The findings and conclusions in these presentations have not been formally disseminated by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and should not be construed to represent any agency determination or policy.

Wednesday, March 12, 2008 - 11:00 AM
C9d

Evaluation of a Novel Internet-Based Partner Notification Program

Daniel C. Ehlman1, Gonzalo Saenz2, Marcus Jackson2, and B. W. Furness3. (1) Public Health Prevention Service, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA, (2) STD Control Program, Department of Health, Washington, DC, USA, (3) Division of STD Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA


Background:
The Internet has become a common venue for meeting sex partners and planning participation in risky sexual behavior. Adapting disease control and health promotion activities to the Internet is a critical step for public health agencies.

Objective:
Evaluate the first 6 months of the Washington, DC, STD Control Program's novel Internet-based partner notification (IPN) program, which went into effect March 2007.

Method:
We analyzed disposition codes of field records closed during March–August 2007 for all Internet partners elicited from early syphilis cases. Internet partners were defined as sex partners for whom syphilis exposure notification was initiated by e-mail because no other locating information existed. If the e-mails resulted in additional locating information, we used disposition codes specified in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Form 73.2936S: Field Record. Alternatively, the following IPN-specific dispositions were used: informed of syphilis exposure, informed of STD exposure, or unable to locate through IPN. A spreadsheet program, database programs, and STD*MIS 4.0e were used for analysis.

Result:
Seventy-nine Internet partners were investigated. Additional locating information was obtained and traditional disposition codes were used for 19 (24%) partners. Of the 19, one (5%) partner was infected and brought to treatment, and eight (42%) were treated prophylactically. For the remaining 60 partners, 15 (25%) were informed of their syphilis exposures; 26 (43%) were informed of their exposure to a nonspecific STD; and 19 (32%) were unable to be located through IPN.

Conclusion:
As technology evolves, STD control programs should also evolve. IPN augments traditional syphilis case management and aids in the location, notification, testing, and treatment of partners. Conversely, without IPN, these 79 partners would not have been investigated.

Implications:
CDC encourages STD control programs to explore Internet-based STD/HIV prevention methods (e.g., partner services and outreach).

See more of Approaches to Partner Management
See more of Oral and Poster

See more of The 2008 National STD Prevention Conference