Perspectives on expedited partner therapy for chlamydia: a survey of health care providers

Abstract

There is a lack of research on health care providers' use of and perspectives on expedited partner therapy in a state where expedited partner therapy is not prohibited or explicitly allowed. The aim of our study was to understand if and how health care providers use expedited partner therapy, if specific demographic factors and knowledge contribute to increased use of expedited partner therapy, and to describe barriers and facilitators to the use of expedited partner therapy in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. A convenience sample of 112 health care providers from diverse disciplines who treat young women at risk for chlamydia completed an online survey. About 11% of health care providers used expedited partner therapy consistently. Those who self-reported that they were knowledgeable about expedited partner therapy were more likely to use expedited partner therapy (73% vs. 49%, p = .009) as were those who said no or were unsure about their institution's guidelines for expedited partner therapy (35% vs. 22%, p = 0.01) (62% vs. 57%, p = 0.01). The most commonly reported facilitator of expedited partner therapy was having clear legal guidelines (86%). This study finds that in a setting where expedited partner therapy is not expressly permitted, health care providers still use the practice but also experience barriers that limit uptake. Legislation expressly endorsing expedited partner therapy in the state and in medical institutions is needed to increase expedited partner therapy use.

Barriers and Facilitators of Partner Treatment of Chlamydia: A Qualitative Investigation with Prescribers and Community Pharmacists

“…This positive response is crucial, as the willingness of community pharmacists to take part in EPT is one of the first steps towards trialling such models in practice. Likewise, many prescribers were receptive to the notion of APT; however, similarly to existing literature, several revealed they would feel more comfortable with the models if they had some form of verbal contact with the partner [ 49 , 50 ]. This may be a reason why several prescribers in this study were more inclined to use EPT, rather than PDPT, as partners have contact with a health professional (i.e., pharmacist) in the EPT model.…”

“…Understanding these contextual barriers and facilitators provides the opportunity for these barriers to be addressed more effectively, should APT be trialled in Western Australia. This is significant, as the majority of research to date has been conducted in the United Kingdom and the United States of America [ 19 , 22 , 35 , 36 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 ] and, thus, may not be entirely applicable to the Australian context.…”

Partner notification and partner treatment for chlamydia: attitude and practice of general practitioners in the Netherlands; a landscape analysis

“…[30, 31] GPs stated in the questionnaire that PIPT reduces the opportunity for the partner to see a professional and get further STI counselling and advice. [34] Current legislation requires direct contact with partners. It remains unclear if contact by telephone is sufficient to meet the legal requirements for the prescription of a drug.…”

Expedited Partner Therapy: Pharmacist Refusal of Legal Prescriptions

“…The success of prescription EPT requires action on the part of the provider, patient, partner and pharmacist. While many studies demonstrate that providers lack knowledge of and underutilize EPT, 13–15 there is little literature regarding pharmacist knowledge and use of EPT. A New York City survey conducted in 2012, and repeated in 2014, consistently showed less than half of pharmacists knew EPT was legal.…”