A review of the evidence regarding the benefits, limitations, and different forms of partner notification. There are approximately 17 000 people in Canada who are HIV-positive but unaware of their serostatus, and there are roughly 1000 people per year who receive their HIV diagnosis at the same time as an AIDS diagnosis. The evidence suggests that partner notification is an effective public health intervention for infiltrating this portion of the hidden epidemic. The prevalence of HIV among identified contacts ranges from 15% to 30%, with the majority of contacts being unaware of their possible exposure. However, despite the benefits of partner notification, it must be done with the voluntary, informed consent of the index case, where proper safeguards are in place to protect the anonymity of the index case, and most importantly, domestic violence screening must precede any form of partner notification.
The prevalence of HIV among identified contacts ranges from 15% to 30%, with the majority of contacts being unaware of their possible exposure. The evidence suggests that partner notification is an effective public health intervention.
Partner notification is the voluntary and anonymous public health activity of telling the partners of an index case (someone who is diagnosed with HIV or AIDS) that they have been exposed to HIV. Partners are persons with whom the index case has had unprotected sex, shared injecting equipment (needles, rigs), or engaged in some other high-risk activity. Partner notification is a purely voluntary activity. The index case does not have to disclose his or her partner’s identity and is in control of the information he or she chooses to disclose to public health professionals. Partner notification is anonymous because after the index case chooses to disclose his or her partners’ contact information, without consent to do so, the index case’s identity is usually not revealed to the partner or partners.
An obvious exception to anonymity would be if the index case is the partner’s sole contact. This would allow the partner to readily deduce who exposed him or her to HIV and, thus, the index case’s anonymity would be necessarily compromised. These considerations should be discussed fully prior to the initiation of partner notification interventions. In the event that a partner makes this deduction, the health care professional should not confirm or deny these suspicions.
The literature pertaining to partner notification and HIV provides compelling evidence that notifying partners of patients newly diagnosed with HIV/AIDS is an important ethical duty. Partner notification provides vital information to identified contacts and enhances the ability of public health professionals to contain the spread of HIV in the general population.
There are three basic methods of partner notification: patient referral, provider referral, and conditional referral.
Patient referral is when the index case decides to tell his or her partners that they have been exposed to HIV. If this method is chosen, public health professionals will counsel the index case about how to approach partners, what to tell them, and where to refer them for services (testing, counseling, and treatment if needed).
Provider referral is when the index case gives the public health professional the names and locating information of his or her partners. The public health professional will then contact the partners, tell them of their potential exposure, and refer them to services. In all circumstances the provider will protect the anonymity of the index case.
Conditional referral is a combination of patient and provider referral. Index cases choose to notify partners themselves but make an agreement with their public health professional that if they cannot locate some partners, or if some of those partners do not report to public health for follow-up, the provider will contact the partners directly.
Partner notification is often confused with the ethical and legal requirement known as the duty to warn, but the two are fundamentally different.[1,2] The duty to warn occurs when the health care professional has reason to believe that the index case is going to expose (or is exposing) an identified partner to a significant risk of acquiring HIV without disclosing, beforehand, his or her HIV infection. In the case of a spouse or close relation, this third party risk is usually ongoing. The duty to warn is not a voluntary activity and when it is done it is not easy to protect the index case’s anonymity to the same extent that partner notification can protect anonymity.
There are a number of good reasons for partner notification. For instance, partner notification can identify partners who have been infected with HIV but who are unaware of their infection.[1-15] The partners of index cases (people newly diagnosed with HIV) are at extremely high risk for having contracted HIV. In fact, some studies have revealed that the prevalence of HIV among partners of index patients could range from 15% to 30%.[4,16] One study published in the Lancet revealed that of 350 named contacts (partners) who received HIV testing and counseling, 53 (15%) were HIV-positive and previously unaware of their status. Another study presented to the XI International Conference on AIDS (1996) explained that of 560 contacts who received HIV counseling and testing, 122 (22%) were HIV-positive and were previously unaware of their HIV-positive status. This suggests that partners of index cases are at high risk of contracting HIV and are generally unaware of their exposure.
Another benefit of partner notification is that it can help modify the high-risk behaviors of partners who may not be infected but were unaware of their exposure to HIV.[18-20] A study presented to the Fourth Conference on Retrovirus and Opportunistic Infections (1997) explained that in a randomized controlled trial, condom use was significantly higher and the number of new sexual partners was fewer in the group of sexual partners who received enhanced HIV counseling and education than in the control group who did not receive this enhanced intervention. An international study conducted in Zaire found that discordant couples who were offered intensive counseling resulted in substantially increased condom use, from less than 5% at baseline to 71% at 1 month follow-up and 77% at 18 month follow-up.
There is also evidence to suggest that most partners who are told about their exposure to HIV appreciate this information. A 1990 US study published in JAMA revealed that of 132 partners located, 87 stated that the health department did the right thing by telling them about their exposure, and 92% said that the health department should continue with this valuable activity.
It is also possible to make some loose generalizations about the efficacy of the different models of partner notification. Most of the literature suggests that provider referral is a lot more effective in contacting partners and revealing undiagnosed HIV than patient or conditional referral.[1,3,4,8] A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine compared the results of provider referral and patient referral. In the provider referral group, 78 of 157 partners (50%) were successfully notified, whereas in the patient referral group 10 of 153 (7%) were notified. It was further found that of the partners notified through the provider referral group, 94% were unaware that they had been exposed to HIV.
Another important finding is that, generally, most index cases are willing to participate in partner notification programs if their anonymity can be guaranteed. A study of 25 HIV-positive women in the US revealed that 68% of the participants were willing to give the names of their partners as long as the index case’s confidentiality was maintained. Interestingly, 20% were willing to participate in a partner notification program even if their names were disclosed to the partner.
There are a number of limitations associated with partner notification. For instance, the ability to notify partners of index cases is only as good as the contact information the index case can or will disclose.[3,21,23,24] The index case may not be able to identify a particular partner because of an anonymous encounter where high-risk behavior took place, or perhaps the index case simply does not want to disclose this information at all. Since partner notification requires the voluntary participation of the index case, there is no way to get around this limitation. The index cases’ refusal to participate in partner notification should in no way limit their ability to access health services they require.
Patient referral is very cost effective, but since it requires index cases to initiate contact with past partners themselves, their anonymity is necessarily compromised, and concern has been expressed about the vulnerability of index cases to emotional or physical harm.[22,25,26] For some partners their only possible exposure to HIV may be the index case, so it will allow that partner to identify who put them at risk of infection. Domestic violence screening must be part of post-test counseling before any form of partner notification can be initiated.
1. Landis S, Schoenbach V, Weber D, et al. Results of a randomized trial of partner notification in cases of HIV infection in North Carolina. N Engl J Med 1992;326:101-106. PubMed Abstract
2. Hoffman RE, Spencer NE, Miller LA. Comparison of partner notification at anonymous and confidential HIV test sites in Colorado. J Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes Human Retrovirol 1995;8:406-410. PubMed Abstract
3. Fenton KA, Peterman TA. HIV partner notification: Taking a new look. AIDS 1997;11:1535-1546. PubMed Citation Full Text
4. Giesecke J, Ramstedt K, Granath F, et al. Efficacy of partner notification for HIV infection. Lancet 1991;338:1096-1100. PubMed Abstract
5. Macke BA, Maher JE. Partner notification in the United States: An evidence-based review. Am J Prev Med 1999;17:230-242. PubMed Abstract Full Text
6. Landis SE, Schoenbach VJ, Wever DJ, et al. Results of a randomized trial of partner notification in cases of HIV infection in North Carolina. N Engl J Med 1992;326:101-106. PubMed Abstract
7. Oxman AD, Scott EAF, Sellors JW, et al. Partner notification for sexually transmitted diseases: An overview of the evidence. Can J Public Health 1994;85(suppl 1):S41-S47. PubMed Abstract
8. Pattman RS, Gould EM. Partner notification for HIV infection in the United Kingdom: A look back on seven years experience in Newcastle Upon Tyne. Genitourin Med 1993:69:94-97. PubMed Abstract
9. Pavia AT, Benyo M, Niler L, et al. Partner notification for control of HIV: Results after 2 years of a statewide program in Utah. Am J Public Health 1993;83:1418-1424. PubMed Abstract
10. Peterman TA, Tommey KE, Dicker LW, et al. HIV partner notification: Costs and effectiveness data from a multicentre randomized controlled trial. Presented at the XI International Conference on AIDS, Vancouver, BC, July 1996. Abstract ThC4626.
11. Rutherford GW, Woo JM, Neal DP, et al. Partner notification and the control of human immunodeficiency virus infection: Two years of experience in San Francisco. Sex Transm Dis 1991;18:107-110. PubMed Abstract
12. Spencer NE, Hoffman RE, Raevsky CA, et al. Partner notification for human immunodeficiency virus infection in Colorado: Results across index case groups and costs. Int J STD AIDS 1993;4:26-32. PubMed Abstract
13. Wells KD, Hoff GL. Human immunodeficiency virus partner notification in a low incidence urban community. Sex Transm Dis 1995;22:377-379. PubMed Abstract
14. Wykoff RF, Heath Jr CW, Hollis SL, et al. Contact tracing to identify human immunodeficiency virus infection in a rural community. JAMA 1988;259:3563-3566. PubMed Abstract
15. Wykoff RF, Jones JL, Longshore ST, et al. Notification of the sex and needle-sharing partners of individuals with human immunodeficiency virus in rural South Carolina: 30-month experience. Sex Transm Dis 1991;18:217-222. PubMed Abstract
16. Coles FB, Birkhead GS, Johnson P, et al. Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention-Surveillance and Epidemiology, and Intervention Research Services, National Centre for HIV, DTS, and TB Prevention. Division of AIDS, STD, and TB Laboratory Research, National Centre for Infectious Diseases, CDC. Cluster of HIV-positive young women—New York, 1997 – 1998. MMWR 1999;48:413-416. PubMed Abstract Full Text
17. Giesecke J, Ramstedt K, Granath F, et al. Efficacy of partner notification for HIV. Lancet 1991;338:1096-1100. PubMed Abstract
18. Higgins DL, Galavotti C, O’Reilly KR, et al. Evidence for the effects of HIV antibody counseling and testing on risk behaviours. JAMA 1991;266:2419-2429. PubMed Abstract
19. Kamb ML, Rhodes F, Bolan G, et al. Does HIV/STD counseling work? Results from a randomized controlled trial (Project Report). Presented at the Fourth Conference on Retrovirus and Opportunistic Infections, Washington, DC, January 1997. Abstract 383.
20. Kamega M, Ryder R, Jingu M, et al. Evidence of marked sexual behaviour change associated with low HIV-1 serconversion in 149 married couples with discordant HIV-1 serostatus: Experience at an HIV counseling center in Zaire. AIDS 1991;5:61-67. PubMed Abstract
21. Jones JL, Wykoss RF, Hollis SL, et al. Partner acceptance of health department notification of HIV exposure, South Carolina. JAMA 1990;264:1284-1286. PubMed Abstract
22. Dimas JT, Richland, JH. Partner notification and HIV infections: Misconceptions and recommendations. AIDS Public Policy J 1989;4:206-211. PubMed Citation
23. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Guidelines for national human immunodeficiency virus case surveillance, including monitoring for human immunodeficiency virus infection and acquired immunodeficiency syndrome. MMWR 1999:48:RR-13. PubMed Abstract Full Text
24. Health Canada. F/P/T/ AIDS Working Group on Partner Notification. Guidelines for practice for partner notification in HIV/AIDS. January 1997.
25. Klein SJ, Birkhead GS, Wright G. Domestic violence and HIV/AIDS. Am J Public Health 2000;90:1648. PubMed Citation Full Text
26. Nabiais I, Conclaves G, Ouakinin S, et al. Disclosure of HIV infection to sexual partners: Implications in relationships. Presented at the XI International Conference on AIDS, Vancouver, July 1996. Abstract C4631.
Timothy K.S. Christie, PhD and Perry R.W. Kendall, MBBS, FRCPC
Dr Christie is a health care ethicist with the BC Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS and Providence Health Care. Dr Kendall is BC’s provincial health officer.
Above is the information needed to cite this article in your paper or presentation. The International Committee
of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) recommends the following citation style, which is the now nearly universally
accepted citation style for scientific papers:
Halpern SD, Ubel PA, Caplan AL, Marion DW, Palmer AM, Schiding JK, et al. Solid-organ transplantation in HIV-infected patients. N Engl J Med. 2002;347:284-7.
About the ICMJE and citation styles
The ICMJE is small group of editors of general medical journals who first met informally in Vancouver, British Columbia, in 1978 to establish guidelines for the format of manuscripts submitted to their journals. The group became known as the Vancouver Group. Its requirements for manuscripts, including formats for bibliographic references developed by the U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM), were first published in 1979. The Vancouver Group expanded and evolved into the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), which meets annually. The ICMJE created the Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals to help authors and editors create and distribute accurate, clear, easily accessible reports of biomedical studies.
An alternate version of ICMJE style is to additionally list the month an issue number, but since most journals use continuous pagination, the shorter form provides sufficient information to locate the reference. The NLM now lists all authors.
BCMJ standard citation style is a slight modification of the ICMJE/NLM style, as follows:
- Only the first three authors are listed, followed by "et al."
- There is no period after the journal name.
- Page numbers are not abbreviated.
For more information on the ICMJE Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals, visit www.icmje.org