Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

K A Fenton

Publications and source records attributed to K A Fenton.

10 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2000

Screening men for Chlamydia trachomatis infection: have we fully explored the possibilities?

Genital chlamydial infection is the commonest curable sexually transmitted disease in England and Wales. It is a major cause of pelvic inflammatory disease, ectopic pregnancy, and infertility. For this reason, research, health promotion, and disease prevention initiatives have focused on women. Screening women for chlamydial infection is concerned mainly with identifying and reducing complications among those already infected (secondary prevention), rather than with preventing new infections (primary prevention). Screening men for genital chlamydial infection, a strategy for preventing new infections in women, has been considered problematic because of the cost, the invasiveness of sampling procedures, and the need to screen in clinical settings. The availability of nucleic acid amplification diagnostic tests challenges these limitations and offers new opportunities for actively including men in disease prevention. This article reviews the arguments for and against screening men for genital chlamydial infection and discusses possible strategies for its implementation.

Chlamydia trachomatis↗
PubMed1998

An evaluation of partner notification for HIV infection in genitourinary medicine clinics in England.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of a standardized HIV partner notification programme within genitourinary medicine clinics in England. DESIGN: A prospective survey of HIV partner notification activity over a 12-month period. SETTING: Nineteen genitourinary medicine clinics in England. PATIENTS AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 501 eligible HIV-positive patients (either newly diagnosed or with whom partner notification had not been undertaken previously) seen during the study period. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The numbers of partners named by patients, and the number of contacts notified, counselled and HIV-tested. RESULTS: Information on overall partner notification activity was obtained by reviewing available medical records of 471 patients; 353 (75%) had discussed partner notification with a health-care worker during the study period and 197 (42%) had undertaken partner notification. Detailed information on outcomes was obtained for only 70 patients who named 158 contacts as being at risk of acquiring HIV. Although 71 (45%) contacts were eventually notified, only 28 were subsequently seen in participating clinics. Almost all contacts (n = 27) requested HIV counselling and testing, and five were diagnosed HIV-positive. Patient referral was the most popular notification method chosen. CONCLUSIONS: This study illustrates some of the practical difficulties that limit HIV partner notification within genitourinary medicine clinics. These include health-care workers' misgivings about undertaking partner notification, insufficient locating information to identify contacts, and migration of newly diagnosed patients, which prevents continuity and completion of notification. Nevertheless, HIV partner notification uncovered previously undiagnosed HIV infections. Further work needs to be undertaken in staff training and policy implementation if higher rates of partner notification and outcome measurements are to be achieved.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1998

Partner notification techniques.

This article aimed to cover the range of techniques used in partner notification for sexually transmitted infections, including HIV. Many of the current methods were developed over the past 50 years, and very little operational research has since been undertaken to refine them. More work is needed to evaluate inexpensive strategies to improve patient referral, to determine the psychological and behavioral impact of partner notification and methods of incorporating social networks in partner notification programs.

Confidentiality↗
PubMed1997

HIV partner notification policy and practice within GUM clinics in England: where are we now?

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the extent to which larger genitourinary medicine (GUM) clinics in England have established local clinic policies for HIV Partner Notification (PN) and to describe the process of HIV PN within this setting. DESIGN: A cross-sectional survey of HIV PN policies and practices within GUM clinics. SUBJECTS AND SETTING: Senior consultants in 59 GUM clinics in England. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The presence of clinic policies for HIV PN, indicators of HIV PN activity (that is, its initiation, documentation, performance and evaluation) and factors hindering the acceptance of HIV PN into clinical practice. RESULTS: Only 18% (10/57) of respondents stated that their clinics had developed their own local policies for HIV PN. Fifteen percent (9/58) of clinics had audited HIV PN activity, 15% had provided specific HIV PN training for doctors and 47% (27/58) for health advisers. Within GUM clinics, health advisers play a key role in the HIV PN process, being responsible for initiating the discussion of partners, patient follow-up and documenting HIV PN activity in patients' notes. Notifying partners was primarily seen as the responsibility of the newly diagnosed HIV positive patient. Although 77% (43/56) of responding consultants believed that HIV PN had become an accepted part of their clinics' practice, the perceived unacceptability of HIV PN to patients and health care workers were seen as important limiting factors. CONCLUSION: In many GUM clinics, local policies on HIV PN have yet to be established and appropriate training for the health personnel provided. Nevertheless, there appears to be wide-spread acceptance of HIV PN in clinical practice with an acknowledgement of its limiting factors. Further research into the acceptability of HIV PN to health care workers and patients in this setting should be undertaken.

Attitude of Health Personnel↗