Cargando…

How can we objectively categorise partnership type? A novel classification of population survey data to inform epidemiological research and clinical practice

BACKGROUND: Partnership type is a determinant of STI risk; yet, it is poorly and inconsistently recorded in clinical practice and research. We identify a novel, empirical-based categorisation of partnership type, and examine whether reporting STI diagnoses varies by the resulting typologies. METHODS...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Mercer, C H, Jones, K G, Johnson, A M, Lewis, R, Mitchell, K R, Gravningen, K, Clifton, S, Tanton, C, Sonnenberg, P, Wellings, K, Cassell, J A, Estcourt, C S
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5339562/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27535765
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/sextrans-2016-052646
_version_ 1782512684274548736
author Mercer, C H
Jones, K G
Johnson, A M
Lewis, R
Mitchell, K R
Gravningen, K
Clifton, S
Tanton, C
Sonnenberg, P
Wellings, K
Cassell, J A
Estcourt, C S
author_facet Mercer, C H
Jones, K G
Johnson, A M
Lewis, R
Mitchell, K R
Gravningen, K
Clifton, S
Tanton, C
Sonnenberg, P
Wellings, K
Cassell, J A
Estcourt, C S
author_sort Mercer, C H
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Partnership type is a determinant of STI risk; yet, it is poorly and inconsistently recorded in clinical practice and research. We identify a novel, empirical-based categorisation of partnership type, and examine whether reporting STI diagnoses varies by the resulting typologies. METHODS: Analyses of probability survey data collected from 15 162 people aged 16–74 who participated in Britain's third National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles were undertaken during 2010–2012. Computer-assisted self-interviews asked about participants' ≤3 most recent partners (N=14 322 partners/past year). Analysis of variance and regression tested for differences in partnership duration and perceived likelihood of sex again across 21 ‘partnership progression types’ (PPTs) derived from relationship status at first and most recent sex. Multivariable regression examined the association between reporting STI diagnoses and partnership type(s) net of age and reported partner numbers (all past year). RESULTS: The 21 PPTs were grouped into four summary types: ‘cohabiting’, ‘now steady’, ‘casual’ and ‘ex-steady’ according to the average duration and likelihood of sex again. 11 combinations of these summary types accounted for 94.5% of all men; 13 combinations accounted for 96.9% of all women. Reporting STI diagnoses varied by partnership-type combination, including after adjusting for age and partner numbers, for example, adjusted OR: 6.03 (95% CI 2.01 to 18.1) for men with two ‘casual’ and one ‘now steady’ partners versus men with one ‘cohabiting’ partner. CONCLUSIONS: This typology provides an objective method for measuring partnership type and demonstrates its importance in understanding STI risk, net of partner numbers. Epidemiological research and clinical practice should use these methods and results to maximise individual and public health benefit.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5339562
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-53395622017-03-20 How can we objectively categorise partnership type? A novel classification of population survey data to inform epidemiological research and clinical practice Mercer, C H Jones, K G Johnson, A M Lewis, R Mitchell, K R Gravningen, K Clifton, S Tanton, C Sonnenberg, P Wellings, K Cassell, J A Estcourt, C S Sex Transm Infect Epidemiology BACKGROUND: Partnership type is a determinant of STI risk; yet, it is poorly and inconsistently recorded in clinical practice and research. We identify a novel, empirical-based categorisation of partnership type, and examine whether reporting STI diagnoses varies by the resulting typologies. METHODS: Analyses of probability survey data collected from 15 162 people aged 16–74 who participated in Britain's third National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles were undertaken during 2010–2012. Computer-assisted self-interviews asked about participants' ≤3 most recent partners (N=14 322 partners/past year). Analysis of variance and regression tested for differences in partnership duration and perceived likelihood of sex again across 21 ‘partnership progression types’ (PPTs) derived from relationship status at first and most recent sex. Multivariable regression examined the association between reporting STI diagnoses and partnership type(s) net of age and reported partner numbers (all past year). RESULTS: The 21 PPTs were grouped into four summary types: ‘cohabiting’, ‘now steady’, ‘casual’ and ‘ex-steady’ according to the average duration and likelihood of sex again. 11 combinations of these summary types accounted for 94.5% of all men; 13 combinations accounted for 96.9% of all women. Reporting STI diagnoses varied by partnership-type combination, including after adjusting for age and partner numbers, for example, adjusted OR: 6.03 (95% CI 2.01 to 18.1) for men with two ‘casual’ and one ‘now steady’ partners versus men with one ‘cohabiting’ partner. CONCLUSIONS: This typology provides an objective method for measuring partnership type and demonstrates its importance in understanding STI risk, net of partner numbers. Epidemiological research and clinical practice should use these methods and results to maximise individual and public health benefit. BMJ Publishing Group 2017-03 2016-08-17 /pmc/articles/PMC5339562/ /pubmed/27535765 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/sextrans-2016-052646 Text en Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/ This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt and build upon this work, for commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
spellingShingle Epidemiology
Mercer, C H
Jones, K G
Johnson, A M
Lewis, R
Mitchell, K R
Gravningen, K
Clifton, S
Tanton, C
Sonnenberg, P
Wellings, K
Cassell, J A
Estcourt, C S
How can we objectively categorise partnership type? A novel classification of population survey data to inform epidemiological research and clinical practice
title How can we objectively categorise partnership type? A novel classification of population survey data to inform epidemiological research and clinical practice
title_full How can we objectively categorise partnership type? A novel classification of population survey data to inform epidemiological research and clinical practice
title_fullStr How can we objectively categorise partnership type? A novel classification of population survey data to inform epidemiological research and clinical practice
title_full_unstemmed How can we objectively categorise partnership type? A novel classification of population survey data to inform epidemiological research and clinical practice
title_short How can we objectively categorise partnership type? A novel classification of population survey data to inform epidemiological research and clinical practice
title_sort how can we objectively categorise partnership type? a novel classification of population survey data to inform epidemiological research and clinical practice
topic Epidemiology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5339562/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27535765
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/sextrans-2016-052646
work_keys_str_mv AT mercerch howcanweobjectivelycategorisepartnershiptypeanovelclassificationofpopulationsurveydatatoinformepidemiologicalresearchandclinicalpractice
AT joneskg howcanweobjectivelycategorisepartnershiptypeanovelclassificationofpopulationsurveydatatoinformepidemiologicalresearchandclinicalpractice
AT johnsonam howcanweobjectivelycategorisepartnershiptypeanovelclassificationofpopulationsurveydatatoinformepidemiologicalresearchandclinicalpractice
AT lewisr howcanweobjectivelycategorisepartnershiptypeanovelclassificationofpopulationsurveydatatoinformepidemiologicalresearchandclinicalpractice
AT mitchellkr howcanweobjectivelycategorisepartnershiptypeanovelclassificationofpopulationsurveydatatoinformepidemiologicalresearchandclinicalpractice
AT gravningenk howcanweobjectivelycategorisepartnershiptypeanovelclassificationofpopulationsurveydatatoinformepidemiologicalresearchandclinicalpractice
AT cliftons howcanweobjectivelycategorisepartnershiptypeanovelclassificationofpopulationsurveydatatoinformepidemiologicalresearchandclinicalpractice
AT tantonc howcanweobjectivelycategorisepartnershiptypeanovelclassificationofpopulationsurveydatatoinformepidemiologicalresearchandclinicalpractice
AT sonnenbergp howcanweobjectivelycategorisepartnershiptypeanovelclassificationofpopulationsurveydatatoinformepidemiologicalresearchandclinicalpractice
AT wellingsk howcanweobjectivelycategorisepartnershiptypeanovelclassificationofpopulationsurveydatatoinformepidemiologicalresearchandclinicalpractice
AT cassellja howcanweobjectivelycategorisepartnershiptypeanovelclassificationofpopulationsurveydatatoinformepidemiologicalresearchandclinicalpractice
AT estcourtcs howcanweobjectivelycategorisepartnershiptypeanovelclassificationofpopulationsurveydatatoinformepidemiologicalresearchandclinicalpractice