Table 3 Partner notification outcomes by the research questions selected in this 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 |
| Â | for 85% of the partners, women accepted patient delivered medication and for 13% of the partners they accepted partner cards |