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.

Tuesday, March 11, 2008
P97

Expedited Partner Therapy Toolkit: A Response to EPT Implementation Barriers

George E. Ware, STD HIV Section - Research and Evaluation, Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Disease Control Environmental Epidemiology Division A3, 4300 Cherry Creek Drive, South, Denver, CO, USA and Region VIII IPP Partner Services Workgroup, Region VIII IPP, Denver, CO, USA.


Background:
The CDC is encouraging states to consider expedited partner therapy as an effective partner management strategy. To support decision-making and implementation among policymakers and health care providers within a six-state area, the Region VIII Infertility Prevention Project (IPP) developed an EPT toolkit to address provider concerns and questions regarding EPT practice. This toolkit will be used as a clearinghouse of resources developed for states in various stages of considering EPT as an effective strategy for partner management.

Objective:
To present resource materials designed to assist sites in considering and implementing EPT.

Method:
In 2005-2006, sites participating in the Region VIII IPP were contacted by the Region VIII IPP Partner Services workgroup in order to identify current EPT practices, barriers to EPT, and what would be needed to make EPT a more routine practice among other partner management strategies. Information from over 25 family planning clinics, five STD clinics, one community health center, and one statewide STD control/partner notification program was gathered through semi-structured interviews conducted in person, via telephone, and using e-mail.

Result:
Approximately 25 percent of surveyed sites routinely conducted some form of EPT. EPT barriers included allergy concerns; inadequate partner education; perceived inadequate evidence supporting EPT; and perceived negative impact on public health prevention efforts. Participants cited the need for information about current and recommended practices, and whether EPT is aligned with rules and regulations that pertain to their states.

Conclusion:
An EPT toolkit was designed to address participant concerns and was developed for distribution to IPP participating sites and other providers in Region VIII.

Implications:
The development and distribution of the EPT toolkit instrument addressing provider concerns will facilitate EPT as a partner management strategy.