Adolescent consent for research and sensitive services

Overview & Definition

A 15-year-old wants to join a study of sexual-health behaviours but asks, "Will my mum find out?" A 14-year-old attends for sexually transmitted infection testing and says, "Please don't put this on my record." A research nurse wants to recruit an adolescent from foster care. These three moments share one clinical skill: consent for research and sensitive services, and the confidentiality that makes that consent workable. [1] [11]

Start with the single idea that splits into three. Consent is the decision of someone with capacity who has been given the information a reasonable person would need and is free from coercion. Parental permission is the authorisation a parent or guardian gives for a child who lacks capacity. Assent is the age-appropriate agreement of the child, which you seek even when a parent gives permission. Mixing these up is the commonest exam and bedside error. [1]

Two settings use this skill. In sensitive clinical services — contraception, sexually transmitted infection care, mental-health and substance-use treatment — many jurisdictions allow a minor to consent in their own right under statute, while capacity still governs services the statute does not cover. [14] [13]

In research, the bar is deliberately higher. You usually need the young person's assent, their parent's permission, and the approval of a research ethics committee. The committee exists precisely because an investigator's interests and a participant's interests can diverge, and because research offers the participant no guaranteed personal benefit. [2] [3]

Confidentiality is the duty to keep what a patient or participant tells you private. With adolescents that duty is conditional, not absolute: you promise privacy, and you are honest about its limits — you will act if the young person is at serious risk of harm, if someone else is being hurt, or if the law requires you to report. The same conditional frame governs a clinical visit and a research interview. [10] [11]

The clinical task is not to recite statutes. It is to run an encounter in which a young person feels safe enough to enrol honestly in research or to accept sensitive care, while you hold the lawful limits and act when safety demands it. [1] [2]

Classification

Begin with the question in front of you, then classify who authorises the decision and how confidential the content is. [1]

Who authorises participation or care

[1] [2] [14]

The categories overlap. A young person may be capable of consenting to contraception and, the same week, be approached for a research study that needs separate assent and parental permission. Judge each decision on its own merits. [14] [1]

The three elements of ethical research enrolment

The single most testable structure on this topic is the three-element model: an adolescent's valid research enrolment usually requires the child's assent, the parent's permission, and the research-ethics-committee's approval. All three protect something different — the young person's developing autonomy, the family's legitimate protective role, and the participant against a study that may not serve them. [3] [4]

A research ethics committee — an institutional review board or research ethics committee — exists to judge the risk-benefit balance, the adequacy of information given, the privacy of study data, and whether a waiver of parental permission is justified. It is the authority that may lift the permission requirement, not the individual clinician. [2] [6]

[2] [6] [1]

How confidential the content is

Sensitive content — sexual behaviour, substance use, mental health, abuse, and the fact of research participation itself — demands extra protection. Routine care carries standard confidentiality; sensitive care and sensitive-data research carry heightened duties because a leak causes disproportionate harm. [11] [12]

Epidemiology & Risk Factors

Confidentiality failure is common, and it is measurable. When Ford randomised adolescents to receive an explicit confidentiality assurance, the young people were more willing to disclose sensitive information and to say they would seek future health care. The assurance changed behaviour, not just comfort. This is the empirical backbone for treating confidentiality as clinical quality, and it generalises directly to research: young people who trust that sensitive answers stay private give more honest self-report. [10] [11]

The flip side is the risk. When a young person expects that parents or the system will see everything, sexual activity, substance use, suicidality and abuse stay hidden — and so does honest participation in studies that ask about them. [10] [13]

For research specifically, mandatory parental permission can suppress or distort enrolment. Studies of sexual behaviour, substance use and mental health lose the very adolescents most at risk if a parent must be told, and those who do enrol may give sanitised answers. This is the central ethical argument for a waiver of parental permission in minimal-risk, sensitive-data research. [6] [2]

[1] [10] [2]

Some groups carry extra risk when confidentiality is weak. Sexual-minority and gender-diverse youth, young people seeking sexual and reproductive care, those with mental-health or substance concerns, those experiencing abuse, and those in foster care or youth-justice settings are all disproportionately exposed to the consequences of a breach — and disproportionately needed in the research that studies them. [11] [9]

Modern electronic records have added new failure modes. Patient portals, after-visit summaries, billing statements and insurance explanation-of-benefit letters can surface contraception, mental-health, sexual-health content and even the fact of study participation to a parent's view by default. [12] [11]

Pathophysiology

You do not need a neuroscience lecture to consent a young person well. You do need a working model of why capacity and confidentiality behave the way they do across both settings. [7]

Adolescent development brings rising autonomy alongside still-maturing cognitive control. The reward system matures ahead of the prefrontal regulatory system, which supports identity and exploration and also explains why young people can reason soundly yet act on impulse under peer or affective pressure. This is why capacity is judged on understanding and reasoning, not on a single age. [7]

Capacity is task-specific. The same 14-year-old may be able to assent to a short, low-risk survey and yet not to weigh a complex interventional trial, and may consent to contraception but not to a major procedure. Stakes, complexity, reversibility and the time available to decide all shift the bar, so re-assess at each new decision rather than stamping "capable" once. [1] [7]

The trust–disclosure chain is the real mechanism, and it operates identically in a clinic and a research interview. A young person who trusts that sensitive content stays private will tell you about a coercive partner, daily vomiting, or a suicide plan, and will answer a study questionnaire truthfully. Strip away that trust — through a breach, a parent in the room, or a portal leak — and the information stops. You cannot treat, and you cannot study, what you never hear. [10] [5]

[10] [7] [5]

Research participation doubles the confidentiality stakes. In a sensitive-services visit the young person risks disclosure of a sensitive answer; in a research study they risk that answer plus the act of being asked about it — and, often, the very fact that they enrolled. This is why study-data confidentiality is not an optional extra but part of the consent. [5] [8]

Trauma and adversity change how authority and information-giving feel. A young person who has been controlled or abused may experience even routine consent questions as a threat. Trauma-informed pacing — explaining why you ask, giving choices where you can — is part of consent skill in both settings. [11] [9]

Clinical Presentation

Consent and confidentiality rarely announce themselves. They surface as small moments inside an ordinary visit or a recruitment conversation. [1]

The organised encounter looks calm. You greet the young person first, set a joint agenda, explain the plan for private time, state the confidentiality limits, assess capacity or seek assent for the decision at hand, give information with teach-back, and close with a shared plan — and, for research, confirm ethics approval and the right to withdraw. [11] [4]

The high-risk patterns hide inside "well" visits and willing recruits. A parent answers every question. A young person is vague about why they came, or asks that something "not go in the notes." A capable adolescent suddenly refuses a study the parent wants them in. A portal message about contraception lands in a parent's inbox. Each is a presentation of a consent or confidentiality problem. [10] [12] [1]

A covert confidentiality worry may show as reluctance to be examined, refusal of a test, or a whispered request that a parent not be told. In research, the analogue is hesitation about who will see the data, or a wish to withdraw that the young person is too embarrassed to voice. These are cues to create private space and ask, gently, what the worry is. [11] [5]

The capacity question presents as a decision a young person is making — or refusing — that you are unsure they fully understand. Your job is to assess, not to assume. A neat uniform and a cooperative manner do not prove capacity for a complex trial any more than a disability proves its absence. [1] [7]

Differential Diagnosis

In this topic the differential is less "which disease" and more "what is really going on with this decision or this secrecy," in either a clinical or a research encounter. [1]

[1] [5] [11] [6]

Separate genuine lack of capacity from disagreement, fear and unmet information needs. A young person who refuses a study may be exercising autonomy, may be terrified, or may simply not have been told what they needed. The remedy differs for each. [7] [5]

Separate appropriate privacy-seeking from secrecy that signals risk. Wanting contraception kept from a parent can be healthy autonomy; wanting fresh self-harm marks kept secret is a safety signal that may need an override. The same judgement applies to a research answer that hints at abuse. [11] [10]

Clinical & Bedside Assessment

1. Open and set the frame

Greet the young person first, then the parent. Set a joint agenda. For a sensitive visit, explain private time; for research, state plainly that taking part is voluntary, that it is separate from their clinical care, and that they can stop at any time. [11] [4]

2. Say the confidentiality script aloud

"What we talk about privately stays private, unless I become worried that you are not safe, that someone else is being hurt, or the law says I must act. If that happens, I will tell you what I need to do and we will plan it together as much as possible." For research, add how study data will be stored, who can see it, and that the same limits apply inside the study. Then check the young person understands. [11] [10]

3. Create time alone

Ask the parent to step out. If they resist, normalise it: this is standard adolescent care, like teaching self-management. For a research conversation, private time is just as important — a young person cannot freely decide with a parent watching. [11] [5]

4. Present a research study developmentally

Walk the young person through the study in plain language: the purpose, what they would have to do, the real risks and discomforts, the alternatives (including not taking part), the fact that it is voluntary, and their right to withdraw at any time without penalty or any change in their clinical care. This is the research information sheet spoken aloud, then checked back. [2] [4]

5. Assess decision-making capacity and assent

Walk the young person through the decision and check four things: do they understand the proposed care or study and its alternatives, retain the information long enough to decide, weigh it in their own situation, and communicate a stable choice? Use teach-back. For research, assess assent appropriate to age and maturity, and treat a young child's dissent as usually decisive even when parents give permission. [1] [3]

6. Assess voluntariness

Ask gently who else is involved in the decision and whether anyone is pressuring them. Screen for coercion and intimate partner violence without destroying rapport. In research, check that no incentive — money, gift card, school credit — is large enough to amount to undue influence. A capable choice made under threat or excessive inducement is not voluntary. [11] [8]

7. Give information and check understanding

Use plain language matched to the young person's stage. Cover benefits, real risks, alternatives, and what happens if they do nothing — or, for research, that doing nothing is always allowed. Confirm understanding before you accept consent or assent. [1] [4]

8. Involve interpreters and support people correctly

Use trained interpreters for any language need. Family members are not equivalent interpreters for sensitive or confidential content, because they are the people the young person may be keeping things from — and using them in research can itself breach confidentiality. [11] [9]

9. Document the reasoning

Record that you assessed capacity or sought assent and on what basis, what information you gave, that consent (or assent plus permission) was obtained, your confidentiality reasoning, and — for research — that ethics approval was confirmed. Documentation is part of the medicine, not paperwork. [1] [11]

Investigations

There are no laboratory tests for capacity, assent or confidentiality. The "investigations" here are the structured aids and contextual checks that surround a capacity judgement and a research-consent decision. [1]

Capacity assessment is primarily a clinical interview, as above. A mental-state or cognitive assessment helps when depression, intoxication, delirium or an acute psychiatric illness may be clouding the decision — in either a sensitive-service or a research-consent context. Treat the reversible driver where you can, then re-assess. [1] [7]

Validated screening tools sit around the capacity work without replacing it. A positive mood, substance or safety screen tells you a young person needs help; it does not by itself prove or disprove capacity for a separate decision, or fitness to enrol in a study. [13] [11]

Pregnancy, STI and drug testing are indicated by the history and follow local consent rules for that service. Order entry, portal results and billing can themselves leak confidential content, so decide how the result will be returned before you order it — the same care applies to research samples and data. [11] [12]

Ethics-committee and legal consultation is the right "investigation" when the stakes are high — a waiver of parental permission, a capable minor refusing life-sustaining treatment, a foster-care research dispute, or a genuine conflict between a capable adolescent and parents. Do not absorb that risk alone. [6] [9]

Management — Resuscitation

A confidential encounter can become an emergency in one sentence of disclosure, in a clinic or a research interview. [10]

1. Stabilise physiology first if needed: ABCDE, glucose, intoxication, overdose complications. [11]
2. Secure immediate safety: do not leave the young person alone, remove means if safe, and escalate to emergency department or crisis teams per your local pathway. [11]
3. Override ethically: tell the young person what you must share and why; share the minimum necessary with the people who need it; involve parent, carer and safeguarding services as required; and document who was informed and why. [11] [10]

In an emergency where usual consent cannot be obtained, provide life-saving treatment under the emergency or best-interests doctrine, then return to consent and information-sharing as soon as the young person can engage. [1] [14]

When the disclosure arises inside a research study, the duty to act on risk does not change, but the mechanics do: follow the study's safety and reporting plan, notify the investigator and ethics committee as the protocol requires, and protect the rest of the study data. [8] [6]

Management — Definitive & Stepwise

[1] [11] [2]

Read the figure like this: the override is a branch, not a betrayal. Done well — told, proportionate, documented — it can preserve the relationship in both a clinic and a research encounter. [11]

The routine consent pathway

1. Orient and agenda-set with both parties; for research, name it as research and separate it from care. [11] [4]
2. Create time alone and state conditional confidentiality, including how study data are protected. [11] [10]
3. Establish authority — statute-based minor consent or capacity for a sensitive service; assent plus parental permission plus ethics approval for research. [14] [2]
4. Give information with teach-back; for research cover purpose, procedures, risks, alternatives, voluntariness and the right to withdraw. [1] [3]
5. Document the reasoning and confirm ethics approval for research. [1] [11]
6. Protect records — portal, billing, explanation-of-benefit, and study datasets — using local sensitive-note and confidential-content workflows. [12] [11]

When a research ethics committee may waive parental permission

A waiver is justified when the study is minimal risk, the waiver will not adversely affect the young person's rights or welfare, the research could not practicably be carried out without it, and the data are sensitive in a way that parental notification would distort the results or endanger the participant. [2] [6]

The classic examples are anonymous surveys of sexual behaviour, substance use or mental health, where requiring a parent's signature would drive away exactly the adolescents the study needs to reach. Even with a waiver, you still seek the young person's assent, protect their confidentiality, and offer help when risk surfaces. [6] [2]

Service- and study-specific consent

• Contraception and sexual health: minors can often consent in their own right under statute for contraception and STI testing and treatment. Assess capacity where the statute does not cover the service, and plan how results and any prescribing will be returned confidentially before you act. [14] [13]
• Mental-health and substance-use care and research: many jurisdictions allow minor consent for treatment; watch for the illness itself impairing capacity, and re-assess as the young person recovers. [1] [11]
• HIV-prevention and biomedical research: adolescent participation is ethically defensible and scientifically necessary, but it demands careful capacity assessment, age-appropriate assent, and a confidentiality plan that survives the recruitment setting. [8] [6]
• Research on sensitive topics: honour the right to withdraw at any time without penalty or any effect on care, and treat dissent from a younger child as decisive. [3] [4]

Follow-up intensity

Low-risk, clear decisions made by safe, capable young people need routine confidential follow-up. New disclosures, contested consent decisions, or incomplete assessments need early review in days to weeks. Active risk demands same-day crisis or safeguarding pathways. [11] [1]

Specific Subtypes & Scenarios

Minimal-risk sensitive-data survey. An anonymous questionnaire on sexual behaviour or substance use is the textbook case for a waiver of parental permission. You confirm ethics approval, obtain the young person's assent, explain anonymity and the limits of confidentiality, and provide referral pathways in case the questions surface distress. [6] [2]

Interventional or greater-than-minimal-risk research. Here parental permission plus the young person's assent is the default, and the ethics committee scrutinises the risk-benefit balance closely. A young person's dissent usually prevails even when parents consent, and capacity for the more complex decision is assessed specifically. [3] [2]

HIV-prevention research in adolescents. Nakalega and colleagues frame the ethical considerations: adolescent participation is necessary because the disease affects them, yet it demands protection of autonomy, confidentiality and the right to withdraw within recruitment settings that may themselves be coercive. [8] [6]

Research participation of adolescents in foster care. Francis highlights the layered complexity: fragmented or contested permission authority, higher background risk, and the need for an independent advocate or guardian ad litem where the usual parent is absent or conflicted. Clarify who holds permission authority before recruiting. [9] [1]

Capable minor refuses life-sustaining treatment. This is the hardest scenario and can surface in either a research-refusal or clinical context. Assess capacity in detail — understanding, retention, weighing, voluntariness, stability over time. Slow down, involve ethics and legal teams, and treat any treatable driver of the refusal. [1] [7]

Reproductive and sexual-health care. Contraception, STI testing and treatment, pregnancy and emergency contraception commonly fall under statute-based minor consent. Capacity still matters for services the statute does not cover, and confidential return of results must be planned in advance. [14] [11]

Gender-diverse youth in research and care. Valid consent, careful capacity assessment and confidentiality are central, especially where family rejection is a real risk. Keep the young person's chosen name and pronouns in the record appropriately, and recognise that requiring parental permission for research on gender can itself be harmful. [11] [1]

Emergency, ward and inpatient settings. In an emergency treat first under best interests, then return to consent. On the ward, create private time deliberately — parents and roommates are usually present, and confidential content will not surface on its own, whether the encounter is clinical or a research interview. [1] [11]

Looked-after, justice-involved, migrant and refugee youth. Clarify who holds consent or permission authority before treating or recruiting — it may be a guardian, a state authority or the young person themselves. Reconstruct history actively, and never use family members or carers as interpreters for sensitive content. [9] [1]

Complications & Pitfalls

• Skipping private time and the confidentiality statement "because they seem fine." [11] [10]
• Promising absolute secrecy you cannot keep, which destroys trust and deters both future care and honest research participation. [10] [1]
• Applying a blanket parental-permission rule to minimal-risk sensitive-data research, which suppresses and distorts enrolment. [6] [2]
• Treating capacity as age-gated rather than task-specific, causing error in both directions. [1] [7]
• Failing to confirm ethics-committee approval or a data-protection plan before recruiting an adolescent. [2] [8]
• Letting a portal, billing or explanation-of-benefit leak expose sensitive content or study participation. [12] [11]
• Using a financial incentive large enough to be undue influence, or ignoring coercion or intimate partner violence. [8] [1]
• Conflating capacity with legal authority, which misframes the whole adolescent decision-making debate. [1] [7]
• Overriding confidentiality silently or disproportionately, which erodes the relationship. [11] [10]
• Failing to re-assess capacity after a change in mental state, circumstance, or study phase. [1] [7]

Prognosis & Disposition

In this topic, prognosis means the trajectory of trust, safety and autonomy, not a disease stage. [1]

Routine disposition: a clear, low-risk decision — clinical or research — made by a capable young person who is safe, understands the plan, and can re-access care or withdraw from the study. Plan routine confidential follow-up. [1] [11]

Early-review disposition: a new disclosure, a contested consent decision, or an incomplete assessment that needs return with trust built. Bring them back in days to weeks, not months. [11] [1]

Urgent disposition: active suicide risk, assault, abuse, medical instability, or severe intoxication with impaired capacity. Use emergency, crisis or safeguarding pathways the same day. [11] [10]

Safety-net explicitly: who to call tonight, when to come back sooner, and how confidentiality will work with parents after any override. Close the loop after ethics, legal, mental-health, sexual-health or social-work involvement, and confirm the study's data and withdrawal processes are clear. [11] [1]

Over time, disposition should build the young person's capacity, autonomy and research literacy. Late-adolescent care should include planning for consent to transfer information to adult services at transition, including sensitive records and any research data. [1] [7]

Special Populations

Indigenous adolescents. Cultural safety and respect for family and community decision-making norms belong in both the clinical and the research consent conversation. Racism is a health exposure; use local pathways, culturally safe services, and research governance that includes community oversight. [11] [1]

Migrant and refugee youth. Use trained interpreters, never family members, for sensitive content. Trauma-informed pacing and catch-up of missed care matter, and research information sheets must be at an accessible reading level in the young person's language. [11] [9]

Out-of-home care and youth justice. Clarify consent and permission authority, assume incomplete records and higher mental-health and sexual-health risk, and reconstruct history actively. Research recruitment here needs special ethics attention and an advocate where authority is contested. [9] [1]

Gender and sexual diversity. Confidentiality, chosen name and pronouns, and tailored care and recruitment are central. Watch for family rejection, bullying and minority stress, and recognise that parental-permission rules can themselves be harmful in research on gender and sexuality. [11] [1]

Disability and neurodiversity. Adapt communication and capacity assessment to ability, and use supported decision-making for both care and research. Avoid the diagnostic overshadowing that wrongly assumes incapacity. [1] [7]

Chronic disease and technology dependence. Build autonomy and plan the transition of consent authority and information-sharing to adult care over years, including for longitudinal research participation. [1] [11]

Rural and remote. Small-community dual relationships threaten confidentiality. Create private space deliberately, including on telehealth where a parent may be off-camera, in both clinical and research encounters. [11] [1]

Pregnant and parenting adolescents. Layered capacity applies: they may be deciding for themselves and, after birth, for their own child, and may be eligible for pregnancy-related research that needs its own careful consent. Keep safeguarding assessment in view. [14] [11]

Evidence, Guidelines & Regional Differences

The confidentiality assurance evidence. Ford's randomised trial showed that an explicit assurance increased adolescents' willingness to disclose sensitive information and to seek future care. This is the empirical backbone for treating confidentiality as clinical quality, and it underwrites honest research self-report by the same mechanism. [10] [11]

The research-consent framework. Santelli's 1995 Society for Adolescent Medicine position paper set the modern guidelines for adolescent health research, and Wendler mapped the theory and practice of assent. Grady gave voice to adolescents themselves — first on assent, then on how young participants actually describe research — showing that adolescents can reason about research when information is presented well. [2] [3] [4] [5]

When consent rather than assent applies. Hein argued that informed consent, rather than assent, is appropriate in children from about the age of twelve, drawing on developmental evidence about competence — a useful viva-level point about the boundary between assent and capacity-based consent. [7] [1]

Waiver of parental permission. Bauman laid out the ethical and legal case for waiving parental permission in HIV-prevention research among adolescents, and Nakalega extended the reasoning to biomedical HIV-prevention research more broadly. Francis addressed the layered authority problems of recruiting minors in foster care. Together these map when permission can ethically be set aside. [6] [8] [9]

Sensitive services and contemporary guidance. Santelli's work on discussing sensitive topics with young people, Dickens on adolescents and consent to treatment, the AAP 2024 confidentiality policy, and English on the Cures Act together frame sensitive-services consent and the new electronic-record failure modes. [13] [14] [11] [12]

[1] [11] [12]

State the principle, and check local law and your ethics committee's rules. Do not invent a universal consent age, a universal reporting threshold, or a universal waiver rule — they do not exist. [1] [2]

Exam Pearls

• Open every answer with capacity + information + voluntariness, then the conditional confidentiality script — then, for research, assent plus parental permission plus ethics approval. [1] [11]
• Adolescent research enrolment usually needs all three: the young person's assent, parental permission, and research-ethics-committee approval. [2] [3]
• A waiver of parental permission is granted by the ethics committee, not the clinician, for minimal-risk studies where parental notification would distort the data or endanger the young person. [6] [2]
• Capacity is task-specific, not age-gated — assess this decision. [1] [7]
• Sensitive services — contraception, STI, mental health, substance use — commonly fall under statute-based minor consent; capacity still matters where the statute is silent. [14] [13]
• An adolescent can withdraw from research at any time without penalty or loss of clinical care; a younger child's dissent usually prevails even when parents permit. [3] [4]
• Research doubles the confidentiality stakes — the sensitive answer plus the act of being asked. [5] [8]
• An override is the minimum necessary, told to the young person, and documented; study data stay protected by the ethics-committee plan. [11] [10]
• Never use family members as interpreters for sensitive or research content. [11] [9]
• Portal, billing and explanation-of-benefit leaks are the modern failure modes examiners reward — name the principle, not invented statutory ages. [12] [11]

[2] [3] [11]

References

1. [1]Katz AL Informed Consent in Decision-Making in Pediatric Practice. Pediatrics, 2016.PMID 27456510
2. [2]Santelli JS Guidelines for adolescent health research: a position paper of the society for adolescent medicine. The Journal of adolescent health : official publication of the Society for Adolescent Medicine, 1995.PMID 8924431
3. [3]Wendler DS Assent in paediatric research: theoretical and practical considerations. Journal of medical ethics, 2006.PMID 16574878
4. [4]Grady C Assent in research: the voices of adolescents. The Journal of adolescent health : official publication of the Society for Adolescent Medicine, 2014.PMID 24630932
5. [5]Grady C Adolescent Research Participants' Descriptions of Medical Research. AJOB empirical bioethics, 2016.PMID 27004235
6. [6]Bauman LJ Whether to Waive Parental Permission in HIV Prevention Research Among Adolescents: Ethical and Legal Considerations. The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 2020.PMID 32342775
7. [7]Hein IM Informed consent instead of assent is appropriate in children from the age of twelve: Policy implications of new findings on children's competence to consent to clinical research. BMC medical ethics, 2015.PMID 26553304
8. [8]Nakalega R Ethical considerations for involving adolescents in biomedical HIV prevention research. BMC medical ethics, 2021.PMID 34556099
9. [9]Francis JKR Research Participation of Minor Adolescents in Foster Care. Journal of pediatric and adolescent gynecology, 2021.PMID 33333259
10. [10]Ford CA Influence of physician confidentiality assurances on adolescents' willingness to disclose information and seek future health care. A randomized controlled trial. JAMA, 1997.PMID 9307357
11. [11]Chung RJ Confidentiality in the Care of Adolescents: Policy Statement. Pediatrics, 2024.PMID 38646690
12. [12]English A Adolescent Consent and Confidentiality: Complexities in Context of the 21st Century Cures Act. Pediatrics, 2022.PMID 35531643
13. [13]Santelli JS Discussion of Potentially Sensitive Topics With Young People. Pediatrics, 2019.PMID 30651304
14. [14]Dickens BM Adolescents and consent to treatment. International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, 2005.PMID 15847892