Stances and perceptions of prescribing contraceptives to minors

A survey among Israeli gynocologists

Method

Participants. Members of the Israeli Association of Obstetrics and Gynecology were engaged as participants for this study.

Procedure. Participants were approached via an email that contained a link to a Google Forms questionnaire. Participation was voluntary, and anonymity was maintained to ensure the authenticity of responses.

Measures. The questionnaire was designed to examine a range of issues related to the prescription of contraceptive pills to minors without parental involvement. It included questions about the participant’s professional experience, the number of minor patients treated in the past year, and specific cases of prescribing contraceptives to minors without parental knowledge.

The questionnaire further explored the participant’s practices around documentation and communication with minors. It also investigated whom physicians typically consulted in these situations, and their understanding of the legal obligations and potential consequences associated with such prescriptions, including the extent of parental access to minors’ medical records through Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) applications.

Participants were also asked to express their opinions on various ethical and professional dilemmas concerning the prescription of contraceptives to minors, parental involvement, and the potential impacts on the minors’ sexual behavior and welfare.

Demographics and Clinical Data. Detailed demographic and clinical data were collected, including age, sex, country of birth, nature of employment, the socio-economic status of the clinic locality, the patient population served, and the year of medical graduation. Information on additional training received post-medical school was also gathered.

Statistical Analyses. The collected data were analyzed using t-tests or ANOVA for comparison of responses across groups, with a significance threshold set at p<0.05. Fisher’s exact test was employed to examine the association between categorical variables.

Data cleaning

Incorrect year of MD qualification

  • Some respondents entered their tenure years or a short form of the year completed, I fix this manually.
    • When provided short form of year, I just add “19–”.
    • When provided with tenure, I calculate by subtracting from 2022 (the year of the questionnaire).
demo_age demo_year_md
57 96
62 24
57 93
55 95
38 202
70 34

Other/Undisclosed place of MD studies

  • Unified the undisclosed (missing) place of MD with “other”.

Relevelling

Results

Participant Characteristics

Out of the 179 voluntary survey respondents, two identified as non-gynecologists, and out of the remaining n = 177 (henceforth referred to as the full sample), there were n = 132 (74.58% of the full sample) who treated minors in the previous year (referred to as the exposure sample). The full participant data appears in Table 1.

Table 1: Demographics table
Characteristic exposure, N = 1321 full, N = 1771
Age 52 (11) 51 (11)
Female 85 (65%) 114 (65%)
Place of birth
    Israel 93 (71%) 131 (74%)
    Countries of the former USSR 17 (13%) 21 (12%)
    Eastern Europe 8 (6.1%) 8 (4.5%)
    USA / Canada 6 (4.6%) 8 (4.5%)
    Western Europe 5 (3.8%) 5 (2.8%)
    South America 1 (0.8%) 2 (1.1%)
    other 1 (0.8%) 1 (0.6%)
Youngest child's age
    0-11 years 50 (38%) 75 (43%)
    12-14 years 9 (6.9%) 14 (8.0%)
    15-17 years 14 (11%) 16 (9.1%)
    18 and up 53 (40%) 63 (36%)
    I don't have children 5 (3.8%) 7 (4.0%)
Employment status
    self employed 52 (40%) 62 (36%)
    both salaried and self employed 48 (37%) 58 (34%)
    salaried 30 (23%) 52 (30%)
Sector treated in your primary clinic
    Mostly Jewish 87 (67%) 110 (64%)
    Mixed 43 (33%) 60 (35%)
    Mostly Arab 0 (0%) 3 (1.7%)
Patients' socio-economic status
    low 3 (2.3%) 5 (2.9%)
    medium-low 42 (33%) 67 (39%)
    medium-high 68 (53%) 81 (47%)
    high 16 (12%) 20 (12%)
Place of MD graduation
    Israel 106 (80%) 142 (80%)
    Eastern Europe 13 (9.8%) 16 (9.0%)
    Western Europe, USA, Canada 7 (5.3%) 9 (5.1%)
    Other 5 (3.8%) 8 (4.5%)
    Middle East 1 (0.8%) 2 (1.1%)
OB/GYN specialty status (board certification)
    Resident 2 (1.6%) 14 (8.0%)
    Senior, up to 5 years 32 (25%) 37 (21%)
    Senior, 5-10 years 11 (8.5%) 19 (11%)
    Senior, 10-20 years 34 (26%) 43 (25%)
    Senior, more than 20 years+ 50 (39%) 61 (35%)
Years since MD graduation 24 (11) 23 (12)
Participation in formal training about caring for minors
    no training 95 (73%) 137 (78%)
    conference 30 (23%) 32 (18%)
    written procedure 5 (3.8%) 6 (3.4%)
1 Mean (SD); n (%)

Clinical Reality

Table 2: Clinical reality of the surveyed gynocologists
Characteristic N = 1321
How many contraception consultations for minors did you perform during the past year?
    1-5 24 (18%)
    5-10 25 (19%)
    10-20 30 (23%)
    20-50 31 (24%)
    50+ 21 (16%)
    Unknown 1
In how many cases did the minor refuse parental involvement?
    always/almost always 12 (9.2%)
    sometimes 83 (63%)
    never 36 (27%)
    Unknown 1
When a minor refused parental involvement, did you actually prescribe contraception without parental consent?
    always/almost always 87 (74%)
    sometimes 7 (5.9%)
    never 24 (20%)
    Unknown 14
In cases in which you prescribed contraceptives without parental consent, did you document the prescription in the minor’s health file
    always/almost always 104 (93%)
    sometimes 2 (1.8%)
    never 6 (5.4%)
    Unknown 20
In cases in which you prescribed contraceptives, did you document the reasons for prescribing without parental consent in the minor’s health file?
    always/almost always 41 (37%)
    sometimes 26 (23%)
    never 44 (40%)
    Unknown 21
In cases in which you prescribed contraceptives without parental involvement, did you explain to the minor that the prescription is documented in her health file?
    always/almost always 83 (75%)
    sometimes 11 (10%)
    never 16 (15%)
    Unknown 22
1 n (%)

Perception of Laws and Regulations

Parental involvement

Table 3: Perception of the law regarding parental involvement and frequency of prescribing to minors
Prescribes to minors Total p-value1
almost always sometimes never
Perception of the law regarding parental involvement 0.9
    age dependent 33 (38%) 2 (29%) 8 (33%) 43 (36%)
    does not know/not required 48 (55%) 4 (57%) 14 (58%) 66 (56%)
    parental involvement required 6 (6.9%) 1 (14%) 2 (8.3%) 9 (7.6%)
Total 87 (100%) 7 (100%) 24 (100%) 118 (100%)
1 Fisher’s exact test
Table 4: Perception of the law (dichotomized) regarding parental involvement and frequency of prescribing to minors
Prescribes to minors Total p-value1
almost always sometimes never
Perception of the law regarding parental involvement 0.4
    does not know/age dependent/not required 81 (93%) 6 (86%) 22 (92%) 109 (92%)
    parental involvement required 6 (6.9%) 1 (14%) 2 (8.3%) 9 (7.6%)
Total 87 (100%) 7 (100%) 24 (100%) 118 (100%)
1 Fisher’s exact test

Perception of data-access and clinical practice

  • Assuming that parents have viewing permissions on the HMO app, we test the association with prescribing to minors without parental knowledge.
Table 5: Perception of the law and parental data access knowledge (purchase history)
Parents can view purchase history Total p-value1
correct incorrect/doesn’t know
Prescribes to minors 0.13
    yes 48 44 92
    no 16 7 23
Total 64 51 115
1 Pearson’s Chi-squared test
Table 6: Perception of the law and parental data access knowledge (visit summary)
Parents can view visit summary Total p-value1
correct incorrect/doesn’t know
Prescribes to minors 0.8
    yes 34 58 92
    no 9 14 23
Total 43 72 115
1 Pearson’s Chi-squared test
Table 7: Perception of the law and parental data access knowledge (contraceptive prescription)
Parents can view contraceptive prescriptions Total p-value1
correct incorrect/doesn’t know
Prescribes to minors 0.5
    yes 43 49 92
    no 9 14 23
Total 52 63 115
1 Pearson’s Chi-squared test

Clinical practice and stances

Table 8: Stances by practice (2 levels - yes/sometimes vs never)
Stance item GTM's who prescribe w/o parental inv. GTM's who never prescribe w/o parental inv. p-value
There are cases when it is right to give pills to a minor without the knowledge of her parents 4.81 (0.56) 4.38 (1.06) 0.064
It is better for the minor to receive pills without the knowledge of her parents, than for her to become pregnant 4.83 (0.52) 4.46 (1.02) 0.10
Giving pills to a sexually active minor is in her best interest, even if it is without her parents' knowledge 4.77 (0.49) 4.29 (1.08) 0.043
Minors should be allowed to choose whether to allow their parents to see the part of their medical file that deals with sexual and sexual issues 4.35 (0.92) 3.79 (1.18) 0.040
The fact that the minor's record is exposed to the parents prevents me from giving the minor good treatment of sexual and sexual issues 3.04 (1.47) 2.74 (1.51) 0.4
It can't be that parents didn't know that their underage daughter was taking pills 1.97 (0.98) 2.38 (1.17) 0.13
Giving a minor pills encourages her to have sex 1.69 (0.81) 1.79 (1.14) 0.7
Teenage/extramarital sex is inappropriate 1.70 (0.96) 1.50 (0.66) 0.2
I am not willing to risk legal action, so I will not give pills to a minor without the knowledge and consent of a parent 1.65 (0.76) 2.22 (1.38) 0.066
In cases where it is in the best interest of the minor patient, I will give her a prescription for pills even without her parents knowing about it 4.40 (1.07) 3.58 (1.38) 0.012
Table 9: Stances by practice
Stance item GTM's who always prescribe w/o parental inv. GTM's who occasionally prescribe w/o parental inv. GTM's who never prescribe w/o parental inv. p-value
There are cases when it is right to give pills to a minor without the knowledge of her parents 4.85 (0.39) 4.29 (1.50) 4.38 (1.06) 0.003
It is better for the minor to receive pills without the knowledge of her parents, than for her to become pregnant 4.86 (0.44) 4.43 (1.13) 4.46 (1.02) 0.013
Giving pills to a sexually active minor is in her best interest, even if it is without her parents' knowledge 4.78 (0.49) 4.71 (0.49) 4.29 (1.08) 0.007
Minors should be allowed to choose whether to allow their parents to see the part of their medical file that deals with sexual and sexual issues 4.35 (0.91) 4.29 (1.11) 3.79 (1.18) 0.050
The fact that the minor's record is exposed to the parents prevents me from giving the minor good treatment of sexual and sexual issues 3.01 (1.48) 3.43 (1.40) 2.74 (1.51) 0.5
It can't be that parents didn't know that their underage daughter was taking pills 1.93 (0.99) 2.43 (0.79) 2.38 (1.17) 0.10
Giving a minor pills encourages her to have sex 1.70 (0.83) 1.57 (0.53) 1.79 (1.14) 0.8
Teenage/extramarital sex is inappropriate 1.68 (0.95) 2.00 (1.15) 1.50 (0.66) 0.4
I am not willing to risk legal action, so I will not give pills to a minor without the knowledge and consent of a parent 1.60 (0.72) 2.14 (1.07) 2.22 (1.38) 0.010
In cases where it is in the best interest of the minor patient, I will give her a prescription for pills even without her parents knowing about it 4.45 (1.01) 3.71 (1.60) 3.58 (1.38) 0.003

Consideration

Table 10: Considerations by practice (2 levels - yes/sometimes vs never)
Consideration GTM’s who prescribe w/o parental inv., N = 941 GTM’s who never prescribe w/o parental inv., N = 241 p-value2
Parents right to know 2.34 (1.07) 2.61 (1.37) 0.4
Fear of damaging my relationship with the minor's parents 2.19 (1.06) 2.26 (1.21) 0.8
Fear of a violent/harsh reaction by parents towards me 2.58 (1.41) 2.35 (1.37) 0.5
Fear of legal action 2.07 (1.06) 2.57 (1.50) 0.14
Age of the minor 3.59 (1.29) 3.65 (1.11) 0.8
The minor ability to understand the significance of the decision, the implications and risks 4.35 (1.05) 3.95 (1.00) 0.11
Does the minor have a rational reason for refusal (as opposed to just not wanting the parents to know) 3.10 (1.41) 3.45 (1.30) 0.3
Rights and dignity of the minor 4.46 (0.79) 4.14 (0.89) 0.12
My ability to verify her medical background and contraindications to pills without parental involvement 4.22 (1.09) 4.05 (1.09) 0.5
The risk to the health of the minor that may be caused by taking the pills 4.12 (1.26) 3.87 (1.25) 0.4
The risk to the health of the minor as a result of having sex without pills 4.72 (0.80) 4.22 (0.85) 0.016
Fear of a violent/harsh reaction by the parents towards the minor if they knew that she is taking pills 3.62 (1.30) 3.09 (1.62) 0.2
The desire to preserve the minor in a therapeutic relationship with me 3.32 (1.31) 2.57 (1.44) 0.029
How supportive the parents really are, and how valuable it is for them to know that the minor is having sex and taking pills 3.39 (1.15) 3.43 (1.24) 0.9
Existence/absence of other adult support resourcefor the minor (aunt, older sister, etc.) instead of her parents 3.52 (1.24) 3.83 (0.98) 0.2
1 Mean (SD)
2 Welch Two Sample t-test
Table 11: Considerations by practice
Consideration almost always, N = 871 sometimes, N = 71 never, N = 241 p-value2
Parents right to know 2.29 (1.04) 3.00 (1.29) 2.61 (1.37) 0.2
Fear of damaging my relationship with the minor's parents 2.15 (1.05) 2.57 (1.27) 2.26 (1.21) 0.6
Fear of a violent/harsh reaction by parents towards me 2.61 (1.44) 2.14 (0.90) 2.35 (1.37) 0.5
Fear of legal action 2.06 (1.07) 2.17 (0.98) 2.57 (1.50) 0.2
Age of the minor 3.56 (1.31) 4.00 (1.10) 3.65 (1.11) 0.7
The minor ability to understand the significance of the decision, the implications and risks 4.38 (1.05) 4.00 (1.15) 3.95 (1.00) 0.2
Does the minor have a rational reason for refusal (as opposed to just not wanting the parents to know) 3.05 (1.41) 3.71 (1.38) 3.45 (1.30) 0.3
Rights and dignity of the minor 4.48 (0.78) 4.29 (0.95) 4.14 (0.89) 0.2
My ability to verify her medical background and contraindications to pills without parental involvement 4.24 (1.08) 4.00 (1.29) 4.05 (1.09) 0.7
The risk to the health of the minor that may be caused by taking the pills 4.16 (1.21) 3.57 (1.81) 3.87 (1.25) 0.3
The risk to the health of the minor as a result of having sex without pills 4.72 (0.81) 4.71 (0.76) 4.22 (0.85) 0.035
Fear of a violent/harsh reaction by the parents towards the minor if they knew that she is taking pills 3.65 (1.30) 3.14 (1.21) 3.09 (1.62) 0.2
The desire to preserve the minor in a therapeutic relationship with me 3.27 (1.31) 4.00 (1.26) 2.57 (1.44) 0.026
How supportive the parents really are, and how valuable it is for them to know that the minor is having sex and taking pills 3.41 (1.15) 3.14 (1.21) 3.43 (1.24) 0.8
Existence/absence of other adult support resourcefor the minor (aunt, older sister, etc.) instead of her parents 3.55 (1.24) 3.14 (1.21) 3.83 (0.98) 0.4
1 Mean (SD)
2 One-way ANOVA