↓ Skip to main content

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

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Family Practice, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
22 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
Partner notification and partner treatment for chlamydia: attitude and practice of general practitioners in the Netherlands; a landscape analysis
Published in
BMC Family Practice, December 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12875-017-0676-3
Pubmed ID
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

Abstract

Chlamydia prevalence remains high despite scaling-up control efforts. Transmission is not effectively interrupted without partner notification (PN) and (timely) partner treatment (PT). In the Netherlands, the follow-up of partners is not standardized and may depend on GPs' time and priorities. We investigated current practice and attitude of GPs towards PN and PT to determine the potential for Patient-Initiated Partner Treatment, which is legally not supported yet. Multiple data-sources were combined for a landscape analysis. Quantitative data on (potential) PT were obtained from prescriptions in the national pharmacy register (2004-2014) and electronic patient data from NIVEL-Primary Care Database (PCD) and from STI consultations in a subgroup of sentinel practices therein. Furthermore, we collected information on current practice via two short questionnaires at a national GP conference and obtained insight into GPs' attitudes towards PN/PT in a vignette study among GPs partaking in NIVEL-PCD. Prescription data showed Azithromycin double dosages in 1-2% of cases in the pharmacy register (37.000 per year); probable chlamydia-specific repeated prescriptions or double dosages of other antibiotics in NIVEL-PCD (115/1078) could not be interpreted as PT for chlamydia with certainty. STI consultation data revealed direct PT in 6/100 cases, via partner prescription or double doses. In the questionnaires the large majority of GPs (>95% of 1411) reported to discuss PN of current and ex-partner(s) with chlamydia patients. Direct PT was indicated as most common method by 4% of 271 GPs overall and by 12% for partners registered in the same practice. Usually, GPs leave further steps to the patients (83%), advising patients to tell partners to get tested (56%) or treated (28%). In the vignette study, 16-20% of 268 GPs indicated willingness to provide direct PT, depending on patient/partner profile, more (24-45%) if patients would have the chance to notify their partner first. GPs in the Netherlands already treat some partners of chlamydia cases directly, especially partners registered in the same practice. Follow-up of partner notification and treatment in general practice needs more attention. GPs may be open to implement PIPT more often, provided there are clear guidelines to arrange this legally and practically.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 22 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 23%
Researcher 4 18%
Student > Bachelor 2 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 9%
Librarian 1 5%
Other 4 18%
Unknown 4 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 32%
Social Sciences 2 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 5%
Other 4 18%
Unknown 6 27%

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 21 June 2018.
All research outputs
#3,873,189
of 13,110,606 outputs
Outputs from BMC Family Practice
#571
of 1,300 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#102,511
of 268,135 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Family Practice
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,110,606 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,300 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its peers.
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 268,135 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 60% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 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