BACKGROUND: Expedited partner therapy (EPT) is a potential partner treatment strategy. Significant efforts have been devoted to policies intended to facilitate its practice. However, few studies have attempted to evaluate these policies. METHODS: We used data on interviewed gonorrhea cases from 12 sites in the STD Surveillance Network in 2010 (n = 3404). Patients reported whether they had received EPT. We coded state laws relevant to EPT for gonorrhea using Westlaw legal research database and the general legal status of EPT in STD Surveillance Network sites from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Web site in 2010. We also coded policy statements by medical and other boards. We used χ tests to compare receipt of EPT by legal/policy variables, patient characteristics, and provider type. Variables significant at P < 0.10 in bivariate analyses were included in a logistic regression model. RESULTS: Overall, 9.5% of 2564 interviewed patients with gonorrhea reported receiving EPT for their partners. Receipt of EPT was significantly higher where laws and policies authorizing EPT existed. Where EPT laws for gonorrhea existed and EPT was permissible, 13.3% of patients reported receiving EPT as compared with 5.4% where there were no EPT laws and EPT was permissible, and 1.0% where there were no EPT laws and EPT was potentially allowable (P < 0.01). Expedited partner therapy was higher where professional boards had policy statements supporting EPT (P < 0.01). Receipt of EPT did not differ by most patient characteristics or provider type. Policy-related findings were similar in adjusted analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Expedited partner therapy laws and policies were associated with higher reports of receipt of EPT among interviewed gonorrhea cases.
BACKGROUND: Expedited partner therapy (EPT) is a potential partner treatment strategy. Significant efforts have been devoted to policies intended to facilitate its practice. However, few studies have attempted to evaluate these policies. METHODS: We used data on interviewed gonorrhea cases from 12 sites in the STD Surveillance Network in 2010 (n = 3404). Patients reported whether they had received EPT. We coded state laws relevant to EPT for gonorrhea using Westlaw legal research database and the general legal status of EPT in STD Surveillance Network sites from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Web site in 2010. We also coded policy statements by medical and other boards. We used χ tests to compare receipt of EPT by legal/policy variables, patient characteristics, and provider type. Variables significant at P < 0.10 in bivariate analyses were included in a logistic regression model. RESULTS: Overall, 9.5% of 2564 interviewed patients with gonorrhea reported receiving EPT for their partners. Receipt of EPT was significantly higher where laws and policies authorizing EPT existed. Where EPT laws for gonorrhea existed and EPT was permissible, 13.3% of patients reported receiving EPT as compared with 5.4% where there were no EPT laws and EPT was permissible, and 1.0% where there were no EPT laws and EPT was potentially allowable (P < 0.01). Expedited partner therapy was higher where professional boards had policy statements supporting EPT (P < 0.01). Receipt of EPT did not differ by most patient characteristics or provider type. Policy-related findings were similar in adjusted analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Expedited partner therapy laws and policies were associated with higher reports of receipt of EPT among interviewed gonorrhea cases.
Authors: Ying-Ying Yu; Jessica A Frasure-Williams; Eileen F Dunne; Gail Bolan; Lauri Markowitz; Heidi M Bauer Journal: Sex Transm Dis Date: 2011-10 Impact factor: 2.830
Authors: Matthew R Golden; William L H Whittington; H Hunter Handsfield; James P Hughes; Walter E Stamm; Matthew Hogben; Agnes Clark; Cheryl Malinski; Jennifer R L Helmers; Katherine K Thomas; King K Holmes Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-02-17 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Patricia Kissinger; Hamish Mohammed; Gwangi Richardson-Alston; Jami S Leichliter; Stephanie N Taylor; David H Martin; Thomas A Farley Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2005-07-19 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Thomas L Gift; Patricia Kissinger; Hamish Mohammed; Jami S Leichliter; Matthew Hogben; Matthew R Golden Journal: Sex Transm Dis Date: 2011-11 Impact factor: 2.830
Authors: James G Hodge; Amy Pulver; Matthew Hogben; Dhrubajyoti Bhattacharya; Erin Fuse Brown Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2008-01-02 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Julia A Schillinger; Patricia Kissinger; Helene Calvet; William L H Whittington; Ray L Ransom; Maya R Sternberg; Stuart M Berman; Charlotte K Kent; David H Martin; M Kim Oh; H Hunter Handsfield; Gail Bolan; Lauri E Markowitz; J Dennis Fortenberry Journal: Sex Transm Dis Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 2.830
Authors: Michelle L Pickett; Marlene D Melzer-Lange; Melissa K Miller; Seema Menon; Alexis M Vistocky; Amy L Drendel Journal: Pediatr Emerg Care Date: 2018-11 Impact factor: 1.454
Authors: Kevin M Weiss; Jeb S Jones; David A Katz; Thomas L Gift; Kyle Bernstein; Kimberly Workowski; Eli S Rosenberg; Samuel M Jenness Journal: Sex Transm Dis Date: 2019-11 Impact factor: 2.830
Authors: Ryan Cramer; Nina Martinez; Craig Roberts; Melissa A Habel; E Victor Leino; Jami S Leichliter Journal: Sex Transm Dis Date: 2015-10 Impact factor: 2.830