Background:
Previous studies indicate the feasibility and acceptability of Internet Partner Notification (IPN). These studies have not, however, compared IPN to other contact methods or explored the contribution of IPN to program success.

Objective:
To compare dispositions of partners initiated via IPN to partners initiated via phone (PPN), and to determine IPN's impact on program outcomes.

Method:
A retrospective case audit was performed for syphilis cases interviewed by Howard Brown DIS from 1/2005- 9/2006. Partners were coded by method of contact (IPN or PPN) and resultant disposition.

Result:
Three hundred sixty-eight (368) partners were included; 190 (52%) were contacted by IPN and 178 (48%) by PPN. Of internet partners, 69 (36.3%) were assigned ‘Disposition H' because they did not respond. Only 5 (2.8%) telephone partners were assigned this disposition because they could not be reached (p < 0.05). When the analysis was restricted to notified partners, however, there was no independent association between contact method and partner disposition (p=0.30). Additionally, IPN accounted for 40% (12/30) of partners infected/treated (Disposition C); 40% (32/80) of partners preventively treated (Disposition A); and 45% (33/74) of partners examined and found to be uninfected (Disposition F).

Conclusion:
Partners initiated via PPN were significantly more likely to be located and notified compared to partners initiated via IPN. Once partners were notified, however, there was no statistical association between contact method and partner disposition. Further, 121 partners who may not have otherwise been notified were located by IPN, resulting in approximately 40% of program success.

Implications:
STD programs should utilize IPN to complement other strategies, especially if high morbidity populations meet sex partners on the internet. Further research should be conducted to better understand factors that contribute to the success or failure of IPN, and to assess cost-effectiveness of various contact methods.