Facilitators and Barriers to Expedited Partner Therapy: Results From a Survey of Family Physicians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Expedited partner therapy (EPT) can prevent transmission of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and reinfection of the index patient. We surveyed family physicians (FPs) in British Columbia to understand their perceptions of barriers and facilitators to EPT use and explored how perceptions varied by demographic and practice characteristics. METHODS: Survey participants were recruited through the Divisions of Family Practice, which include greater than 90% of FPs in British Columbia. Common barriers and facilitators for EPT were identified using descriptive statistics. The association between each EPT barrier and facilitator and demographic and practice characteristics were tested using χ test. RESULTS: One hundred eighty-one FPs started the survey, of which 146 (80.7%) answered 10 questions or more and were analyzed. Overall, inaccurate information about sex partners (88 [60.3%] of 146) and medicolegal concerns (87 [59.6%] of 146) were the most common barriers reported. Family physicians in nonurban settings were more likely to identify insufficient time as a barrier compared with FPs in urban settings (P < 0.01). The most common facilitators were having a health care professional for follow-up after prescribing EPT (110 [75.3%] of 146), improved remuneration (93 [63.7%] of 146), clear clinical guidelines around EPT (87/146, 59.6%), and having a legal framework (92 [63.0%] of 146). Family physicians practicing for less than 9 years (the median) were more likely to identify the latter as facilitating EPT compared with FPs practicing for 9 years or longer (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Ensuring patients have access to a health care professional for follow-up, improved remuneration, and development of clinical guidelines and a legal framework can support the implementation of EPT. Tools catered to different practice types and contexts may help increase EPT use.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".