Skip to main content

Table 3 Partner notification outcomes by the research questions selected in this review.

From: Partner notification for sexually transmitted infections in developing countries: a systematic review

1. Willingness of an index STI patient to notify their partners
[23]Desormeaux et al, 1996 86% of the women intended to inform their partners of their STI status
[39]Kamali et al, 2002 59% of the patients received partner cards to notify partners
[19]Liu et al, 2002 only 23% of the married men with STIs expressed their willingness to inform their partners
[14]Moyo et al, 2002 93% motivated to reported their partners because women thought their husbands are source of infection and they need treatment or to save their upcoming child from infection, men were motivated to save their wives and themselves from infertility
[22]Nuwaha et al, 2001 women had higher positive intention (mean 1.3) to refer partner compared to men (mean 1.8)
[38]Sahasrabuddhe, 2002 78% intended to notify partners; among them, 80% women, 70% men.
[37]Steen et al, 1996 58% of the index patients accepted partner coupon for their partners
2. Proportion of partners notified and/or referred to the clinics
[26]Clark et al, 2007 65% informed their primary partners, 10% informed their secondary partners
[23]Desormeaux et al, 1996 30% of the partners attended the clinics were referred by index patients
[60]Diaz-Olavarrieta et al, 2007 65% of the women reported to notify their partners
[25]Gichangi et al, 2000 94% partners were notified and 67% of the partner received treatment for syphilis
[40]Grosskurth et al, 2000 34% of the partner were notified and treated
[39]Kamali et al, 2002 25% of the partners of index patients received treatment
[24]Klisch et al, 2007 16 out of 18 participants (89%) notified their partners, 78% initiated treatment
[19]Liu et al, 2002 21% of the men reported to notify their partners.
[16]Njero et al 1995 68% notified their partners, 58% of the partners were reported to be treated
[34]Moyo et al, 2002 93% PN for spousal partner, 0% among causal partners
[17]Nuwaha et al, 2001 34% of the partners referred, 22% of the partners were referred by women and43% referred by men index patients
[37]Steen et al, 1996 45% of the partners got treated of those received referral cards
[38]Sahasrabuddhe, 2002 41% referred to the clinics; among then, 44% women and 40% men
[34]Shumin et al, 2004 23.3% partners were notified, 20.5% of the partners actually attended to the clinics and 13.3% received treatment
[45]Wang et al, 2007 46% of the women and 64% of the men informed their partners about their infections, PN was associated with higher rates of condom use and having had no commercial sex
3. Barriers notified by the index patients
[26]Clarke et al, 2007 reasons for not disclosing STI status to primary partners included fear of rejection and embarrassment. for casual partners reasons were inability to locate partners and perception that informing a transient partner is not important
[40]Grosskurth et al, 2000 barrier included embarrassment, fear of violence and matrimonial conflict, the casual partners, and health workers did not explain the importance of partner treatment.
[25]Gichangi et al, 2000 women did not inform their partner because of fear of violence or being blamed for the illness.
[24]Klisch et al, 2007 reaction from male partner after notification included, silence and understanding, denying the possibility of having infection, blaming her for understanding, denying the possibility of having infection, blaming her for infection, becoming
Aggressive with insults and shouting.
[14]Moyo et al, 2002 barriers for spousal partner included i. partner lived far away, ii. fear of loss of respect, embarrassment, iii. fear of divorce. for non spousal partners women
indicated that they do not want to lose material support by annoying partners, for men, they would not have sex with them again.
[22]Nuwaha et al, 2001 barriers for women was their relationship will be known to the husbands and for men it was attitudinal beliefs that showing he is unfaithful, and ending of relationship or separation.
[15]Nuwaha et al, 2000 barriers for sexual partner referral were showing the partner that you are at risk
of AIDS, creation of mistrust; showing unfaithfulness, refusal of sexual intercourse, ending of relationship, and separation or divorce.
4. Structural barriers in implementing PN programs
[54]Harrison et al, 1998 only 3 clinics out of 10 used partner cards, 6 out of 10 clinics had a counselor
[16]Njero et al, 1995 lack of trained staff and inadequate infrastructure, mobile population, don't have any mail or telephone address, manually check records to verify partner referral outcomes.
[37]Steen et al, 1996 poor predictive values of STI diagnostics may lead to unnecessarily labeling of index patients and their partners with having STIs
[38]Sahasrabuddhe, 2002 limited resources and over burdened health system.
[34]Shumin et al, 2004 lack of staff especially availability of counselors across the STD clinics
[27]Young et al, 2007 lack of valid, user-friendly and cheap STI diagnostics
5. PN approaches found successful in less developed countries
[18]Faxelid et al, 1996 1.8 partners per man were treated in counseling group compared to 1.2 in the control group (p < 0.001) but they did no counseling among women. find any significant effect of
[10]Methews et al, 2002 27% partners returned during video based intervention phase compared to 20%
during control phase
[34]Moyo et al, 2002 92% partners were notified in counseling group compared to 67% in standard
group, 93% referral for spousal partners compared to 0% for causal partner in
case of male patients
[17]Nuwaha et al, 2001 74% partners were treated in patient delivered medication method and 34%
treated in the patient based referral method
  for 85% of the partners, women accepted patient delivered medication and for
13% of the partners they accepted partner cards