Faxelid 1996.

Methods	Setting: urban health centre, Lusaka, Zambia Enrolment: participants were enrolled from October 1992 to March 1993 Follow up: interview and follow‐up 2 weeks after enrolment of index patient
Participants	396 index patients (94 women, 302 men) with clinically or laboratory diagnosed STI were randomised Inclusion criteria Clinically or laboratory diagnosed STI Exclusion More than 1 diagnosis
Interventions	Simple patient referral (n = 200) Index patient received standard care, no contact cards were given Choice between patient and provider referral with counselling (n = 196) Index patient received individual counselling (10‐20 minutes) from same‐gender nurse (female) or clinical officer (male). Index patient was given health education, information on importance of completing treatment, advise on abstinence and how to inform partners of previous 3 months of their exposure. Index patients received contact cards with the index patient's file number on to be given to partners. Names and address of partners taken. Provider referral offered if patient did not want to talk to partner
Outcomes	Partners elicited (names and addresses of the partners were recorded during initial interview) Partners notified (self report by index patient and contact cards filed at clinic) Partners treated (self report by index patient and contact cards filed at clinic) Harms ‐ quarrels and partner refusal to go for treatment (self report by index patient)
Notes	The policy at this health service was not to treat an index patient unless they bring a partner. This may affect the generalisability of the study to other settings No details on ethical approval given
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Authors state that patients were randomised. Patients drew lots ‐ in each box 4 cards with "intervention" and 4 cards with "non‐intervention"
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	No details given
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	188/196 (96%) index patients in intervention group and 189/200 (94.5%) index patients in control group returned for follow‐up
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Same outcomes in methods as in results section. Trial registries were not searched
Other bias	Low risk	No other bias identified
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Participant and personnel not blinded
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	No blinding. Outcomes are subjective and therefore risk of detection bias