↓ Skip to main content

Public health opportunities and challenges in the provision of partner notification services: the New England experience

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
41 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Public health opportunities and challenges in the provision of partner notification services: the New England experience
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, January 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12913-018-2890-7
Pubmed ID
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

Abstract

Partner notification services (PNS) are recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as a public health intervention for addressing the spread of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). Barriers and facilitators to the partner notification process from a public health perspective have not been well described. In 2015, a coalition of New England public health STD directors and investigators formed to address the increasing STD prevalence across the region (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont) and to promote communication between state STD programs. To evaluate barriers and facilitators of PNS programs, a survey was administered to representatives from each state to describe PNS processes and approaches. Of the six PNS programs, Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, Vermont, and New Hampshire had combined HIV and STD PNS programs; Rhode Island's programs were integrated but employed separate disease intervention specialists (DIS). All states performed PNS for HIV and syphilis. Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont performed services for all gonorrhea cases. Rhode Island, Connecticut, and Massachusetts performed limited partner notification for gonorrhea due to lack of resources. None of the six states routinely provided services for chlamydia, though Maine and Vermont did so for high-priority populations such as HIV co-infected or pregnant individuals. Across all programs, clients received risk reduction counseling and general STD education as a component of PNS, in addition to referrals for HIV/STD care at locations ranging from Planned Parenthood to community- or hospital-based clinics. Notable barriers to successful partner notification across all states included anonymous partners and index cases who did not feel comfortable sharing partners' names with DIS. Other common barriers included insufficient staff, inability of DIS to identify and contact partners, and index cases declining to speak with DIS staff. In New England, state health departments use different strategies to implement PNS programs and referral to STD care. Despite this, similar challenges exist across settings, including difficulty with anonymous partners and limited state resources.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 41 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 20%
Student > Bachelor 8 20%
Student > Master 3 7%
Other 3 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 5%
Other 7 17%
Unknown 10 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 32%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 17%
Social Sciences 2 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 2%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 12 29%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 August 2018.
All research outputs
#8,598,844
of 15,922,891 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#3,149
of 5,498 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#124,585
of 278,192 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#1
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,922,891 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,498 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 278,192 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them