Mathews C, Coetzee N, Zwarenstein M, Lombard C, Guttmacher S, Oxman A, Schmid G
Centre for Epidemiologic Research, South African Medical Research Council, Cape Town, South Africa.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2001(4):CD002843. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002843.
Partner notification has been practiced for decades, with substantial resources directed towards it, and with little evidence on whether it has made a public health impact on disease transmission. Most of the evaluations were not randomized controlled trials, and were conducted in the United States, prior to the HIV/AIDS epidemic. There are reasons to question whether partner notification for gonorrhoea and chlamydia is applicable to HIV. It is also questionable whether interventions for the developed world are applicable to the developing world.
This review aims to compare the effects of various sexually transmitted disease (STD) partner notification strategies, including to compare provider referral with contract and patient referral, and to compare different patient referral strategies to each other. In addition to updating previous reviews, it addresses partner notification in developing countries as well as in developed countries, with particular consideration for HIV/AIDS. It attempts to address some of the methodological limitations of earlier reviews.
The search strategy included MEDLINE, EMBASE, Psychological Abstracts, Sociological Abstracts, the Cochrane Controlled Trials register, the proceedings of the International AIDS Conferences and the International Society for STD Research meetings.
The review includes published or unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing two or more partner notification strategies for people diagnosed with STDs.
For each comparison within each study, the difference in the rate of partners elicited, notified, medically evaluated, harmed, etc, the 95% confidence interval, and if significant, the numbers needed to treat (NNT) were calculated.
We found 11 RCTs, including 8014 participants. Only two trials were conducted in developing countries, and only two trials were conducted among HIV positive patients. There was some risk of bias in all the included trials. The review found moderately strong evidence that: 1. provider referral alone, or the choice between patient and provider referral, when compared with patient referral among patients with HIV or any STD, increases the rate of partners presenting for medical evaluation; 2. contract referral, when compared with patient referral among patients with gonorrhoea, results in more partners presenting for medical evaluation; 3. verbal, nurse-given health education together with patient-centred counselling by lay workers, when compared with standard care among patients with any STD, results in small increases in the rate of partners treated.
REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: There is a need for evaluations of interventions combining provider training and patient education, and for evaluations conducted in developing countries. All partner notification evaluations, but especially those among HIV positive patients, need to measure potential harmful effects, such as domestic violence, to ensure that partner notification does more good than harm.
性伴通知已实施数十年,投入了大量资源,但几乎没有证据表明其对疾病传播产生了公共卫生影响。大多数评估并非随机对照试验,且是在美国艾滋病流行之前进行的。有理由质疑淋病和衣原体感染的性伴通知是否适用于艾滋病病毒。发达国家的干预措施是否适用于发展中国家也值得怀疑。
本综述旨在比较各种性传播疾病(STD)性伴通知策略的效果,包括比较医疗机构转诊与契约式转诊以及患者转诊,相互比较不同的患者转诊策略。除了更新以往的综述外,还涉及发展中国家和发达国家的性伴通知情况,特别考虑了艾滋病病毒/艾滋病。它试图解决早期综述中的一些方法学局限性。
检索策略包括MEDLINE、EMBASE、《心理学文摘》、《社会学文摘》、Cochrane对照试验注册库、国际艾滋病大会论文集以及国际性传播疾病研究学会会议记录。
本综述纳入已发表或未发表的随机对照试验(RCT),这些试验比较了针对诊断为性传播疾病的人群的两种或更多种性伴通知策略。
对于每项研究中的每次比较,计算引出、通知、接受医学评估、受到伤害等性伴比例的差异、95%置信区间,若有显著性差异,则计算需治疗人数(NNT)。
我们找到了11项随机对照试验,包括8014名参与者。仅两项试验在发展中国家进行,仅两项试验在艾滋病病毒阳性患者中开展。所有纳入试验均存在一定偏倚风险。综述发现有中等强度的证据表明:1. 与艾滋病病毒感染者或任何性传播疾病患者中的患者转诊相比,仅医疗机构转诊或患者与医疗机构转诊之间的选择,会增加前来接受医学评估的性伴比例;2. 与淋病患者中的患者转诊相比,契约式转诊会使更多性伴前来接受医学评估;3. 与任何性传播疾病患者的标准护理相比,由护士进行的口头健康教育以及非专业人员以患者为中心的咨询,会使接受治疗的性伴比例略有增加。
需要对结合医疗机构培训和患者教育的干预措施进行评估,并在发展中国家开展评估。所有性伴通知评估,尤其是针对艾滋病病毒阳性患者的评估,需要衡量潜在的有害影响,如家庭暴力,以确保性伴通知利大于弊。