Partner notification and partner treatment for chlamydia: attitude and practice of general practitioners in the Netherlands; a landscape analysis

Abstract Background Chlamydia prevalence remains high despite scaling-up control efforts. Transmission is not effectively interrupted without partner notification (PN) and (timely) partner treatment (PT). In the Netherlands, the follow-up of partners is not standardized and may depend on GPs’ time and priorities. We investigated current practice and attitude of GPs towards PN and PT to determine the potential for Patient-Initiated Partner Treatment, which is legally not supported yet. Methods Multiple data-sources were combined for a landscape analysis. Quantitative data on (potential) PT were... Mehr ...

Verfasser: Ingrid V. F. van den Broek
Gé A. Donker
Karin Hek
Jan E. A. M. van Bergen
Birgit H. B. van Benthem
Hannelore M. Götz
Dokumenttyp: Artikel
Erscheinungsdatum: 2017
Reihe/Periodikum: BMC Family Practice, Vol 18, Iss 1, Pp 1-10 (2017)
Verlag/Hrsg.: BMC
Schlagwörter: Partner notification / Partner treatment / Expedited partner therapy / Patient-initiated partner treatment / General practice / Sexually transmitted infections / Medicine (General) / R5-920
Sprache: Englisch
Permalink: https://search.fid-benelux.de/Record/base-29170857
Datenquelle: BASE; Originalkatalog
Powered By: BASE
Link(s) : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-017-0676-3

Abstract Background Chlamydia prevalence remains high despite scaling-up control efforts. Transmission is not effectively interrupted without partner notification (PN) and (timely) partner treatment (PT). In the Netherlands, the follow-up of partners is not standardized and may depend on GPs’ time and priorities. We investigated current practice and attitude of GPs towards PN and PT to determine the potential for Patient-Initiated Partner Treatment, which is legally not supported yet. Methods Multiple data-sources were combined for a landscape analysis. Quantitative data on (potential) PT were obtained from prescriptions in the national pharmacy register (2004–2014) and electronic patient data from NIVEL-Primary Care Database (PCD) and from STI consultations in a subgroup of sentinel practices therein. Furthermore, we collected information on current practice via two short questionnaires at a national GP conference and obtained insight into GPs’ attitudes towards PN/PT in a vignette study among GPs partaking in NIVEL-PCD. Results Prescription data showed Azithromycin double dosages in 1–2% of cases in the pharmacy register (37.000 per year); probable chlamydia-specific repeated prescriptions or double dosages of other antibiotics in NIVEL-PCD (115/1078) could not be interpreted as PT for chlamydia with certainty. STI consultation data revealed direct PT in 6/100 cases, via partner prescription or double doses. In the questionnaires the large majority of GPs (>95% of 1411) reported to discuss PN of current and ex-partner(s) with chlamydia patients. Direct PT was indicated as most common method by 4% of 271 GPs overall and by 12% for partners registered in the same practice. Usually, GPs leave further steps to the patients (83%), advising patients to tell partners to get tested (56%) or treated (28%). In the vignette study, 16–20% of 268 GPs indicated willingness to provide direct PT, depending on patient/partner profile, more (24–45%) if patients would have the chance to notify their partner first. Conclusion ...