Compared with increasing coverage , partner notification identifies more chlamydia positive individuals for each unit of resource invested in a screening programme . There is considerable scope to improve partner notification outcomes . Furthermore , reallocation of resources to ensure provision and monitoring of effective partner notification is likely to result in substantial cost savings in comparison with increasing screening coverage only . It is not clear from the available data how much additional benefit should be expected from a given level of investment in partner notification . The wide range of reported partner notification and the diverse methods of organisation make it difficult to generalise , and urgent evaluation is needed to establish the most cost effective approach to partner notification . Equitable access to screening for men and women should continue to be promoted . However , the additional resources required to increase male screening coverage to reach equity with females would be more effectively employed in the short term in achieving high partner notification efficacy among those who test positive . Partner notification therefore mitigates the impact of sex inequity in screening coverage since the high proportion of partners infected offsets the lower number of men screened Performance indicators must reflect quality and value for money of service provision , not just quantity of services provided . The spreadsheet tool we have developed will enable local services to evaluate their own programmes and allow rapid updates based on national reports . This tool could also be adapted for use in other countries . We provide strong evidence for the cost effectiveness of partner notification in identifying infected cases compared with screening alone . The number of infected individuals ( women and men ) identified through a screening programme is arguably a more appropriate metric for assessing the success of screening than primary coverage by sex .