Partner notification of sexually transmitted diseases: practices and preferences.

BACKGROUND: Timely notification and treatment of sex partners exposed to a sexually transmitted disease (STD) is essential to reduce reinfection and transmission. Our objectives were to determine factors associated with patient-initiated notification of sex partners and preferences regarding standard partner referral versus expedited partner therapy (EPT). METHODS: Participants diagnosed with gonorrhea, chlamydia, trichomoniasis, or nongonococcal urethritis within the previous year were administered a baseline survey asking about demographics, sexual history, and partner treatment preferences (standard partner referral vs. EPT). They identified up to 4 sex partners within the past 2 months, and answered questions on relationship characteristics, quality, and notification self-efficacy. At follow-up, participants with a current STD were asked whether they notified their partners. Generalized estimating equations were used to evaluate the associations between predictor variables and partner notification. RESULTS: Of the 201 subjects enrolled, 157 had a current STD diagnosis, and 289 sex partners were identified. The rate of successful partner notification was 77.3% (157/203 sex partners). Partner notification was increased if the subject had a long-term relationship with a sex partner (odds ratio: 3.07; 95% confidence interval: 1.43, 6.58), considered the partner to be a main partner (odds ratio: 2.53; 95% confidence interval: 1.43, 6.58), or had increased notification self-efficacy. Overall, participants did not prefer EPT over standard referral; however, females, those with higher education levels, and those with a prior STD preferred EPT. CONCLUSIONS: Patient-initiated partner referral is more successful in patients with increased self-efficacy who have stronger interpersonal relationships with their sex partners.

Full disclosure of financial costs and options to patients: the roles of race, age, health insurance, and usual source for care.

The objective was to identify factors associated with financial discussions and financial disclosure of medical costs within a low-income urban community. The method used was a cross-sectional community-based survey in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. The survey was conducted door-to-door and at area food pantries. Two hundred and twenty six adults were interviewed. Overall, 76.1% reported having a usual source for care and 73.0% had health insurance. Thirty nine and four tenths percent reported having been asked about their ability to pay for health services; this was more common among African Americans (OR 5.2; 95% CI 1.73-15.84), those with no health insurance (OR 4.3; 95% CI 1.01-17.89), and those less than 45 years old (OR:2.9; 95% CI 1.03-8.28). Only 10.6% reported being told how much a health visit would cost. Overall, 30.1% reported their provider made payment allowances for medical bills, with white respondents 2.5 times more likely and those persons identifying an ambulatory site for care 2.6 times more likely to report this. Overall, 30.5% reported being referred to a collection agency for unpaid medical bills; this was 2.4 times more common among those individuals identifying a non-ambulatory usual site for care. Significant race and socio-economic disparities exist in discussions about and access to financial resources to pay for medical care. Expanding the availability of financial assistance is critical to improving access to health care.

Automatic electronic laboratory-based reporting of notifiable infectious diseases at a large health system.

Electronic laboratory-based reporting, developed by the UPMC Health System, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, was evaluated to determine if it could be integrated into the conventional paper-based reporting system. We reviewed reports of 10 infectious diseases from 8 UPMC hospitals that reported to the Allegheny County Health Department in southwestern Pennsylvania during January 1-November 26, 2000. Electronic reports were received a median of 4 days earlier than conventional reports. The completeness of reporting was 74% (95% confidence interval [CI] 66% to 81%) for the electronic laboratory-based reporting and 65% (95% CI 57% to 73%) for the conventional paper-based reporting system (p>0.05). Most reports (88%) missed by electronic laboratory-based reporting were caused by using free text. Automatic reporting was more rapid and as complete as conventional reporting. Using standardized coding and minimizing free text usage will increase the completeness of electronic laboratory-based reporting.