Effectiveness of Syphilis Partner Notification After Adjusting for Treatment Dates, 7 Jurisdictions

Counting infected partners treated 0 to 90 days after the patient's interview as opposed to using disposition code assignments reduced variability in reporting across jurisdiction and can facilitate quality assurance. Background Disease intervention specialists (DIS) prevent syphilis by ensuring treatment for patients' sex partners through partner notification (PN). Different interpretations of how to measure partners treated due to DIS efforts complicates PN evaluation. We measured PN impact by counting partners treated for syphilis after DIS interviewed the patient. Methods We reviewed data from early syphilis cases reported during the 2015–2017 period in 7 jurisdictions. We compared infected partners brought to treatment using the following: (1) DIS-assigned disposition codes or (2) all infected partners treated 0 to 90 days after the patient's interview (adjusted treatment estimate). Stratified analyses assessed patient characteristics associated with the adjusted treatment estimate. Results Disease intervention specialists interviewed 23,613 patients who reported 20,890 partners with locating information. Many of the 3569 (17.1%) partners classified by DIS as brought to treatment were treated before the patient was interviewed. There were 2359 (11.3%) partners treated 0 to 90 days after the patient's interview. Treatment estimates were more consistent between programs when measured using our adjusted estimates (range, 6.1%–14.8% per patient interviewed) compared with DIS-assigned disposition (range, 6.1%–28.3%). Treatment for ≥1 partner occurred after 9.0% of interviews and was more likely if the patient was a woman (17.9%), younger than 25 years (12.6%), interviewed ≤7 days from diagnosis (13.9%), HIV negative (12.6%), or had no reported history of syphilis (9.8%). Conclusions Counting infected partners treated 0 to 90 days after interview reduced variability in reporting and facilitates quality assurance. Identifying programs and DIS who are particularly good at finding and treating partners could improve program impact.

[1]  J. Schillinger,et al.  Unnamed Partners From Syphilis Partner Services Interviews, 7 Jurisdictions , 2020, Sexually transmitted diseases.

[2]  D. Diorio,et al.  Ending the HIV Epidemic: Contributions Resulting From Syphilis Partner Services , 2020, Sexually transmitted diseases.

[3]  T. Peterman,et al.  The Changing Role of Disease Intervention Specialists in Modern Public Health Programs , 2018, Public health reports.

[4]  M. Golden,et al.  Integrating Human Immunodeficiency Virus Testing Into Syphilis Partner Services in Mississippi to Improve Human Immunodeficiency Virus Case Finding , 2019, Sexually transmitted diseases.

[5]  Sargis Pogosjans,et al.  Differences in Partner Services Outcomes for Men Who Have Sex With Men Diagnosed With Primary and Secondary Syphilis by HIV Serostatus , 2017, Sexually transmitted diseases.

[6]  Hannah Badal,et al.  Swipe Right: Dating Website and App Use Among Men Who Have Sex With Men , 2018, AIDS and Behavior.

[7]  M. Phipps,et al.  Screening for Syphilis Infection in Nonpregnant Adults and Adolescents: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. , 2016, JAMA.

[8]  Elizabeth A Torrone,et al.  Increase in incidence of congenital syphilis - United States, 2012-2014. , 2015, MMWR. Morbidity and mortality weekly report.

[9]  J. Schillinger,et al.  Would Targeting Increase Efficiency of Syphilis Partner Services Programs?—Data From New York City, Philadelphia, Texas, and Virginia , 2014, Sexually transmitted diseases.

[10]  R. Jajosky,et al.  Findings from the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists' 2008 assessment of state reportable and nationally notifiable conditions in the United States and considerations for the future. , 2011, Journal of public health management and practice : JPHMP.

[11]  M. Golden,et al.  An Evaluation of the Reliability of HIV Partner Notification Disposition Coding by Disease Intervention Specialists in the United States , 2009, Sexually transmitted diseases.

[12]  M. Golden,et al.  An Evaluation of HIV Partner Counseling and Referral Services Using New Disposition Codes , 2009, Sexually transmitted diseases.

[13]  D. Fleming,et al.  Recommendations for partner services programs for HIV infection, syphilis, gonorrhea, and chlamydial infection. , 2008, MMWR. Recommendations and reports : Morbidity and mortality weekly report. Recommendations and reports.

[14]  M. Hogben,et al.  Syphilis Partner Notification With Men Who Have Sex With Men: A Review and Commentary , 2005, Sexually transmitted diseases.

[15]  D. Brewer Case-Finding Effectiveness of Partner Notification and Cluster Investigation for Sexually Transmitted Diseases/HIV , 2005, Sexually transmitted diseases.

[16]  J. Greenspan,et al.  Syphilis in San Diego County 1983–1992: Crack Cocaine, Prostitution, and the Limitations of Partner Notification , 1995, Sexually transmitted diseases.

[17]  M. A. Roberts,et al.  Outbreaks of Syphilis in Rural Texas Towns, 1991-1992 , 1994, Southern medical journal.

[18]  W. J. Brown,et al.  Therapy for incubating syphilis. Effectiveness of gonorrhea treatment. , 1971, JAMA.

[19]  J. Knox,et al.  EPIDEMIOLOGIC TREATMENT OF CONTACTS TO INFECTIOUS SYPHILIS. , 1963, Public health reports.