Sexually transmitted diseases · 2021
Partner Elicitation After Partner Services Interviews and Reinterviews Among Patients With Antimicrobial-Resistant Gonorrhea.
СтатьяПоддержка службы здравоохранения СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Thibault Christina S, Golden Matthew R, Barbee Lindley A, Spellman Dawn, Soge Olusegun O, Kerani Roxanne P
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Partner notification services (PS) are often used to control sexually transmitted infections, but their effectiveness is limited by patients' reluctance to name sex partners. We hypothesized that being notified of having antimicrobial-resistant Neisseria gonorrhoeae (ARGC) would make patients more likely to provide named partner information.
METHODS: We used King County, Washington STD surveillance and Strengthening the US Response to Resistant Gonorrhea data to identify gonorrhea cases. Using log-binomial regression, we computed unadjusted and adjusted prevalence ratios for factors associated with naming any partners during routine PS interview vs. interview after ARGC diagnosis. Among those who completed a standard PS interview and later a reinterview after ARGC diagnosis, we compared mean numbers of reported and contactable partners at initial interview and reinterview using the Wilcoxon rank sum test.
RESULTS: From July 2018 to October 2020, 1588 gonorrhea cases were interviewed; 103 (6%) had ARGC. After adjusting for sexual exposure, age, year, disease intervention specialist, reinterview, and diagnosing clinic, being interviewed after ARGC diagnosis remained predictive of naming ≥1 partner relative to routine PS (prevalence ratio, 2.2; 95% confidence interval, 1.6-2.9). Among 40 cases who completed a standard PS interview and later a reinterview after ARGC diagnosis, there was a modest increase in mean partners named at initial versus reinterview (1.4 vs. 1.9 per case, P = 0.09).
CONCLUSIONS: Cases interviewed after ARGC diagnosis named more contactable partners than did those undergoing routine PS. Reinterviewing patients after ARGC diagnosis provides only a modest increase in contactable partners but may be useful to limit transmission of this potentially challenging infection.
METHODS: We used King County, Washington STD surveillance and Strengthening the US Response to Resistant Gonorrhea data to identify gonorrhea cases. Using log-binomial regression, we computed unadjusted and adjusted prevalence ratios for factors associated with naming any partners during routine PS interview vs. interview after ARGC diagnosis. Among those who completed a standard PS interview and later a reinterview after ARGC diagnosis, we compared mean numbers of reported and contactable partners at initial interview and reinterview using the Wilcoxon rank sum test.
RESULTS: From July 2018 to October 2020, 1588 gonorrhea cases were interviewed; 103 (6%) had ARGC. After adjusting for sexual exposure, age, year, disease intervention specialist, reinterview, and diagnosing clinic, being interviewed after ARGC diagnosis remained predictive of naming ≥1 partner relative to routine PS (prevalence ratio, 2.2; 95% confidence interval, 1.6-2.9). Among 40 cases who completed a standard PS interview and later a reinterview after ARGC diagnosis, there was a modest increase in mean partners named at initial versus reinterview (1.4 vs. 1.9 per case, P = 0.09).
CONCLUSIONS: Cases interviewed after ARGC diagnosis named more contactable partners than did those undergoing routine PS. Reinterviewing patients after ARGC diagnosis provides only a modest increase in contactable partners but may be useful to limit transmission of this potentially challenging infection.