Better than nothing? Patient-delivered partner therapy and partner notification for chlamydia: the views of Australian general practitioners.

BACKGROUND: Genital chlamydia is the most commonly notified sexually transmissible infection (STI) in Australia and worldwide and can have serious reproductive health outcomes. Partner notification, testing and treatment are important facets of chlamydia control. Traditional methods of partner notification are not reaching enough partners to effectively control transmission of chlamydia. Patient-delivered partner therapy (PDPT) has been shown to improve the treatment of sexual partners. In Australia, General Practitioners (GPs) are responsible for the bulk of chlamydia testing, diagnosis, treatment and follow up. This study aimed to determine the views and practices of Australian general practitioners (GPs) in relation to partner notification and PDPT for chlamydia and explored GPs' perceptions of their patients' barriers to notifying partners of a chlamydia diagnosis. METHODS: In-depth, semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with 40 general practitioners (GPs) from rural, regional and urban Australia from November 2006 to March 2007. Topics covered: GPs' current practice and views about partner notification, perceived barriers and useful supports, previous use of and views regarding PDPT.Transcripts were imported into NVivo7 and subjected to thematic analysis. Data saturation was reached after 32 interviews had been completed. RESULTS: Perceived barriers to patients telling partners (patient referral) included: stigma; age and cultural background; casual or long-term relationship, ongoing relationship or not. Barriers to GPs undertaking partner notification (provider referral) included: lack of time and staff; lack of contact details; uncertainty about the legality of contacting partners and whether this constitutes breach of patient confidentiality; and feeling both personally uncomfortable and inadequately trained to contact someone who is not their patient. GPs were divided on the use of PDPT--many felt concerned that it is not best clinical practice but many also felt that it is better than nothing.GPs identified the following factors which they considered would facilitate partner notification: clear clinical guidelines; a legal framework around partner notification; a formal chlamydia screening program; financial incentives; education and practical support for health professionals, and raising awareness of chlamydia in the community, in particular amongst young people. CONCLUSIONS: GPs reported some partners do not seek medical treatment even after they are notified of being a sexual contact of a patient with chlamydia. More routine use of PDPT may help address this issue however GPs in this study had negative attitudes to the use of PDPT. Appropriate guidelines and legislation may make the use of PDPT more acceptable to Australian GPs.

Let Them Know: evaluation of an online partner notification service for chlamydia that offers E-mail and SMS messaging.

This study evaluated Let Them Know (http://www.letthemknow.org.au), an online partner notification website offering e-mail and text message notification services to individuals diagnosed with chlamydia. A substantial and increasing number of text messages were sent, pointing to the potential for improved partner notification rates.

Telling partners about chlamydia: how acceptable are the new technologies?

BACKGROUND: Partner notification is accepted as a vital component in the control of chlamydia. However, in reality, many sexual partners of individuals diagnosed with chlamydia are never informed of their risk. The newer technologies of email and SMS have been used as a means of improving partner notification rates. This study explored the use and acceptability of different partner notification methods to help inform the development of strategies and resources to increase the number of partners notified. METHODS: Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with 40 people who were recently diagnosed with chlamydia from three sexual health centres and two general practices across three Australian jurisdictions. RESULTS: Most participants chose to contact their partners either in person (56%) or by phone (44%). Only 17% chose email or SMS. Participants viewed face-to-face as the "gold standard" in partner notification because it demonstrated caring, respect and courage. Telephone contact, while considered insensitive by some, was often valued because it was quick, convenient and less confronting. Email was often seen as less personal while SMS was generally considered the least acceptable method for telling partners. There was also concern that emails and SMS could be misunderstood, not taken seriously or shown to others. Despite these, email and SMS were seen to be appropriate and useful in some circumstances. Letters, both from the patients or from their doctor, were viewed more favourably but were seldom used. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that many people diagnosed with chlamydia are reluctant to use the new technologies for partner notification, except in specific circumstances, and our efforts in developing partner notification resources may best be focused on giving patients the skills and confidence for personal interaction.

Experiences and outcomes of partner notification among men and women recently diagnosed with Chlamydia and their views on innovative resources aimed at improving notification rates.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the partner notification experiences of individuals diagnosed with chlamydia and to determine what supports might best assist them. GOAL: To determine what supports might best assist chlamydia infected individuals to notify their partners. STUDY DESIGN: A telephone survey was undertaken with men and women recently diagnosed with chlamydia across 3 Australian jurisdictions between August 2007 and January 2008. RESULTS: Of the 286 individuals who agreed to be contacted about the study, 202 (71%) completed the survey. Twenty-three percent (333/1458) of recent partners were notified: men who had sex with men (MSM) notified 15% (133/880) of their partners, heterosexual men 31% (114/370), and women 46% (86/188) of their partners (P < 0.001). Overall, 84% (169/202) of individuals notified at least one partner. The main reasons for informing partners were out of concern for them (44%) or because it was considered "the right thing to do" (37%). The preferred methods for contacting partners were telephone (52%) and face-to-face (30%). E-mail (8%) and short message service (SMS) (11%) were less commonly used; however, if offered a website with anonymous e-mail and SMS services, nearly half of individuals indicated they would find this useful. Of those who had not informed all partners with known contact details (n = 94), 34% reported that if web-based tools were available they would have contacted more partners. Over half of participants would like to have been given antibiotics to give to their partner. CONCLUSION: The availability of tailored resources may assist in improving partner notification for chlamydia.

Innovative resources could help improve partner notification for chlamydia in primary care.

OBJECTIVE: To examine practices of general practitioners' (GPs) in relation to partner notification for chlamydia and identify the supports they would find most useful to assist them. GOAL: To identify innovative resources that could improve partner notification for chlamydia in primary care. STUDY DESIGN: A postal survey was undertaken that involved GPs from several jurisdictions across Australia between August and December 2007. GPs were randomly selected from a national database. RESULTS: Of 521 eligible GPs, 234 (45%) returned a completed questionnaire. Ninety-five percent (n = 223) felt that it was their role to discuss partner notification with patients diagnosed with chlamydia; however, only 45% (105/232) were sure how best to assist their patients with this. Considerable variation was shown in the way partner notification was undertaken, including how far back in time GPs recommended contacting partners. GPs considered a wide range of possible resources useful, including a website supporting patients (90%), information sheets generated by practice software when chlamydia is diagnosed (90%), printed information packs for patients (85%), a website designed to assist GPs (80%), and referral to these websites via positive laboratory results (85%). Forty-three percent currently undertook patient delivered partner therapy for chlamydia. CONCLUSION: GPs want and need greater guidance and resources to assist them with partner notification for chlamydia. Resources utilizing the internet and practice software and mechanisms where GPs are automatically directed to these when chlamydia is diagnosed have wide appeal and the potential to improve the effectiveness of partner notification for chlamydia.

Azithromycin failure in Mycoplasma genitalium urethritis.

We report significant failure rates (28%, 95% confidence interval 15%-45%) after administering 1 g azithromycin to men with Mycoplasma genitalium-positive nongonococcal urethritis. In vitro evidence supported reduced susceptibility of M. genitalium to macrolides. Moxifloxacin administration resulted in rapid symptom resolution and eradication of infection in all cases. These findings have implications for management of urethritis.

Etiologies of nongonococcal urethritis: bacteria, viruses, and the association with orogenital exposure.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of the present study was to determine pathogens and behaviors associated with nongonococcal urethritis (NGU) and the usefulness of the urethral smear in predicting the presence of pathogens. METHODS: We conducted a case-control study of men with and without symptoms of NGU. Sexual practices were measured by questionnaire. First-stream urine was tested for Chlamydia trachomatis, Mycoplasma genitalium, Ureaplasma parvum, U. urealyticum, herpes simplex virus (HSV)-1, HSV-2, adenoviruses, and Gardnerella vaginalis by polymerase chain reaction. RESULTS: C. trachomatis (20%), M. genitalium (9%), adenoviruses (4%), and HSV-1 (2%) were more common in cases with NGU (n = 329) after age and sexual risk were adjusted for (P< or =.01); U. urealyticum, U. parvum, and G. vaginalis were not. Infection with adenoviruses or HSV-1 was associated with distinct clinical features, oral sex, and male partners, whereas infection with M. genitalium or C. trachomatis was associated with unprotected vaginal sex. Oral sex was associated with NGU in which no pathogen was detected (P < or = .001). Fewer than 5 polymorphonuclear leukocytes (PMNLs) per high-power field (HPF) on urethral smear were present in 32%, 37%, 38%, and 44% of cases with C. trachomatis, M. genitalium, adenoviruses, and HSV, respectively. CONCLUSION: We identified adenoviruses and HSV-1 as significant causes of NGU with distinct clinical and behavioral characteristics and highlighted the association between insertive oral sex and NGU. A urethral PMNL count of > or =5 PMNLs/HPF is not sufficiently sensitive to exclude pathogens in men with urethral symptoms.