Preferences for Expedited Partner Therapy Among Adolescents in an Urban Pediatric Emergency Department
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Expedited partner therapy (EPT) refers to treating sexual partners of patients with sexually transmitted infections by providing prescriptions or medications to give to their partners. Expedited partner therapy is not routinely prescribed in the emergency department (ED). Our objective was to explore adolescent preferences for EPT use in the ED. METHODS: We conducted a mixed-methods study using surveys and semistructured interviews in one urban ED. Sexually active patients aged 15 to 19 years completed an anonymous survey eliciting (1) sexual history and risky sexual behaviors, (2) preferences for partner notification when hypothetically testing positive for an STI, and (3) preferences for EPT. A subsample of survey respondents participated in the interviews, which were conducted until no new perspectives emerged. Investigators analyzed interviews using thematic analysis. RESULTS: A total of 247 participants completed surveys; the majority were female (183/247, 74%), Hispanic (209/243, 86%), and did not use a condom at last intercourse (129/243, 53%). Two thirds of participants (152/236, 64%) did not prefer EPT for partner notification. Preference for EPT was not associated with sex, age, ethnicity, condom use, a steady sexual partner, or STI history. Qualitative data from both surveys and interviews revealed the following reasons for not preferring EPT: concern for partner safety, importance of determining partner STI status, perceived benefit of clinical interaction, and partner accountability. Reasons for preferring EPT included increased treatment accessibility and convenience. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of adolescent patients in a pediatric ED did not prefer EPT. Emergency department practitioners should address common concerns regarding EPT to increase EPT adherence if prescribed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".