276 (97%) notified¶	Traditional: 805 (69%) Internet: 31 (34%) Text: 105 (45%)	Traditional: 106(13%) Internet: 3 (10%) Text: 5 (5%)
(7) Pennise et al, 201515	Monroe Co, Rochester, New York, February to May 2013.	Large case investigation stemming from a GC diagnosis in a previously known HIV-positive male.	HIV, gonorrhea, syphilis, chlamydia	Messages sent via unnamed website	Index cases: 14 2 (7 new infections; 7 Previously known HIV positive cases) Cluster cases: 2 (uninfected partners of index cases)	2	31 (32%)∥	7 new infections total:∥ 2 new HIV cases 1 HIV/GC case 1 syph/CT case 2 GC or Ct cases 1 GC case in PKP

^*Klausner et al. did not specifically note, of the partners screened/tested and new infections identified, which were a direct result of using technology-based partner services.

^†Twenty nine contacts were texted of which 14 responded. Hightow-Weidman et al. do not indicate whether all 29 contacts were considered notified or only the 14 who responded.

^‡Percentages were calculated by authors of this review who assumed that all patients who presented for testing were tested for both HIV and syphilis.

^§Udeagu et al. defined contact rates as the number of partners reached by any means divided by the number of partners for whom contact was attempted.

^¶Udeagu et al. defined notification rates as the proportion of partners contacted who accepted HIV exposure notification.

^∥Pennise et al. did not indicate, of the partners screened/tested and new infections identified, which were a direct result of technology-based partner services.

NR, not reported; GC, gonorrhea/gonococcal; PKP, previously known positive.