Table 3.
Partner notification and condom use self-efficacy, STI knowledge, partner notification, condom use, third-party assistance with PN, and harmful partner reactions, 2 weeks after STI diagnosis
| HE | RR | ePN | Effect size: ePN vs HE | Effect size: RR vs HE | |
| Partner notification self-efficacy: index patient-level analysis; median (IQR) | Median difference (95% CI), p value | ||||
| All participants | 8.2 (6.7–9.8) | 8.5 (6.7–9.7) | 8.5 (7.3–9.7) | 0.3 (−0.1 to 0.7), p=0.09 | 0.3 (−0.1 to 0.7), p=0.09 |
| Male participants | 8.2 (6.7–9.8) | 8.5 (7.0–9.7) | 8.5 (7.2–9.7) | 0.3 (−0.3 to 1.0), p=0.3 | 0.3 (−0.3 to 1.0), p=0.3 |
| Female participants | 8.3 (6.7–9.8) | 8.3 (6,7–9.7) | 8.7 (7.3–9.7) | 0.3 (−0.2 to 0.9), p=0.2 | 0.0 (−0.6 to 0.6), p=1.0 |
| Condom use self-efficacy: index patient-level analysis; median (IQR) | |||||
| All participants | 10.0 (8.0–10.0) | 10.0 (8.5–10.0) | 10.0 (9.0–10.0) | 0.0 (−0.2 to 0.2), p=1.0 | 0.0 (−0.2 to 0.2), p=1.0 |
| Male participants | 10.0 (8.5–10.0) | 10.0 (8.5–10.0) | 10.0 (9.0–10.0) | 0.0 (−0.3 to 0.3), p=1.0 | 0.0 (−0.3 to 0.3), p=1.0 |
| Female participants | 10.0 (8.0–10.0) | 10.0 (9.0–10.0) | 10.0 (9.0–10.0) | 0.0 (−0.3 to 0.3), p=1.0 | 0.0 (−0.3 to 0.3), p=1.0 |
| STI knowledge: index patient-level analysis; median (IQR) | OR (95% CI), p value | ||||
| All participants | 3 (2–4) | 3 (2–4) | 3 (2–4) | 1.0 (0.8 to 1.3), p=0.8 | 1.1 (0.8 to 1.4), p=0.5 |
| Male participants | 3 (2–4) | 3 (2–4) | 3 (2–4) | 1.1 (0.7 to 1.8), p=0.8 | 1.1 (0.8 to 1.6), p=0.6 |
| Female participants | 3 (2–4) | 3 (2–4) | 3 (2–4) | 1.1 (0.7 to 1.5), p=0.8 | 1.1 (0.8 to 1.6), p=0.6 |
| Participant reports of assistance from a third party in notifying partner (from nurse, counsellor or other persons): index patient-level analysis; frequency (%) | OR (95% CI), p value | ||||
| All participants | 13 (3.7) | 16 (4.6) | 16 (4.6) | 1.2 (0.6 to 2.6), p=0.6 | 1.2 (0.6 to 2.6), p=0.6 |
| Male participants | 8 (4.6) | 11 (6.2) | 10 (5.7) | * | * |
| Female participants | 5 (2.9) | 5 (2.9) | 6 (3.4) | * | * |
| Partners notified per index patient at 2 weeks: index patient-level analysis; mean (95% CI) | |||||
| All participants | 1.24 (1.10 to 1.37) | 1.29 (1.15 to 1.42) | 1.68 (1.49 to 1.87) | † | † |
| Male participants | 1.38 (1.18 to 1.58) | 1.32 (1.32 to 1.52) | 1.96 (1.68 to 2.24) | † | † |
| Female participants | 1.01 (0.89 to 1.14) | 1.22 (1.07 to 1.38) | 1.15 (1.03 to 1.28) | † | † |
| Risk of partner being notified: partner-level analysis; notified/all partners (%) | Risk difference‡ (95% CI), p value | ||||
| All participants | 384/714 (53.8) | 378/743 (50.9) | 464/721 (64.3) | 10.6% (4.0% to 16.1%), p=0.001 | −2.9% (−9.1% to 3.3%), p=0.36 |
| Male participants | 205/453 (45.3) | 213/461 (46.2) | 286/468 (61.1) | 15.9% (−24.3% to −7.4%), p<0.001 | −1.0% (−8.8% to 6.9%), p=0.8 |
| Female participants | 178/258 (69.0) | 165/282 (58.5) | 178/253 (70.4) | +1.4% (−10.6% to 7.8%), p=0.7 | −10.5% (−1.1% to −19.9%), p=0.03 |
| Risk of partner being notified stratified by partner type: partner-level analysis; notified/all partners of specified type (%) | Risk difference‡ (95% CI), p value | ||||
| Main partners | 262/328 (79.9) | 254/336 (75.6) | 288/350 (82.3) | 2.4% (−3.7% to 8.5%), p=0.4 | −4.2% (−11.0% to 2.4%), p=0.2 |
| Casual partners | 94/265 (35.5) | 96/270 (35.6) | 137/242 (56.6) | 21.1% (11.0% to 31.3%), p=0.00 | 0.0% (−9.0% to 9.2%), p=0.9 |
| Once-off partners | 28/121 (23.1) | 28/137 (20.4) | 39/129 (30.2) | 7.1% (−5.3% to 19.5%), p=0.3 | −3.5% (−27.2% to 20.2%), p=0.8 |
| Risk of condomless sex with partner (vs sex with condom or no sex): partner-level analysis; frequency (%) | Risk difference‡ (95% CI), p value | ||||
| All participants | 283/714 (39.6) | 338/743 (45.5) | 275/721 (38.1) | −1.5% (−8.6% to 5.6%), p=0.68 | 5.9% (−1.4% to 13.1%), p=0.12 |
| Male participants§ | 175/453 (38.6) | 210/461 (45.6) | 166/468 (35.5) | −3.2% (−12.6% to 6.3%), p=0.51 | 6.9% (−2.8% to 16.7%), p=0.165 |
| Female participants§ | 105/258 (40.7) | 128/282 (45.4) | 109/253 (43.1) | 2.4% (−7.9% to 12.7%), p=0.65 | 4.7% (−5.8% to 15.2%), p=0.38 |
| Risk of partner perpetrated IPV: partner-level analysis; frequency (%) | Risk difference‡ (95% CI), p value | ||||
| All participants | 4/714 (0.6) | 9/743 (1.2) | 8/721 (1.1) | 0.5% (−0.5% to 1.5%), p=0.28 | 0.7% (−0.3% to 1.6%), p=0.17 |
| Male participants | 3/453 (<1) | 8/461 (1.7) | 6/468 (1.3) | * | * |
| Female participants | 1/258 (<1) | 1/282 (<1) | 2/253 (<1) | * | * |
| Risk of abandonment by partner: partner-level analysis; frequency (%) | Risk difference‡ (95% CI), p value | ||||
| All participants | 7/714 (1.0) | 9/743 (1.2) | 20/721 (2.8) | 1.7% (0.2% to 3.3%), p=0.02 | 0.2% (−0.9% to 1.3%), p=0.41 |
| Male participants | 4/453 | 9/461 | 16/468 | * | * |
| Female participants | 3/258 | 0/282 | 4/253 | * | * |
*Numbers too small to perform gender-stratified model.
†Inference performed at the partner level only.
‡Based on binomial regression model to model the probability of a partner being notified, or the risk of condomless sex with a partner, or the risk of a harmful partner reaction, adjusting for the clustering of partners within each index patient.
§One case who had three partners had missing gender.
ePN, enhanced partner notification; HE, health education; IPV, intimate partner violence; PN, partner notification; RR, risk reduction.