The relative clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of three contrastingapproaches to partner notification for curable sexually transmitted infections: A cluster randomised trial in primary care

Health Technology Assessment

Volumn 19, Issue 5, 2015, Pages 1-144

  Cassell, Jackie A ^a   Dodds, Julie ^b,c   Estcourt, Claudia ^d   Llewellyn, Carrie ^a   Lanza, Stefania ^a   Richens, John ^c   Smith, Helen ^a   Symonds, Merle ^d   Copas, Andrew ^c   Roberts, Tracy ^e   Walters, Kate ^c   White, Peter ^f,g   Lowndes, Catherine ^g   Mistry, Hema ^e   Rossello Roig, Melcior ^e   Smith, Hilary ^a   Rait, Greta ^b  

^a BRIGHTON AND SUSSEX MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United Kingdom)

^b MEDICAL RESEARCH COUNCIL   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^d QUEEN MARY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^e UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

^f IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^g PUBLIC HEALTH ENGLAND   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; APPLICATION SERVICE PROVIDER; ARTICLE; CHLAMYDIA; CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS; CONTRACT REFERRAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; ECONOMIC EVALUATION; FEASIBILITY STUDY; FEMALE; GENERAL PRACTICE; GONORRHEA; HUMAN; INFORMATION; MALE; MATHEMATICAL MODEL; MEN WHO HAVE SEX WITH MEN; PARTNER NOTIFICATION; PATIENT ATTITUDE; PATIENT REFERRAL; PELVIC INFLAMMATORY DISEASE; PILOT STUDY; PRIMARY MEDICAL CARE; PROVIDER REFERRAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; SCALE UP; SCREENING; UNITED KINGDOM; URETHRITIS; WEB BASED REFERRAL SYSTEM; YOUNG ADULT; CHLAMYDIA INFECTIONS; CLINICAL TRIAL; CLUSTER ANALYSIS; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTACT EXAMINATION; ECONOMICS; LYMPHOGRANULOMA VENEREUM; MULTICENTER STUDY; PATIENT COMPLIANCE; PRIMARY HEALTH CARE; PROCEDURES; RISK ASSESSMENT; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR; SEXUALITY; SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASES; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA; TRANSMISSION;

CHLAMYDIA INFECTIONS; CLUSTER ANALYSIS; CONTACT TRACING; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; FEMALE; GREAT BRITAIN; HUMANS; LYMPHOGRANULOMA VENEREUM; MALE; PATIENT COMPLIANCE; PILOT PROJECTS; PRIMARY HEALTH CARE; REFERRAL AND CONSULTATION; RISK ASSESSMENT; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR; SEXUAL PARTNERS; SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASES; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84921846671     PISSN: 13665278     EISSN: 20464924     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3310/hta19050     Document Type: Article

References (70)

1. Health Protection Agency Centre for Infections. Sexually Transmitted Infections and Young People in the United Kingdom: 2008 Report. London: Health Protection Agency; 2008.
2. Hughes G, Nardone A. Sexual Health in Adolescents in the UK: What Do the Data Show? London: Health Protection Agency; 2011.
3. Arthur G, Lowndes CM, Blackham J, Fenton KA, The European Surveillance of Sexually Transmitted Infections (ESSTI) Network. Divergent approaches to partner notification for sexually transmitted infections across the European Union. Sex Transm Dis 2005;32:734–41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.olq.0000175376.62297.73.
4. Catchpole M. Sexually transmitted infections: control strategies. BMJ 2001;322:1135–6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.322.7295.1135.
5. Low N, Bender N, Nartey L, Redmond S, Shang A, Stephenson J. Revised Rapid Review of Evidence for the Effectiveness of Screening for Genital Chlamydial Infection in Sexually Active Young Women and Men. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence; 2006.
6. LaMontagne DS, Fenton KA, Randall S, Anderson S, Carter P. Establishing the National Chlamydia Screening Programme in England: results from the first full year of screening. Sex Transm Infect 2004;80:335–41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/sti.2004.012856.
7. Low N, McCarthy A, Roberts TE, Huengsberg M, Sanford E, Sterne JA, et al. Partner notification of chlamydia infection in primary care: randomised controlled trial and analysis of resource use. BMJ 2006;332:14–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38678.405370.7C
8. Bell G, Ward H, Day S, Ghani AC, Goan U, Claydon E, et al. Partner notification for gonorrhoea: a comparative study with a provincial and a metropolitan UK clinic. Sex Transm Infect 1998;74:409–14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/sti.74.6.409.
9. Potterat JJ, Rothenberg R. The case-finding effectiveness of self-referral system for gonorrhea: a preliminary report. Am J Public Health 1977;67:174–6. http://dx.doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.67.2.174.
10. Cleveland J. A Cost-Effectiveness Study of Alternative Methods for Gonorrhea Contact Referral and Rescreening. Dade County, FL: Dade County Department of Public Health; 2011.
11. Katz BP, Danos CS, Quinn TS, Caine V, Jones RB. Efficiency and cost-effectiveness of field follow-up for patients with Chlamydia trachomatis infection in a sexually transmitted diseases clinic. Sex Transm Dis 1988;15:11–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00007435-198801000-00003.
12. Cassell JA, Mercer CH, Sutcliffe L, Petersen I, Islam A, Brook MG, et al. Trends in sexually transmitted infections in general practice 1990–2000: population based study using data from the UK general practice research database. BMJ 2006;332:332–4.http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38726.404120.7C
13. Hughes G, Williams T, Simms I, Mercer C, Fenton K, Cassell J. Use of a primary care database to determine trends in genital chlamydia testing, diagnostic episodes and management in UK general practice, 1990–2004. Sex Transm Infect 2007;83:310–13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/sti.2006.022673.
14. Mercer CH, Sutcliffe L, Johnson AM, White PJ, Brook G, Ross JD, et al. How much do delayed healthcare seeking, delayed care provision, and diversion from primary care contribute to the transmission of STIs? Sex Transm Infect 2007;83:400–5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/sti.2006.024554
15. Bailey AC, Johnson SA, Cassell JA. Are primary care-based sexually transmitted infection services in the UK delivering public health benefit? Int J STD AIDS 2010;21:39–45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1258/ijsa.2009.008461.
16. Cassell JA, Brook MG, Slack R, James N, Hayward A, Johnson AM. Partner notification in primary care. Sex Transm Infect 2003;79:264–5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/sti.79.3.264-a
17. Mason D, Kerry S, Oakeshott P. Postal survey of management of cervical Chlamydia trachomatis infection in English and Welsh general practices. BMJ 1996;313:1193–4. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.313.7066.1193.
18. Ross JD, Sutherland S, Coia J. Genital Chlamydia trachomatis infections in primary care. BMJ 1996;313:1192–3. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.313.7066.1192a
19. Andersen B, Ostergaard L, Nygard B, Olesen F. Urogenital Chlamydia trachomatis infections in general practice: diagnosis, treatment, follow-up and contact tracing. Fam Pract 1998;15:223–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/fampra/15.3.223.
20. White C, Wardropper AG. Chlamydia in a district general hospital: an audit of treatment and contact tracing. Int J STD AIDS 1999;10:57–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1258/0956462991912953.
21. Alary M, Joly JR, Poulin C. Gonorrhea and chlamydial infection: comparison of contact tracing performed by physicians or by a specialized service. Can J Public Health 1991;82:132–4.
22. Eitrem R, Erenius M, Meeuwisse A. Contact tracing for genital Chlamydia trachomatis in a Swedish county. Sex Transm Dis 1998;25:433–6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00007435-199809000-00010.
23. Low N, McCarthy A, Macleod J, Salisbury C, Campbell R, Roberts TE, et al. Epidemiological, social, diagnostic and economic evaluation of population screening for genital chlamydial infection. Health Technol Assess 2007;11(8).
24. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). One to One Interventions to Reduce the Transmission of Sexually Transmitted Infections (STIs) including HIV, and to Reduce the Rate of Under 18 Conceptions, Especially among Vulnerable and at Risk Groups. London: NICE; 2007.
25. Pimenta JM, Catchpole M, Rogers PA, Perkins E, Jackson N, Carlisle C, et al. Opportunistic screening for genital chlamydial infection. I: acceptability of urine testing in primary and secondary healthcare settings. Sex Transm Infect 2003;79:16–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/sti.79.1.16.
26. National Chlamydia Screening Programme. National Chlamydia Screening Programme Standards. 6th edn. London: Health Protection Agency; 2012.
27. Johnson SA, Simms I, Sheringham J, Bickler G, Bennett CM, Hall R, et al. The implementation of chlamydia screening: a cross-sectional study in the south east of England. Sex Transm Infect 2010;86:217–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/sti.2009.037283.
28. National Chlamydia Screening Programme. NCSP: Five Years: The Fifth Annual Report of the National Chlamydia Screening Programme 2007/08. London: Health Protection Agency; 2008.
29. National Chlamydia Screening Steering Group. New Frontiers: Annual Report of the National Chlamydia Screening Programme in England 2005/06. London: Health Protection Agency; 2006.
30. Department of Health. Public Health Outcomes Framework 2013 to 2016. London: Department of Health; 2012.
31. Trelle S, Shang A, Nartey L, Cassell J, Low N. Revised Rapid Review of Evidence for the Effectiveness of Partner Notification for Sexually Transmitted Infections including HIV. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence; 2009.
32. Cassell JA. The Potential of Primary Care for Reducing the Transmission of Sexually Transmitted Infections. Cambridge: University of Cambridge; 2008.
33. Estcourt C, Sutcliffe L, Cassell J, Mercer CH, Copas A, James L, et al. Can we improve partner notification rates through expedited partner therapy in the UK? Findings from an exploratory trial of Accelerated Partner Therapy (APT). Sex Transm Infect 2012;88:21–6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/sti.2010.047258.
34. Medical Research Council. Developing and Evaluating Complex Interventions: New Guidance. London: Medical Research Council; 2008.
35. Thabane L, Ma J, Chu R, Cheng J, Ismaila A, Rios LP, et al. A tutorial on pilot studies: the what, why and how. BMC Med Res Methodol 2010;10:1. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-10-1.
36. Campbell R, Mills N, Sanford E, Graham A, Low N, Peters TJ. Does population screening for Chlamydia trachomatis raise anxiety among those tested? Findings from a population based chlamydia screening study. BMC Public Health 2006;6:106. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-6-106.
37. Santer M, Wyke S, Warner P. Women’s experiences of Chlamydia screening: qualitative interviews with women in primary care. Eur J Gen Pract 2003;9:56–61. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/13814780309160403.
38. Perkins E, Carlisle C, Jackson N. Opportunistic screening for chlamydia in general practice: the experience of health professionals. Health Soc Care Community 2003;11:314–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2524.2003.00437.x
39. McNulty CA, Freeman E, Howell-Jones R, Hogan A, Randall S, Ford-Young W, et al. Overcoming the barriers to chlamydia screening in general practice – a qualitative study. Fam Pract 2010;27:291–302. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/fampra/cmq004.
40. Walker J, Fairley CK, Urban E, Chen MY, Bradshaw C, Walker SM, et al. Maximising retention in a longitudinal study of genital Chlamydia trachomatis among young women in Australia. BMC Public Health 2011;11:156. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-11-156.
41. Bilardi JE, Fairley CK, Temple-Smith MJ, Pirotta MV, McNamee KM, Bourke S, et al. Incentive payments to general practitioners aimed at increasing opportunistic testing of young women for chlamydia: a pilot cluster randomised controlled trial. BMC Public Health 2010;10:70.
42. Salisbury C, Macleod J, Egger M, McCarthy A, Patel R, Holloway A, et al. Opportunistic and systematic screening for chlamydia: a study of consultations by young adults in general practice. Br J Gen Pract 2006;56:99–103.
43. Andersen B, Olesen F, Moller JK, Ostergaard L. Population-based strategies for outreach screening of urogenital Chlamydia trachomatis infections: a randomized, controlled trial. J Infect Dis 2002;185:252–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/338268.
44. McNulty CA, Freeman E, Oliver I, Ford-Young W, Randall S. Strategies used to increase chlamydia screening in general practice: a qualitative study. Public Health 2008;122:845–56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2007.10.009.
45. National Chlamydia Screening Programme. Towards Best Practice for Chlamydia Screening in Reproductive and Sexual Health Services (RSH). London: Health Protection Agency; 2010.
46. National Chlamydia Screening Programme. NHS Vital Signs 2010/11. London: Health Protection Agency; 2011.
47. QRESEARCH, The Health and Social Care Information Centre. Trends in Consultation Rates in General Practice 1995/1996 to 2007/2008: Analysis of the QRESEARCH database. Leeds: The Information Centre for Health and Social Care; 2008.
48. Pimenta JM, Catchpole M, Rogers PA, Hopwood J, Randall S, Mallinson H, et al. Opportunistic screening for genital chlamydial infection. II: prevalence among healthcare attenders, outcome, and evaluation of positive cases. Sex Transm Infect 2003;79:22–7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/sti.79.1.22.
49. Hippisley-Cox J, Fenty J, Heaps M. Trends in Consultation Rates in General Practice 1995 to 2006: Analysis of the QRESEARCH Database. Leeds: The Information Centre for Health and Social Care; 2007.
50. Grun L, Tassano-Smith J, Carder C, Johnson AM, Robinson A, Murray E, et al. Comparison of two methods of screening for genital chlamydial infection in women attending in general practice: cross sectional survey. BMJ 1997;315:226–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.315.7102.226.
51. Fenton KA, Ward H. National chlamydia screening programme in England: making progress. Sex Transm Infect 2004;80:331–3. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/sti.2004.009787.
52. National Audit Office. Young People’s Sexual Health: The National Chlamydia Screening Programme. London: Department of Health; 2009.
53. National Chlamydia Screening Programme. NCSP Core Requirements. 5th edn. London: Health Protection Agency; 2010.
54. National Chlamydia Screening Programme. The Bigger Picture: The National Chlamydia Screening Programme 2008/09 Annual Report. London: Health Protection Agency; 2009.
55. Department of Health. The Future Direction of the National Chlamydia Screening Programme. London: Department of Health; 2011.
56. National Chlamydia Screening Programme. Integrating the National Chlamydia Screening Programme within Local Sexual Health Economies. London: Department of Health; 2012.
57. Department of Health. A Framework for Sexual Health Improvement in England. London: Department of Health; 2013.
58. Llewellyn C, Smith H, Pollard A. What is it about STI research that is unappealing? An experience of conducting sexual health research in general practice in England. Sex Transm Infect 2012;88:345. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/sextrans-2012-050585.
59. Low N, Geisler W, Stephenson J, Hook EW III. Chlamydia control: a comparative review from the USA and UK. In Aral SO, Fenton KA, Lipshutz JA, editors. The New Public Health and STD/HIV Prevention. New York, NY: Springer; 2013. pp. 401–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-4526-5_20.
60. Low N, Cassell JA, Spencer B, Bender N, Hilber AM, van Bergen J, et al. Chlamydia control activities in Europe: cross-sectional survey. Eur J Public Health 2011;22:556–61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckr046.
61. UK National Screening Committee. Related Programmes. 2013 URL: www.screening.nhs.uk/(accessed 17 September 2014).
62. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration. E6 Guideline for Good Clinical Practice. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration; 1996.
63. Great Britain. Data Protection Act 1998: Elizabeth II. Chapter 29. London: The Stationery Office; 1998.
64. Society of Sexual Health Advisers. The Manual for Sexual Health Advisers. London: Society of Sexual Health Advisers; 2004. URL: www.ssha.info/resources/manual-for-sexual-health-advisers/(accessed 29 March 2013).
65. Cowan FM, French R, Johnson AM. The role and effectiveness of partner notification in STD control: a review. Genitourin Med 1996;72:247–52.
66. Kensing F, Blomberg J. Participatory design: issues and concerns. Comp Support Coop Work (CSCW) 1998;7:167–85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1008689307411.
67. Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, O'Brien BJ, Stoddart GL. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. 3rd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005.
68. Roberts TE, Tsourapas A, Sutcliffe L, Cassell J, Estcourt C. Is Accelerated Partner Therapy (APT) a cost-effective alternative to routine patient referral partner notification in the UK? Preliminary cost–consequence analysis of an exploratory trial. Sex Transm Infect 2012;88:16–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/sextrans-2011-050176.
69. Curtis L. Unit Costs of Health and Social Care 2011. Canterbury: Personal Social Services Research Unit, University of Kent; 2011.
70. Public Health England. Chlamydia Testing Data for 15–24 year olds in England, January to December 2012. London: Public Health England; 2013.