The Effect of Advanced Partner Notification for People Living with HIV and AIDS

• Main Authors: Piao-Yi Chiou, 邱飄逸
• Other Authors: Li-Chan Lin
• Format: Others
• Language: zh-TW
• Published: 2012
• Online Access: http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/35159837642289629016

博士 === 國立陽明大學 === 護理學系 === 101 === Purpose: Partner notification (PN) has already become a major method to control HIV disease worldwide. This study investigated the difference of effects between advanced partner notification (APN) and traditional partner notification (TPN). Methods: The subjects who had Western bolt test or newly diagnosed with HIV were recruited. All subjects were randomly assigned into two groups, experimental group and control group, 30 subjects in each group. Advanced Partner Notification was therefore developed based on the self-efficacy concept of Bandura. The process of APN includes advanced interaction model (to establish relationship with subject as early as possible, and two counseling sections), comprehensive assessment model for partner information (partner role, contact locations, special point in time, the network, the letters, the on-line internet and telephone inquiries), and promoting self-efficacy of partner notification model (to enhance the self-efficacy of partner notification by health education, emotional support, sharing of successful experience and role-playing of partner notification). In control group, 30 subjects accepted the process of TPN. Results: Sixty participants were men who have sex with men and unmarried. The mean age was 28.3 years (SD = 4.64). Sixty percent of participants graduated from college or university. The major transmission route was sexual contac. The results revealed that the index cases of APN were significantly better than the group of TPNM in provided more contactable partner of 107 cases (t = 2.16, p = 0.037), successed notified more partner of 73 cases (t = 2.25, p = 0.029), receiving HIV test more partner of 25 cases (t = 2.05, = 0.046). There were 22 partners whose HIV test were positive in APN group (HIV positive rate was 41.51%) and 7 partners whose HIV test were positive in TPN group (HIV positive rate was 25.0%). The HIV positive partners in APN group were 15 cases (t = 2.64, p = 0.01) more than those in TPN group. In addition, the mean difference in safer sexual knowledge, number of sexual partners, frequency of unsafe sexual behaviors, frequency of safer sexual behaviors, frequency of resource referral numbers, and process evaluation of PN were significantly better than thaose in TPN group. Conclusion: The process of APN is better than the process of TPN in many aspects. The result can be the foundation to develop partner notification or HIV disclosure theory in Taiwan and to improve the quality of current partner notification policy and practice.