BACKGROUND:People with multiple sex partners tend to forget a significant proportion when recalling them. METHODS: Randomized trial of supplementary interviewing techniques during routine partner notification contact interviews for chlamydia, gonorrhea, and syphilis in Colorado Springs, CO. Cases with multiple sex partners in the last 3 months (n = 123) participated. Interviewers prompted nonspecifically and read back the list of elicited partners after cases recalled partners on their own. We then randomly assigned cases to receive 1 of 3 sets of recall cues: (1) an experimental set of cues consisting of locations where people meet partners, role relationships, network ties, and first letters of names; (2) another experimental set including common first names; and (3) control cues referring to individual characteristics (e.g., physical appearance). RESULTS: Nonspecific prompting and reading back the list each increased the number of additional partners elicited and located by 3% to 5% on average. On average, the combined location/role/letter/network cues elicited more additional partners (0.57) than did the first-name (0.29) and individual characteristics (0.28) cues. The location and first-name cues were the most effective in eliciting located partners. The supplementary techniques increased the number of new cases found by 12% and, importantly, identified branches of the sexual network that would not otherwise have been discovered. CONCLUSION: Elicitation of sex partners can be enhanced in contact interviews with simple interviewing techniques, resulting in improved network ascertainment and sexually transmitted disease case finding.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND:People with multiple sex partners tend to forget a significant proportion when recalling them. METHODS: Randomized trial of supplementary interviewing techniques during routine partner notification contact interviews for chlamydia, gonorrhea, and syphilis in Colorado Springs, CO. Cases with multiple sex partners in the last 3 months (n = 123) participated. Interviewers prompted nonspecifically and read back the list of elicited partners after cases recalled partners on their own. We then randomly assigned cases to receive 1 of 3 sets of recall cues: (1) an experimental set of cues consisting of locations where people meet partners, role relationships, network ties, and first letters of names; (2) another experimental set including common first names; and (3) control cues referring to individual characteristics (e.g., physical appearance). RESULTS: Nonspecific prompting and reading back the list each increased the number of additional partners elicited and located by 3% to 5% on average. On average, the combined location/role/letter/network cues elicited more additional partners (0.57) than did the first-name (0.29) and individual characteristics (0.28) cues. The location and first-name cues were the most effective in eliciting located partners. The supplementary techniques increased the number of new cases found by 12% and, importantly, identified branches of the sexual network that would not otherwise have been discovered. CONCLUSION: Elicitation of sex partners can be enhanced in contact interviews with simple interviewing techniques, resulting in improved network ascertainment and sexually transmitted disease case finding.
Authors: Paul Hunter; Otilio Oyervides; Katarina M Grande; Daphne Prater; Vannessa Vann; Irmine Reitl; Paul A Biedrzycki Journal: Public Health Rep Date: 2014 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 2.792
Authors: André R S Périssé; Patricia Langenberg; Laura Hungerford; Marc Boulay; Man Charurat; Mauro Schechter; William Blattner Journal: AIDS Date: 2010-01-16 Impact factor: 4.177
Authors: Sally C Stephens; Charles K Fann; Frank V Strona; Wendy Wolf; Stephanie E Cohen; Susan S Philip; Kyle T Bernstein Journal: Sex Transm Dis Date: 2014-05 Impact factor: 2.830
Authors: Abhinav Kapur; John A Schneider; Daniel Heard; Sayan Mukherjee; Phil Schumm; Ganesh Oruganti; Edward O Laumann Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-07-03 Impact factor: 3.240