Alexandra Choi1, Audrey Campbell2, Theodora Consolacion3, Jasmine Pawa4, Brian Ng5, Jason Wong6. 1. family physician and a resident in the Public Health and Preventive Medicine program at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver. 2. family physician and public health physician, Clinical Assistant Professor with the Department of Family Practice at the University of British Columbia, and Program Director for the Public Health and Preventive Medicine program at NOSM University. 3. epidemiologist at the BC Centre for Disease Control in Vancouver. 4. family physician, a public health physician, and Adjunct Lecturer at the Dalla Lana School of Public Health at the University of Toronto in Ontario. 5. family physician, Site Faculty for Research and Evidence-based Medicine for the University of British Columbia Vancouver Fraser Family Practice residency program, Lead Faculty for the Distributed Health Research Methods Course for family medicine residents at the University of British Columbia, and an instructor at the University of British Columbia. 6. public health physician at the BC Centre for Disease Control and Clinical Assistant Professor with the School of Population and Public Health at the University of British Columbia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore Canadian FPs' experiences with, perceived barriers to, and perceived facilitators of FP-initiated partner notification (PN) for HIV and other sexually transmitted infections (STIs), as well as to inform the development of tools that might enhance this work. DESIGN: Online survey. SETTING: British Columbia. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 146 FPs recruited through the Divisions of Family Practice community-based networks of FPs throughout the province. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Family physicians' current STI and PN practices, opinions regarding FP-initiated PN, perceived barriers to and facilitators of FP-initiated PN, and preferred PN resources. RESULTS: More than 90% of FPs had diagnosed an STI within the past year, and most (60.3% to 96.6%, depending on the STI) told patients to inform their partners. Two-thirds (66.4%) felt that PN should not be done by FPs, and fewer than 10% reported contacting partners. Reported barriers included inaccurate or incomplete lists of partners (67.1%), poor compensation (54.1%), and insufficient time (54.1%). Facilitators chosen by respondents included another health professional assigned to follow up with PN (77.4%) and improved remuneration (74.7%). Electronic PN tools directed at patients (eg, PN slips) were favoured over resources directed at providers. CONCLUSION: Family physicians regularly manage STIs and currently take part in PN primarily through educating index cases. However, most do not feel that PN should be conducted by FPs, and most believe that FP-initiated PN would require additional personnel, remuneration, and legal guidance.
OBJECTIVE: To explore Canadian FPs' experiences with, perceived barriers to, and perceived facilitators of FP-initiated partner notification (PN) for HIV and other sexually transmitted infections (STIs), as well as to inform the development of tools that might enhance this work. DESIGN: Online survey. SETTING: British Columbia. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 146 FPs recruited through the Divisions of Family Practice community-based networks of FPs throughout the province. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Family physicians' current STI and PN practices, opinions regarding FP-initiated PN, perceived barriers to and facilitators of FP-initiated PN, and preferred PN resources. RESULTS: More than 90% of FPs had diagnosed an STI within the past year, and most (60.3% to 96.6%, depending on the STI) told patients to inform their partners. Two-thirds (66.4%) felt that PN should not be done by FPs, and fewer than 10% reported contacting partners. Reported barriers included inaccurate or incomplete lists of partners (67.1%), poor compensation (54.1%), and insufficient time (54.1%). Facilitators chosen by respondents included another health professional assigned to follow up with PN (77.4%) and improved remuneration (74.7%). Electronic PN tools directed at patients (eg, PN slips) were favoured over resources directed at providers. CONCLUSION: Family physicians regularly manage STIs and currently take part in PN primarily through educating index cases. However, most do not feel that PN should be conducted by FPs, and most believe that FP-initiated PN would require additional personnel, remuneration, and legal guidance.
Authors: Janet S St Lawrence; Daniel E Montaño; Danuta Kasprzyk; William R Phillips; Keira Armstrong; Jami S Leichliter Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2002-11 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Catherine Mathews; Nicol Coetzee; Merrick Zwarenstein; Carl Lombard; Sally Guttmacher; Andrew Oxman; George Schmid Journal: Int J STD AIDS Date: 2002-05 Impact factor: 1.359
Authors: Jade E Bilardi; Carol A Hopkins; Christopher K Fairley; Jane S Hocking; Jane E Tomnay; Natasha L Pavlin; Rhian M Parker; Meredith J Temple-Smith; Francis J Bowden; Darren B Russell; Marian Pitts; Marcus Y Chen Journal: Sex Transm Dis Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 2.830
Authors: Sarah Magaziner; Madeline C Montgomery; Thomas Bertrand; Daniel Daltry; Heidi Jenkins; Brenda Kendall; Lauren Molotnikov; Lindsay Pierce; Emer Smith; Lynn Sosa; Jacob J van den Berg; Theodore Marak; Don Operario; Philip A Chan Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2018-01-31 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: 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 Journal: BMC Fam Pract Date: 2017-12-20 Impact factor: 2.497
Authors: Jesse L Clark; Eddy R Segura; Catherine E Oldenburg; Hector J Salvatierra; Jessica Rios; Amaya Gabriela Perez-Brumer; Pedro Gonzales; Bhupendra Sheoran; Jorge Sanchez; Javier R Lama Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2018-07-03 Impact factor: 5.428