Susan Lee1, Nadia Dowshen2, Meredith Matone3, Cynthia Mollen4. 1. Craig-Dalsimer Division of Adolescent Medicine, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; PolicyLab, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 2. Craig-Dalsimer Division of Adolescent Medicine, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; PolicyLab, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 3. PolicyLab, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 4. PolicyLab, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Division of Emergency Medicine, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Electronic address: mollenc@email.chop.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess provider practice of expedited partner therapy (EPT) for adolescents with chlamydial infection across varying state policy environments and compare provider practice in a parallel treatment scenario for a nonsexually transmitted disease. METHODS: Anonymous survey of randomly selected providers in one of three state EPT policy environments: EPT is (A) explicitly legal; (B) permissible, but not directly referenced in law; or (C) potentially allowable. RESULTS: Of 195 respondents, only 20% reported ever practicing EPT. Group A providers were more likely to have used EPT than Groups B and C. Commonly cited barriers included missed opportunity to counsel partners and ensuring medication delivery. In parallel hypothetical scenarios, providers were more likely to offer prophylactic antibiotics to a patient's mother for pertussis exposure without a face-to-face visit than the sexual partner of an adolescent with chlamydia. CONCLUSIONS: Further investigation is needed to better understand provider and policy factors that may facilitate EPT provision to adolescents.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess provider practice of expedited partner therapy (EPT) for adolescents with chlamydial infection across varying state policy environments and compare provider practice in a parallel treatment scenario for a nonsexually transmitted disease. METHODS: Anonymous survey of randomly selected providers in one of three state EPT policy environments: EPT is (A) explicitly legal; (B) permissible, but not directly referenced in law; or (C) potentially allowable. RESULTS: Of 195 respondents, only 20% reported ever practicing EPT. Group A providers were more likely to have used EPT than Groups B and C. Commonly cited barriers included missed opportunity to counsel partners and ensuring medication delivery. In parallel hypothetical scenarios, providers were more likely to offer prophylactic antibiotics to a patient's mother for pertussis exposure without a face-to-face visit than the sexual partner of an adolescent with chlamydia. CONCLUSIONS: Further investigation is needed to better understand provider and policy factors that may facilitate EPT provision to adolescents.
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