Información de la revista
Vol. 29. Núm. 3.Mayo - Junio 2015
Páginas e9-e14Páginas 161-240
Respuestas rápidas
Compartir
Compartir
Descargar PDF
Más opciones de artículo
Visitas
2308
Vol. 29. Núm. 3.Mayo - Junio 2015
Páginas e9-e14Páginas 161-240
Original
DOI: 10.1016/j.gaceta.2015.01.003
Open Access
Use of new technologies to notify possible contagion of sexually-transmitted infections among men
Uso de las nuevas tecnologías para la notificación del posible contagio de infecciones de transmisión sexual entre hombres
Visitas
2308
Dolors Carnicer-Ponta,b,c,
Autor para correspondencia
dcarnice@gmail.com

Corresponding author.
, María Jesús Barbera-Graciad, Percy Fernández-Dávilaa,e, Patricia García de Olallaf,c, Rafael Muñoza,e, Constanza Jacques-Aviñóf, María Pilar Saladié-Martíd, Mercè Gosch-Elcosod, Encarna Arellano Muñozd, Jordi Casabonaa,b,c
a Centre of Epidemiological Studies of HIV/AIDS and STI of Catalonia (CEEISCAT) Catalan Institut of Oncology (ICO) -Public Health Agency of Catalonia (ASPCAT), Spain
b Department of Paediatrics, Obstetrics and Gynaecology of the Autonomous University of Barcelona (UAB), Bellaterra, Spain
c CIBER, Epidemiology and Public Health (CIBERESP), Spain
d STI Unit, Special Programme Infectious Diseases Vall d’Hebron-Drassanes University Hospital Vall d’Hebrón, Barcelona, Spain
e Stop Sida, Barcelona, Spain
f Agència de Salut Pública de Barcelona (ASPB), Spain
Este artículo ha recibido
2308
Visitas

Under a Creative Commons license
Información del artículo
Resumen
Texto Completo
Bibliografía
Descargar PDF
Estadísticas
Tablas (5)
Table 1. Distribution of main characteristics.
Table 2. Partner notification approach to Sexually Transmitted Infection (STI) in general: What did I do?
Table 3. Intention to notify an Sexually Transmitted Infection (STI) by type of relationship: What would I do?
Table 4. Intention to notify an HIV infection by type of relationship: What would I do?
Table 5. Intention to use and type of web page to notify sexual partners.
Mostrar másMostrar menos
Abstract
Background

Among men who have sex with men (MSM), the association between searching for sexual partners’ on the Internet and increased risk of sexually transmitted infections (STIs)/HIV infection, together with current low levels of partner notification (PN), justifies a study to explore the intention to use new communication technologies for PN in Spain.

Methods

Two cross-sectional surveys were performed: the first was administered online to visitors to web pages where the survey was advertised; the second was administered on paper to patients attending an STI Unit and centres similar to Community-Based Voluntary Counselling and Testing centres.

Results

The study population comprised 1578 Spanish residents (median age, 34 years [range: 18 to 74]); 84% lived in urban areas, and 69% reported searching for sexual partners on the Internet. Thirty-seven per cent would be willing to use a website for PN, 26% did not know if they would use one, and 37% would not want to use one. The main reasons for not intending to notify STI/HIV were “shame or fear” (stable partner) and “not knowing how to contact them” (casual partner). The preferred method of notification was face to face (73%) for both stable and casual partners, although using new technologies (Short Messaging System, e-mail, web page, phone applications) was widely accepted for notifying casual partners.

Conclusions

Fighting stigma and promoting alternative methods of PN among MSM and health professionals through new technologies could increase the frequency of PN. This approach will improve early detection and reduce transmission in Spain.

Keywords:
Sexually Transmitted Infection/HIV
Communication networks
Partner notification
Internet
Resumen
Antecedentes

Entre los hombres que tienen sexo con hombres, la asociación entre buscar parejas por internet y el incremento de riesgo para presentar una Infección de Transmisión Sexual (ITS), junto con la baja frecuencia de la práctica de la notificación a las parejas sexuales expuestas a un infectado justifican explorar la intención de uso de las nuevas tecnologías para facilitar dicha notificación en España.

Métodos

Se han utilizado dos estudios transversales: el primero, administrado “online” a los visitantes de páginas web donde se publicitaba la encuesta; el segundo, administrado en formato papel en una Unidad Especializada de Atención a las ITS y otros centros similares a los de soporte y realización de pruebas.

Resultados

Participaron 1578 personas residentes en España, mediana de edad 34 años (Rango: 18- 74); 84% de áreas urbanas, 69% buscaron parejas sexuales en internet. Un treinta y siete por ciento utilizarían un página web si estuviera disponible, un 26% no sabían si lo harían y otro 37% no la utilizarían. Las razones principales para no tener la intención de notificar de ITS/VIH a una pareja estable fueron: “miedo o vergüenza”; a una pareja ocasional: “no saber cómo contactarla”. El método preferido para notificar fue el “cara a cara o por teléfono” (73%), tanto en caso de pareja estable como ocasional. El uso de nuevas tecnologías (SMS, e-mail, web page, aplicaciones de teléfono) fue más aceptado en caso de pareja ocasional

Conclusiones

La lucha contra el estigma y la promoción del uso de nuevas tecnologías para la notificación a las parejas sexuales, entre los hombres que tienen sexo con hombres (HSH) y por parte de los profesionales de la salud, pueden aumentar la notificación, con los beneficios esperados de una más temprana detección de casos y una reducción de la transmisión en España.

Palabras clave:
Infección de transmisión sexual/VIH
Redes de comunicación
Notificación a las parejas sexuales
Internet
Texto Completo
Introduction

Partner notification (PN) is the process whereby the sexual partner(s) of a patient diagnosed with a sexually transmitted infection (STI) who presents for care is identified and informed of his/her exposure. The partner(s) is then invited to attend for testing, counselling, and, where necessary, treatment.1

Although several studies analyse interventions to prevent transmission of HIV among men who have sex with men (MSM)2–6 based on new information and communication technologies, most explore rates of HIV testing. Very few explore PN practices. Evidence-based reviews show the effectiveness of PN in identifying persons at risk of STIs/HIV infection,7 and the public health benefits of PN have recently been highlighted in Europe1. Nevertheless, websites have been used to facilitate PN in Canada and the USA,8 Australia,9 Romania8, and the Netherlands.10

The results of studies evaluating one of these sites, “in SPOT”,11–13 are controversial. While some authors find limited evidence of its effectiveness for PN among MSM, others emphasize the higher accessibility to at-risk populations with Internet PN using pseudonyms14 and the broad acceptability of receiving and sending a notification e-mail15,16 or SMS.17

PN in Spain is by voluntary verbal notification from patients to partners following advice from a clinician. The increasing use of the Internet and other new communication technologies to seek sexual contacts highlights the potential for exploring how these technologies could facilitate PN and thus prevent transmission of STIs/HIV infection.18

Anonymous sexual partnering makes PN almost impossible; however, finding ways to optimize notification among traceable partners based on new communication technologies may increase the number of partners identified. In some Spanish autonomous communities, such as Catalonia, patient referral PN is already in place in the main STI Units, despite significant difficulties in regularly assessing the “yield” of PN in both MSM and heterosexuals. Nowadays, medical and public health practitioners are convinced of the need to strengthen and update this practice, using both traditional methods and new communication technologies (e-Cards, mobile phone, blogs, social networking sites).19

Internet-based PN methods for MSM have proved to be well accepted20 and effective21 in the USA, although not much is known about their acceptability in Spain, or even in Europe.

Among MSM, the rise in the incidence of STIs22 and risky sexual behaviours, the association between searching for sexual partners’ on the Internet and an increased risk of STIs,23 and low levels of PN24 justify a study to explore the intention to use new communication technologies for PN in Spain.

The aim of this study was to describe current PN practices and assess the intention to use new information and communication technologies for notifying partners of STI/HIV infection among MSM in Spain.

Methods

We conducted a survey that was administered in two formats. The first format was an online survey advertised on three web pages: one for sexual contacts (Chueca) (http://www.chueca.com), an online magazine (Universo gay) (http://www.universogay.com) and a lesbian, gay, transgender and bisexual web page for Barcelona (http://www.stopsida.org). The questionnaire was administered to participants throughout Spain using an online survey service (http://www.surveymonkey.com) from 27th June to 1st October 2013. The second format was a centre-based survey, which involved a pen and paper questionnaire and was offered at three different venues in Barcelona: an STI Unit, an HIV outreach program run by the Public Health Agency of Barcelona for the users of a gay sauna and a lesbian, gay, transgender and bisexual social facility. Informed consent was obtained for both formats of the study.

The study measures and procedures were approved by the Clinical Research Ethics Committee of University Hospital Germans Trias i Pujol in Badalona, Catalonia, Spain.

This survey used a convenience sample of at least 100 questionnaires completed at the STI Unit, 50 at the lesbian, gay, transgender and bisexual social facility and 50 at the HIV outreach program of the Public Health Agency of Barcelona.

Participants were recruited opportunistically when attending the centre and were eligible if they were 18 years of age or older, living in Spain and had had sex with another man any time in their lives.

Questionnaire development

We conducted two focus groups of 12 participants each (one with HIV-positive MSM and another with HIV-negative MSM). The duration of each focus group was two hours. Average age was 30 years in HIV-negative MSM and 45 years in HIV-positive MSM.

Data from the focus groups were analysed using the grounded theory approach to identify relevant questions.

The centre-based questionnaire was available in Catalan and Spanish and comprised 38 questions. The online questionnaire shared questions with another study exploring the acceptability of pre-exposure prophylaxis and circumcision as bio-behavioural methods of preventing HIV transmission. This questionnaire was only available in Spanish and comprised 86 questions, 38 of which were identical to those in the questionnaires administered in the centres.

Study variables

The sociodemographic variables were year and country of birth, region of residence, type of residence (urban or rural), level of education, occupation, sexual orientation, places where the patient socialized and number of sexual partners within the 12 months prior to a previous diagnosis of STI. The variables for STI/HIV history were self-reported previous STI, self-reported previous HIV test and self-reported HIV status. The questions used to explore the PN approach were as follows: Did you think of telling your partners about their exposure when you were diagnosed with an STI/HIV? Did you notify them? If you did not notify them, why not? How did you notify them? Do you intend to use new technologies to notify a partner about an STI or an HIV exposure? Does your view depend on the type of relationship (stable or casual)? What is your preferred method of notifying a partner about an STI or HIV exposure? What type of website would you prefer to use for PN?

Statistical methods

Independent variables included sociodemographic variables and STI/HIV history. Dependent variables included practices and preferences in the use of new technologies for PN. We performed bivariate tests of association using the Fisher exact test and Pearson chi-square test. p values below 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Variables exploring PN of STI and HIV infection were multiple-choice questions, and the answers were treated as separate dichotomous variables (yes/no).

ResultsParticipants

Out of 1999 individuals who accessed the questionnaire (online or at the centres), 1841 (92%) finally participated in the study. After exclusion of 206 individuals below 18 years of age or of unknown age, 23 individuals living outside Spain and 34 heterosexuals who did not report previous experience of sex with men, 1578 participants were eligible for the study. Following the exclusions, 1337 participants completed the questionnaire online and 241 at the centres. The participation rate was higher among those who completed the questionnaire at the centres (241 out of 250 [96%] vs 1337 out of 1749 [76%]).

Given that some participants did not fully complete the questionnaire, there are wide variations in the number of variables answered; therefore, total numbers in the tables are not always the same.

The response rate was higher than 65% for most of the main variables (Table 1 of online annex)

Table 1.

Distribution of main characteristics.

  N %N %N %P values 
  Total    Online    Centres     
Sociodemographic characteristics  1578    1337    241     
Age group  1578  100%  1337  100%  241  100%  <0.001 
18-24  447  28%  422  32%  25  10%   
25-39  635  40%  511  38%  124  51%   
40-54  392  25%  315  24%  77  32%   
55 to max  104  7%  89  7%  15  6%   
Country of birth  1561    1321    240    <0.001 
Spain  1307  84%  1154  87%  153  64%   
Spanish region of residence  1543  100%  1302  100%  241  100%  <0.001 
South  291  19%  285  22%  2%   
East  619  40%  395  30%  224  93%   
North  194  13%  192  15%  1%   
West  439  28%  430  33%  4%   
Unknown  35    35       
Type of residence  1541  100%  1300  100%  241  100%  <0.001 
Rural  247  16%  235  18%  12  5%   
Urban  1294  84%  1065  82%  229  95%   
Unknown  37    37       
Formal education  1535  100%  1296  100%  239  100%  <0.001 
None  18  1%  16  1%  1%   
Primary  118  8%  107  8%  11  5%   
Intermediate  619  40%  533  41%  86  36%   
University - postgraduate  780  51%  640  49%  140  59%   
Unknown  43    41       
Occupation  1526  100%  1285  100%  241  110%  <0.001 
Not working  708  46%  626  49%  82  44%   
Work  818  54%  659  51%  159  66%   
Unknown  52    52       
Sexual orientation  1515  100%  1274  100%  241  100%  <0.001 
Gay  1005  66%  792  62%  213  88%   
Bisexual  411  27%  392  31%  19  8%   
Heterosexual  0%  0%  0%   
Rather not define myself  89  6%  84  7%  2%   
Other  10  1%  0%  2%   
Unknown  63    63    0     
Where to find sexual partners (grouped categories)a  1383    1146    237    b 
Bars and discos  542  39%  401  35%  141  59%   
Sex-shop, club, sauna, parks and beach  796  58%  641  56%  155  65%   
Internet and mobile phone  1352  98%  1099  96%  253  107%   
Already known sexual partners  369  27%  288  25%  81  34%   
Self-reported previous STI  1216    977    239    b 
Yes  398  33%  233  24%  165  69%   
No  776  64%  705  72%  71  30%   
I don’t know  42  3%  39  4%  1%   
Missing  362    360    2     
Self-reported previous HIV test performed  1027    794    233    <0.001 
Yes  717  100%  487  61%  230  99%   
a

Percentages do not add up to 100% because of multiple-choice question.

b

Not applicable.

Sociodemographic characteristics

The median age was 34 years (range: 18 to 74). Most of the respondents were born in Spain (84%) and lived in an urban area (84%). By region, 29% lived in Catalonia, followed by 16% in the Community of Madrid and 11% in Andalucía. More than half of the respondents were employed (54%) and had a university or post-graduate degree (51%).

Compared with the online respondents, centre-based respondents were older (37 versus 33 years), were less frequently born in Spain, more frequently lived in an urban area and were more likely to have a university degree. They were also more likely to be employed, to report having had an STI and to have taken an HIV test. (Table 1)

Searching for sexual partners

Internet was the most popular place to look for sexual partners (69%), followed by mobile phone applications (e.g. Grindr or Scruff) (29%).

The number of partners within the last 12 months was only explored in the online questionnaire. Of the 769 respondents to this question, 57% reported having had up to 5 partners, 18% reported between 6 and 10 partners and 25% reported more than 10 partners.

Self-reported lifetime STI/HIV infection and previous HIV test

The response rate was 77% for lifetime STI/HIV infection and 65% for self-reported previous HIV testing. A total of 398 out of 1216 respondents (33%) reported having had an STI, and 717 out of 1027 (70%) had had at least one HIV test.

Older age groups and those with higher educational levels were more likely to have had an STI and undergone a previous HIV test (p<0.001).

What did I do when diagnosed with an STI?

Almost half of those diagnosed with an STI within the previous 12 months notified all their sexual partners, 35% notified only some partners and 19% notified none of their partners.

Centre-based respondents were more likely to notify than online respondents (p<0.001), and participants recruited through the STI Unit notified their partners more frequently than other centre-based participants. The main reason for not having notified an STI was “Did not know my partners”. (Table 2)

Table 2.

Partner notification approach to Sexually Transmitted Infection (STI) in general: What did I do?

  TotalOnlineCentresP value 
   
Notified sexual partners of an STI  330  100%  168  100%  162  100%  <0.001 
Yes  151  46%  77  46%  74  46%   
Only some  117  35%  42  25%  75  46%   
None  62  19%  49  29%  13  8%   
Main reasons for NOT having notified of an STIa  175    89    86     
The doctor did not advise me  15  9%  11  12%  5%  b 
Never thought about it  12  7%  10  11%  2%  0.02 
Did not know how to do it  51  29%  21  24%  30  35%  b 
Shame or fear  36  21%  21  24%  15  17%  b 
Did not know my partners  90  51%  41  46%  49  57%  b 
I don’t believe I have to do it  4%  4%  3%  b 
Other  14  8%  14  16%  0%  b 
Method used to notifya  314    161    153     
Face to face or phone call  230  73%  98  61%  132  86%  <0.001 
SMS using a pseudonym  12  4%  2%  5%  b 
Identifiable SMS  47  15%  11  7%  36  24%  <0.001 
Email using a pseudonym  2%  1%  2%  b 
Identifiable email  2%  2%  3%  b 
Web page using a pseudonym  13  4%  4%  5%  b 
Phone application to find persons  1%  1%  1%  b 
Other  2%  2%  2%  b 
What if I receive the notification of an exposure to an STI?a  1019    785    234     
I would look for information on Internet  406  39%  316  40%  90  38%  b 
I would ask my friends about it  110  11%  81  10%  29  12%  b 
I would visit an STI specialist  692  68%  499  64%  193  82%  <0.001 
I would visit a family doctor  351  34%  301  38%  50  21%  <0.001 
I would take a drug by myself  28  3%  24  3%  2%  b 
Other  29  3%  24  3%  2%  b 
a

Percentages do not add up to 100% because of multiple-choice questions.

b

Not significant.

What would I do if diagnosed with an STI or HIV infection?

Respondents intended to notify stable partners more frequently than casual partners for both HIV (94% versus 73%, respectively) (p<0.001) and other STIs (85% versus 60%, respectively) (p<0.001).

The main reason for not notifying an STI or HIV infection was “shame or fear” in the case of stable partners and “I don’t know how to contact my partner(s)” in the case of casual partners. “Face to face or phone call” was the preferred method of notification for both types of partner, while new technologies (SMS, e-mail, web page, phone applications to find persons) were preferred by casual partners (p<0.001). (Tables 3 and 4)

Table 3.

Intention to notify an Sexually Transmitted Infection (STI) by type of relationship: What would I do?

  Stable partnerCasual partnerP value 
   
Intention to notify  1192  100%  1146  100%  <0.001 
Yes  1019  85%  687  60%   
No  51  4%  186  16%   
I don’t know  122  10%  273  24%   
Main reasons for NOT intending to notifya  158    439     
I don’t know how to contact partner(s)  b  b  226  51%  b 
I don’t think this is important  14  9%  20  5%  c 
I don’t think I should do it  5%  38  9%  c 
I don’t have a relationship strong enough to do so  b  b  94  21%  b 
Shame or fear  92  58%  122  28%  <0.001 
I don’t think the STI is important  3%  17  4%  c 
The partner will notice the symptoms  3%  11  3%  c 
Notifying will damage my relationship  42  27%  41  9%  <0.001 
Preferred method of notifyinga  1158    1116     
Face to face or phone call  1110  96%  853  76%  <0.001 
SMS using a pseudonym  15  1%  77  7%  <0.001 
Identifiable SMS  53  5%  233  21%  <0.001 
E-mail using a pseudonym  1%  51  5%  <0.001 
Identifiable e-mail  26  2%  114  10%  <0.001 
Web page using a pseudonym  11  1%  68  6%  <0.001 
Phone application to find persons  10  1%  24  2%  <0.001 
Other  15  1%  31  3%  <0.001 
a

Percentages do not add up to 100% because of multiple-choice questions.

b

Not applicable because this answer was not listed for the hypothetical situation of stable partner.

c

Not significant.

Table 4.

Intention to notify an HIV infection by type of relationship: What would I do?

  Stable partnerCasual partnerP value 
   
Intention to notify an HIV exposure  1012  100%  953  100%  <0.001 
Yes  951  94%  694  73%   
No  26  3%  107  11%   
I don’t know  35  3%  152  16%   
Main reasons for NOT having the intention to notify an HIV exposurea  54    253     
I don’t know how to contact partner(s)  NA  NA  109  43%  b 
I don’t think this is important  7%  4%  c 
I don’t think I should do it  9%  36  14%  <0.001 
Relationship not strong enough  NA  NA  51  20%  b 
Shame or fear  27  50%  77  30%  <0.001 
I don’t think that HIV infection is important  4%  2%  c 
Notifying will damage my relationship  13  24%  39  15%  c 
Preferred method of notifying an HIV infection exposurea  981    931     
Face to face or phone call  946  96%  743  80%  <0.001 
SMS using a pseudonym  17  2%  95  10%  <0.001 
Identifiable SMS  52  5%  154  17%  <0.001 
E-mail using a pseudonym  10  1%  55  6%  <0.001 
Identifiable email  17  2%  83  9%  <0.001 
Web page using a pseudonym  15  2%  87  9%  <0.001 
Phone application to find persons  1%  23  2%  <0.001 
Others  1%  16  2%  <0.001 
a

Percentages do not add up to 100% because of multiple-choice questions.

b

Not applicable because this answer was not listed for the situation of stable partner.

c

Not significant.

There were no age differences in notifying (p=0.961) or intending to notify stable (p=0.628) or casual (p=0.551) partners of an STI exposure. Similarly, there were no age differences in intention to notify stable (p=0.124) or casual (p=0.232) partners of an HIV exposure.

No differences in educational level were found for intending to notify casual partners of an STI (p=0.452) or HIV exposure (p=0.955), although respondents with higher levels of education were more likely to notify their stable partners of an exposure to HIV (p<0.001) or any other STI (p<0.05).

Intention to use a web page to notify sexual partners and type of web page

Thirty-seven per cent of all respondents said they would be willing to use a web page, 27% were unsure whether they would use it and 36% would not use a web page to notify sexual partners. Centre-based respondents were less likely to use a web page than online respondents.

There were no differences in intention to use a web page to notify sexual partners by age group (p=0.922) or by educational level (p=0.452)

The preferred characteristics of the web pages are presented in Table 5.

Table 5.

Intention to use and type of web page to notify sexual partners.

  TotalOnlineCentresP value 
   
Intention to use a web page  1134  100%  900  100%  234  100%  0.037 
Yes  423  37%  322  36%  101  43%   
No  411  36%  315  35%  96  41%   
I don’t know  300  27%  263  29%  37  16%   
Preferred web page to notify sexual partners with the option of remaining anonymous  678  100%  542  100%  136  100%  0.009 
Web page specifically designed to notify  278  41%  224  42%  54  40%   
Link on a web page of an NGO  74  11%  61  11%  13  9%   
Web page of an official institution  53  8%  42  8%  11  8%   
Web page with the option to send anonymous SMS  89  13%  62  11%  27  20%   
Link on the main web pages used to look for sexual contacts  139  20%  109  20%  30  22%   
Other  45  7%  44  8%  1%   
Characteristics of the web page to notify sexual partners
Guarantee of anonymous notification  618  100%  482  100%  136  100%  0.627 
Yes  501  81%  388  80%  113  83%   
No  43  7%  36  7%  5%   
I don’t know  74  12%  58  12%  16  12%   
Choice of different types of partner notification cards  618  100%  482  100%  136  100%  0.703 
Yes  460  74%  355  74%  105  77%   
No  34  6%  28  6%  4%   
I don’t know  124  20%  99  21%  25  18%   
Providing health information related to the STI  618  100%  482  100%  136  100%  0.016 
Yes  549  89%  418  87%  131  96%   
No  10  2%  10  2%  0%   
I don’t know  59  10%  54  11%  4%   
Providing information related to the nearest STI health centre  618  100%  482  100%  136  100%  0.028 
Yes  512  83%  389  81%  123  90%   
No  20  3%  20  4%  0%   
I don’t know  86  14%  73  15%  13  10%   
Discussion

In this study, we used online and centre-based questionnaires to explore what was and would be done in the event of being diagnosed with an STI or HIV infection, whether PN would vary by type of relationship (stable or casual) and what the preferences would be for the use of new technologies. Sociodemographic characteristics differ depending on the source of information (online or centre), with centre-based respondents being older and more frequently having had a previous STI/HIV infection. The intention to notify is higher among centre-based respondents and within stable relationships. Conversely, the intention to use a web page to notify was highest among online respondents. On the other hand, neither age group nor educational level seems to affect the intention to use a web page for PN.

Participants recruited through the STI Unit were guided by STI specialists and were more likely to notify their partners of a recently diagnosed STI.

Of note, respondents reported that they did not notify partners for the following reasons: “I didn’t know how to do it”, “My doctor didn’t advise me” and “I never thought about it”. Consequently, raising awareness among GPs and other medical staff combined with counselling for STI/HIV infection could improve PN.

Because the main reasons for not having notified a partner were “I didn’t know my partners” and “I didn’t know how to do it”, the main challenges in PN arise from anonymous or non-contactable partners. In this regard, new communication tools such as gay web pages, social networks and mobile applications may help to identify otherwise untraceable individuals. Encouragement by health professionals to contact partners by mobile phone while the patient is still in the clinic could speed up the consultation process and the diagnosis and treatment of partners.

Once an exposure is notified, half of the respondents would consult an STI specialist and 30% a family doctor. This indicates that the STI Unit and primary care centres are key locations for promoting alternative methods of PN as a complement to the standard notification card used in patient referral PN.

In the present study, 37% of respondents reported a clear intention to use a web page to notify partners, and 26% did not know whether they would use one. This finding may be attributable to cultural issues or a preference for face-to-face contact rather than technology-based communication.

The preferred web page was “one that was specifically designed to notify” followed by the “one linked to web pages used to look for sexual partners” and a “web page with the option of sending anonymous SMS”. These three options could be easily merged when designing a public health intervention. Cost issues related to staff training, monitoring and program evaluation could arise, although expert opinion suggests that online PN systems are relatively inexpensive25 and that there is potential for email and text-notification to improve the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of PN.26 Nevertheless, this hypothesis has to be assessed locally. Furthermore, a very recent evidence review of new technologies for PN of STI concludes that the importance of technology in the prevention and treatment of STI is expected to increase.27 Our results suggest that some types of new technology solutions for PN among MSM may be more acceptable than others depending on age, education level and type of relationship.

The fact that “shame or fear” is the main reason for not intending to notify a stable partner warrants further analysis in order to explore ways to overcome this barrier. For example, societal changes could be promoted to reduce the stigma of STI/HIV infection, and sexual health information could be provided on the benefits of PN. Not surprisingly, other studies28 have also found that up to one-third of patients fail to tell all their partners because of embarrassment or fear.

Consistent with the results of other studies,29 we found that the preferred method of notification is face to face, although most of the additional comments are along the lines of “as long as I get to know it, it doesn’t matter how”. “Identifiable SMS” and “a webpage using a pseudonym” or “SMS using a pseudonym” are also mentioned as good PN methods. Surprisingly, these methods differ substantially, and further research should be conducted to characterize discrepancies.

Experiences that enhance PN through new information and communication technologies are currently being used throughout the world. Examples include the use of Facebook in the USA,30 the “suggest a test” project/intervention in the Netherlands,31 and “Let them know”32 and “the Drama Downunder”33 in Australia. These experiences should lead to the revision of the PN strategies used to date in Spain.

“Canal Salut”34 is an evidence-based health-related website run by the Catalan Department of Health with a section on promotion of sexual health for young people that could host a section to support PN in both this group and in MSM.

Limitations

First, we report on practices related to STI in general without differentiating between HIV and other STI; therefore, some of our findings may not be representative of HIV infection in general.

Second, online sampling may lead to biases in demographic characteristics and other risk factors,35,36 and although we tried to minimise this by using different survey delivery methods (online and centre-based), the sample sizes obtained in the different sub-groups of the centre-based questionnaire are too small to detect significant differences. Therefore, selection bias cannot be ruled out.

Many highly educated MSM respondents are more likely to use novel technologies for PN than those who have a lower educational level and less access to mobile applications or online partner referral. Therefore, because those recruited through the Internet may not be representative of all MSMs, the generalizability of the results is questionable.

Thirdly, the use of multiple-choice questions makes results difficult to interpret, thus limiting multivariate analysis and weakening the robustness of the analysis.

Finally, although unlikely, respondents may have participated more than once, as it was impossible to identify duplication directly on the web page or resulting from respondents completing both the centre-based questionnaire and the online questionnaire.

Conclusions

This is one of the first surveys to analyse the intention to use new communication technologies for PN among MSM in Spain.

Our data reveal differences depending on the source of information (online or centre) and type of partner (stable or casual). Patients attending an STI clinic tend to notify more frequently and to prefer personal approaches, and MSM are more likely to notify to their stable partners than their casual ones. Nevertheless, half of the respondents are open to new technologies (Internet, SMS, mobile phone apps) to notify their casual partners, indicating that this approach should be promoted among MSM and health professionals.

Fighting stigma and promoting alternative methods of PN through new technologies could increase the frequency of PN. Such an approach will improve early detection and reduce transmission of STIs/HIV in Spain.

What is known?

  • -

    Among men who have sex with men, using the Internet to find sexual partners has been associated with an increased risk of syphilis.

  • -

    Partner notification could reduce the chain of transmission and strengthen preventive attitudes.

  • -

    New communication technologies can help to trace partners who cannot be contacted otherwise.

What does this study add to current knowledge?

  • -

    Intention to use new technologies for partner notification of sexually transmitted infections depends on the type of partnership; patients in casual partnerships are more likely to use these technologies

  • -

    General practitioners, sexually transmitted infections units, and community-based centres are best positioned to promote the use of new technologies for partner notification among MSM.

  • -

    A web page with a partner notification service should provide clinical information, information on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, and a list of health centres the receiver of the notification could attend.

Editor in charge

Pere Godoy.

Author contributions

Conceived and designed the study: DCP, MJB, PFD, PGO, RM, CJA and JC

Performed the study: DCP, MJB, PFD, PGO, RM, CJA, MPS, MGE, and EAM

Analysed the data: DCP

Wrote the manuscript: DCP and all the authors contributed with comments to the manuscript.

Funding

No funding

Conflict of interest

There is no conflict of interest

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Dolors Ramirez Tarruella, MD, MPH who conducted the initial literature search and participated in the preliminary part of the project by contributing to the focus group and to the design of the study questionnaires. This study was financed through public funds by the Public Health Agency of Catalonia (ASPCAT).

References
[1]
European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control
Public health benefits of partner notification for sexually transmitted infections and HIV
ECDC, (2013)
[2]
R. Schnall, J. Travers, M. Rojas
e Heath Interventions for HIV prevention in High-risk men who have sex with men: A systematic review
J Med Internet Res., 16 (2014), pp. e134 http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/jmir.3393
[3]
M.M. Blas, I.E. Alva, C.P. Carcamo
Effect of an online video-based intervention to increase HIV testing in men who have sex with men in Peru
[4]
C. Bourne, V. Knight, R. Guy
Short message service reminder intervention doubles sexually transmitted infection/HIV re-testing rates among men who have sex with men
Sex Transm Infect., 87 (2011), pp. 229-231 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/sti.2010.048397
[5]
B. Mustanski, R. Garofalo, C. Monahan
Feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy of an online HIV prevention program for diverse young men who have sex with men: the keep it up! Intervention
AIDS Behav., 17 (2013), pp. 2999-3012 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10461-013-0507-z
[6]
S. Hirsfield, M.A. Chiasson, H. Joseph
An online randomized control trial evaluating HIV prevention digital media interventions for men who have sex with men
[7]
M. Hogben, T. McNally, M. McPheeters
The effectiveness of HIV partner counseling and referral services in increasing identification of HIV-positive individuals: A systematic review
Am J Prev Med., 33 (2007), pp. 89-100
[8]
Internet Sexuality Information Services. USA.
[9]
Melbourne Sexual Health Centre: Let them know. Australia.
[10]
The Rotterdam-Rijnmond Public Health Service: Suggest a test. The Netherlands.
[11]
A. Plant, H. Rotblatt, J.A. Montoya
Evaluation of inSPOTLA.org: An internet partner notification service
Sex Transm Dis., 39 (2012), pp. 341-345 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/OLQ.0b013e31824e5150
[12]
C.A. Rietmeijer, B. Westergaard, T.A. Mickiewicz
Evaluation of an online partner notification program
SexTransm Dis., 38 (2011), pp. 359-364
[13]
R.P. Kerani, M. Fleming, B. DeYoung
A randomized controlled trial of inSPOT and patient-delivered partner therapy for gonorrhea and chlamydial infection among men who have sex with men
Sex Transm Dis., 38 (2011), pp. 941-946 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/OLQ.0b013e318223fcbc
[14]
J.R. Vest, A.M. Valadez, A. Hanner
Using e-mail to notify pseudonymous e-mail sexual partners
Sex Transm Dis., 34 (2007), pp. 840-845 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/OLQ.0b013e318073bd5d
[15]
M.J. Mimiaga, A.D. Fair, A.M. Tetu
Acceptability of an Internet based partner notification system for sexually transmitted infection exposure among men who have sex with men
Am J Public Health., 98 (2008), pp. 1009-1011 http://dx.doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2006.098467
[16]
L. Hightow-Weidman, S. Beagle, E. Pike
No one's at home and they won’t pick up the phone: using internet and text messaging to enhance partner services in North Carolina
Sex Trans Dis., 41 (2014), pp. 143-148
[17]
C. Bourne, I. Zablostka, A. Williamson
Promotion and uptake of a new online partner notification and retesting reminder service for gay men
Sexual Health, 9 (2012), pp. 360-367 http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/SH11132
[18]
W.D. Jenkins, B. Wold
Use of the Internet for the surveillance and prevention of sexually transmitted diseases
Microbes & Infection., 14 (2012), pp. 427-437 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2015.00084
[19]
Tuneu MJ, Vallès X, Carnicer-Pont D, et al. Pilot study to introduce a notification card for partner notification of sexually transmitted infections in Catalonia, Spain, June 2010 to June 2011. Euro Surveill. 2013;18:pii=20516.
[20]
M.J. Mimiaga, A.M. Tetu, S. Gortmaker
HIV and STD Status Among MSM and Attitudes About Internet Partner Notification for STD Exposure
Sexually Transmitted Diseases, 2 (2008), pp. 111-116
[21]
J.D. Klausner, W. Wolf, L. Fischer-Ponce
Tracing a syphilis outbreak through cyberspace
JAMA, 284 (2000), pp. 447-449
[22]
Centre d’Estudis Epidemiològics sobre ITS/VIH i Sida a Catalunya. SIVES 2012 (Integrated system of epidemiological surveillance of STI/HIV in Catalonia). CEEISCAT. 2012.
[23]
P. Fernandez Davila, K. Zaragoza Lorca
Internet y riesgo sexual en hombres que tienen sexo con hombres
[24]
European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. STI and HIV prevention in men who have sex with men in Europe. ECDC. 2013. page 35.
[25]
D. Levine, A.J. Woodruff, A.R. Mocello
InSPOT: the first online STD partner notification system using electronic postcards
PLoS Medicine/Public Library of Science., 5 (2008), pp. e213
[26]
J.E. Tomnay, M.K. Pitts, Fairley C.K. New
Technology and partner notification-why aren’t we using them
Int J STD AIDS., 16 (2005), pp. 19-22
[27]
C. Lee, M. Singal
New Technologies for Partner Notifications for Sexually Transmitted Infections. Evidence review
National Collaborating Centre for Infectious Diseases., (2013),
[28]
P.M. Gorbach, S.O. Aral, C. Celum
To notify or not to notify: STD patients’ perspectives of partner notification
Sex Transm Dis., 27 (2000), pp. 193-200
[29]
A. Apoola, K.W. Radcliffe, S. Das
Patient preferences for partner notification
Sex Trans Infect., 82 (2006), pp. 327-329
[30]
P. Hunter, O. Oyervides, K.M. Grande
Facebook-augmented partner notification in a cluster of syphilis cases in Milwaukee
Pub Health Rep, 1 (2014), pp. 43-49
[31]
H.M. Götz, M.S. van Rooijen, P. Vriens
Initial evaluation of use of an online partner notification tool for STI, called “suggest a test”: a cross sectional pilot study
Sex Transm Infect., 0 (2014), pp. 1-6
[32]
J.E. Bilardi, C.K. Fairley, C.A. Hopkins
Let them know: Evaluation of an online partner notification service for Chlamydia that offers E-mail and SMS messaging
Sex Trans Dis., 37 (2010), pp. 563-565
[33]
A. Pedrana, M. Hellard, R. Guy
Stop the Drama Downunder. A social marketing campaign increase HIV/STI knowledge and testing in Australian gay men
Sex Transm Dis., 39 (2012), pp. 651-658 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/OLQ.0b013e318255df06
[34]
Canal Salut Catalan Department of Health. Generalitat de Catalunya.
[35]
L.G. Johnston, A. Trummal, L. Lohmus
Efficacy of convenience sampling through the Internet versus respondent driven sampling among males who have sex with males in Tallinn and Harju County, Estonia: challenges reaching a hidden population,
AIDS Care., 21 (2009), pp. 1195-1202 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09540120902729973
[36]
H. Fisher Raymond, G. Rebchook, A. Curotto
Comparing Internet-Based and Venue-Based Methods to Sample MSM in the San Francisco Bay Area
AIDS Behav., 14 (2010), pp. 218-224 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10461-009-9521-6
Copyright © 2014. SESPAS
Idiomas
Gaceta Sanitaria

Suscríbase al Newsletter

Opciones de artículo
Herramientas
Material suplementario
es en
Política de cookies Cookies policy
Utilizamos cookies propias y de terceros para mejorar nuestros servicios y mostrarle publicidad relacionada con sus preferencias mediante el análisis de sus hábitos de navegación. Si continua navegando, consideramos que acepta su uso. Puede cambiar la configuración u obtener más información aquí. To improve our services and products, we use "cookies" (own or third parties authorized) to show advertising related to client preferences through the analyses of navigation customer behavior. Continuing navigation will be considered as acceptance of this use. You can change the settings or obtain more information by clicking here.
es en

¿Es usted profesional sanitario apto para prescribir o dispensar medicamentos?

Are you a health professional able to prescribe or dispense drugs?