Partner notification by family physicians for sexually transmitted infections
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore Canadian FPs' experiences with, perceived barriers to, and perceived facilitators of FP-initiated partner notification (PN) for HIV and other sexually transmitted infections (STIs), as well as to inform the development of tools that might enhance this work. DESIGN: Online survey. SETTING: British Columbia. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 146 FPs recruited through the Divisions of Family Practice community-based networks of FPs throughout the province. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Family physicians' current STI and PN practices, opinions regarding FP-initiated PN, perceived barriers to and facilitators of FP-initiated PN, and preferred PN resources. RESULTS: More than 90% of FPs had diagnosed an STI within the past year, and most (60.3% to 96.6%, depending on the STI) told patients to inform their partners. Two-thirds (66.4%) felt that PN should not be done by FPs, and fewer than 10% reported contacting partners. Reported barriers included inaccurate or incomplete lists of partners (67.1%), poor compensation (54.1%), and insufficient time (54.1%). Facilitators chosen by respondents included another health professional assigned to follow up with PN (77.4%) and improved remuneration (74.7%). Electronic PN tools directed at patients (eg, PN slips) were favoured over resources directed at providers. CONCLUSION: Family physicians regularly manage STIs and currently take part in PN primarily through educating index cases. However, most do not feel that PN should be conducted by FPs, and most believe that FP-initiated PN would require additional personnel, remuneration, and legal guidance.
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 | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".