ArticleSexually transmitted diseases2026
Implementation Considerations for Electronic Partner Notification for Sexually Transmitted Infections: A Qualitative Analysis Using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.
Article in Sexually transmitted diseases, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundElectronic partner notification (ePN) for sexually transmitted infections (STIs) is a promising tool for linking exposed individuals to STI testing and treatment. Statewide ePN will target rising rates of chlamydia and gonorrhea in Massachusetts (MA).
methodsWe explored implementation factors and barriers and facilitators to ePN for priority populations using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. We conducted in-depth interviews with men who have sex with men (n = 56) and transgender women (n = 4) recruited from sexual health clinics, community organizations, and online platforms in greater Boston, MA. Content analysis was used to organize implementation factors, barriers and facilitators, and innovation adaptations to mitigate barriers and emphasize facilitators.
resultsParticipants' median age was 27.5 years (interquartile range, 23-33 years); 32% were White, 27% Black, and 22% Hispanic. Overall, participants reacted positively to ePN. Contextual factors include STI stigma and familiarity with contact tracing from the COVID-19 pandemic; barriers and facilitators-varying in direction-include the prevalence of anonymous sexual encounters, comfort with clinicians, and patterns of accessing sexual health services. Individual-level factors include privacy concerns and the nature of relationships between sexual partners. Individual-level facilitators include pre-existing knowledge of digital tools and sexual health services, notifiers' degree of motivation for using ePN, and the perceived value of partner notification. Trust in an ePN notification was identified as an important factor in determining whether individuals seek care.
conclusionsElectronic partner notification is a promising tool to combat rising STI rates. Electronic partner notification implementors must recognize the importance of key barriers, facilitators, and trust.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.