Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2020 Jan 23;15(1):e0228142. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0228142

Young women’s reproductive health conversations: Roles of maternal figures and clinical practices

Nicole K Richards 1,2,3, Elizabeth Crockett 4, Christopher P Morley 1,2,5, Brooke A Levandowski 1,6,*
Editor: Whitney S Rice7
PMCID: PMC6977719  PMID: 31971983

Abstract

Objective

To explore the role of clinical providers and mothers on young women’s ability to have confidential, candid reproductive health conversations with their providers.

Methods

We conducted 14 focus groups with 48 women aged 15–28 years (n = 9), and 32 reproductive healthcare workers (n = 5). Focus groups were audio recorded and transcribed. Data were analyzed using inductive coding and thematic analyses. We examined findings through the lens of paternalism, a theory that illustrates adults’ role in children’s autonomy and wellbeing.

Results

Mothers have a substantial impact on young women’s health values, knowledge, and empowerment. Young women reported bringing information from their mothers into patient-provider health discussions. Clinical best practices included intermingled components of office policies, state laws, and clinical guidelines, which supported health workers’ actions to have confidential conversations. There were variations in how health workers engaged young women in a confidential conversation within the exam room.

Conclusions

Both young women and health workers benefit from situations in which health workers firmly ask the parent to leave the exam room for a private conversation with the patient. Young women reported this improves their comfort in asking the questions they need to make the best decision for themselves. Clinic leadership needs to ensure that confidentiality surrounding young women’s reproductive health is uniform throughout their practice and integrated into patient flow.

Introduction

A variety of factors, ranging from clinical best practices to influential parental perspectives, enable an environment for young women to make informed sexual health decisions. Clinical best practice includes incorporating recommendations from professional organizations and legal restrictions. Professional organizations including Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine (SAHM), American Congress of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG), American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP), American Medical Association, and many more have advocated for providing a confidential space for young patients to explore topics, usually sexual health-oriented, with their clinician [14] which, in 2002, resulted in an amendment to HIIPA that further protected minor privacy in the healthcare setting [5]. SAHM, ACOG, and AAFP recommend providing confidentiality in the form of private conversations as well as billing and medical records to minors to encourage autonomy, healthcare utilization, and sensitive conversations (1–3). SAHM and AAFP recommend providers discuss the importance of privacy with patients and their family, and support communication between minors and their guardians (1,3). ACOG urges providers to be familiar with their state’s statutes so office procedures may protect adolescent privacy and encourages provider advocacy for mitigation of state policies that hinder the confidentiality of minors (2). AAP supports adolescent reproductive health confidentiality, specifying that private provider-minor conversations establish rapport and lead to more comprehensive sexual health information and contraceptive care [6].

State laws that limit the ability to consent based on age or legal status create obstacles for providers in ensuring minors’ privacy in the healthcare setting [7]. Further, it is not always clear to adolescents what rights they have to confidentiality [8], which differs by state [9]. In New York State, when a minor can consent to treatment, their confidentiality is maintained. However, only minors that have a special status (e.g. pregnant, emancipated) are permitted to make all or most of their own health decisions while other “mature” minors (those deemed to understand benefits and risks of medical care options) can consent to certain services such as reproductive, mental health, addiction, and sexual assault treatments [10]. Confidentiality protocols not only preserve young women’s privacy but extend to facilitate young women’s comfortability using reproductive healthcare services [11] and divulging sensitive information [12].

Though clinical guidelines support patient confidentiality and rights within a clinical encounter, providers may also consider the role of parents in young women’s health decisions. Due to power dynamics and providers’ role as medical knowledge gatekeepers, reproductive medicalization is capable of coercing women’s health decisions [13,14]. The mothers’ third-party advocacy in the reproductive healthcare setting may deter patient exploitation. Research has shown the important role of parental figures in influencing adolescent sexual health behaviors [15,16] and parent-based sexual education successfully leading to increased communication within the parent-child dyad [17]. Not surprisingly, mothers reported the importance of maternal-adolescent conversations about contraception [18] and were identified by young women as a key player in the role of contraceptive method choice, influencing intrauterine contraception uptake [19]. Moreover, evidence has shown that positive maternal relationships were a protective factor against inconsistent condom use [20].

Therefore, while evidence exists of positive maternal influences, challenges remain in the context of familial conversations about sexual activity and birth control. Adolescents reported that their families’ attitudes toward sex were more negative than their own as well as their peers’ attitudes [21]. In addition, parents report hesitation in discussing sexual health with their children due to their lack of confidence in sex knowledge and concern that discussions encourage sexual behavior [22]. These hesitations can also result in parents making uninformed reproductive health choices for their daughter. For example, young women commonly forego the HPV vaccination due to parental cultural beliefs or mistrust of the medical community [23].

This article is a result of secondary analyses of qualitative data from a study conducted to determine young women and health workers’ recommendations to improve contraceptive counseling conversations. Data analyses revealed an inductive theme on how mothers influence their daughters’ sexual health decisions. What began to emerge is a picture of paternalism–in the broad parental sense–articulating the complex underlying forces surrounding confidentiality and decision making of young women in the healthcare setting from the perspective of young women and their healthcare teams. Paternalism refers to how policy and norms hinder minors’ individual freedom with the intention of preserving wellbeing, and as described by Cohen, “allows adults ownership of children's higher level interests and ultimately segregates children, confining them to the private realm of the family and excluding them from public affairs.” [24]. Harms that stem from parental authority upon the minor span a wide variety of illness categories, including mental health [25], vaccines [26], blood transfusion decisions [27], general development of adult autonomy [28], and contraception counseling [29]. In addition to parents’ paternalistic influence, healthcare providers also engage in swaying patient decisions through medical paternalism. That is, providers have the power to offer or omit information to a patient with the intention of promoting a certain outcome regardless of the patient’s preferences [30]. Thus, a young person’s health choices can be manipulated by opposing views of what parents and health professionals think is best for the patient.

Despite recent calls from AAP to amplify the role of the parent in pediatric treatment [31], this is largely a hedge against medical paternalism imposed upon families, as opposed to an argument about the possible harms of paternalism that is realized when parents make decisions for people who have demonstrable autonomy and decision-making capacity, as is often the case with late adolescent patients, and is assumed in the case where the patient has achieved age of majority (typically 18 years of age). Clinical encounters must follow rigorous patient-centered decision-making models to mitigate the power of paternalism and medical paternalism in patient’s bodily autonomy [30]. This paper extends the scope of paternalism by including the implicit influence of parents on young women, regardless of adult status. Due to this study’s participants expressing particularities of maternal influence in the reproductive healthcare setting, we focus specifically on mothers’ role in the reproductive health decisions of their daughters.

Methods

This collaborative community based participatory research included a Community Advisory Board (CAB) and hour-long focus groups in a central New York State urban setting. The CAB participated in ten meetings over a three-year period, from designing the research plan to planning actionable steps based on study findings [32]. These meetings identified local contraception counseling dynamics, developed and revised focus group questions, and assisted with knowledge translation. More detail about the CAB’s role in this study is available (32).

We conducted seven focus groups with a purposive sample of 48 young women (defined as those aged 15–28 years, to include college-aged women) who will have or who have had contraceptive conversations with health workers. We recruited participants through personal communication from a local sexual health educator (who was also a CAB member), and fliers at a local community agency and community college- both of which also served as focus group locations. Flyers and consent forms contained information about participant inclusion criteria, and researchers verbally confirmed with participants that they will have or have had birth control conversations with a provider. In the first five focus groups, we stratified women by age (15–19,20–24), and race/ethnicity (White non-Hispanic, African American non-Hispanic, and Hispanic [White, African American, other]) (Table 1) to examine differences within a community that faces racial and ethnic disparities in sexual and reproductive health such as teen pregnancy and poor birth outcomes [33]. Women self-identified age, race, and ethnicity. As preliminary data analyses did not find differences in deductive themes by groups, we conducted two final focus groups at a local community college with participants aged 18–28 years, with no racial or ethnicity distinctions. We specifically probed about the influence of maternal figures and factors that made the clinical visit comfortable. We conducted five focus groups with 32 health workers who play a role in contraceptive counseling. Health workers were recruited via CAB connections and practiced in community health and outpatient settings, holding positions that ranged from doulas to intake personnel to Nurse Practitioners. All focus groups contained 2–9 participants. All participants gave verbal informed consent to maintain anonymity; we also obtained verbal informed consent from a parent/legal guardian of those under 18 years old. The consent form contained information about the research (facilitator’s experience and study aims), accommodations, and contact information of the research institution. After discussing the consent form, no participants refused or discontinued involvement in this study. This consent process and content was approved by the university’s institutional review board.

Table 1. Demographic information on young women focus group participants.

Young Women White (Non-Hispanic) (n) African American (n) Hispanic (n)
Aged 15–19 -- 6 5
Aged 20–24 3
10 6
Aged 18–28*
27

*Participants aged 18–28 were recruited after initially stratified focus groups, as initial results did not indicate a different experience between race/ethnicity.

Focus groups were facilitated by a female epidemiologist (BAL) and documented by a female graduate research assistant (NKR). Both received training in qualitative methods prior to the focus group facilitation. The facilitator verbally provided a background of her previous research initiatives to participants. Focus group questions were revised by the CAB and the resulting focus group guide was approved by the IRB. We asked young women where they obtained information about general health, sexual health, and relationships. We also asked both sets of focus groups about their positive and negative experiences having clinical contraceptive conversations and their recommendations for improving those experiences. We documented field notes and debriefed after each focus group. A hired transcriptionist transcribed all recordings. Transcripts were not reviewed by participants to avoid further participant labor and disruption of the focus groups’ observed social process [34]. We coded and analyzed using inductive and deductive coding and thematic analyses (NVivo v.11). Thematic analysis proceeded in four steps of coding, clustering, subsuming particulars into the general, and confirming. Coding refers to making detailed categories for quotations in direct response to focus group questions or that emerge from participant dialogue. Clustering involves grouping codes of similar themes. Subsuming particulars into the general establishes broad themes while confirming reached consensus on themes between coders [35,36]. Three researchers developed a codebook using an iterative process. NVivo’s coding comparison query was used to ensure coding fidelity. Various features of NVivo (examples: word trees, dynamic models, node summary) were used to document the analytical pathway and identify saturation and discrepancies in coding for discussion. The paternalism theory emerged from saturated discussions of mothers within a code entitled “Friends and Family”. Thus, the sub-code “Mother” was developed, including all quotations where a participant mentioned the role of a maternal figure.

Focus group findings were presented multiple times to the CAB during the study period; their interpretations influenced study conclusions and future directions. The CAB included those who provide contraception services, youth, public health professionals, and additional community members [32]. CAB members discussed ethical dilemmas of including and excluding maternal figures from reproductive health appointments and expanded on mothers’ role in reproductive health outside of the healthcare setting. The insights of diverse community members contributed to the interpretation of the data from the perception of sexual health advocates, mothers, and youth. This study was approved by a Medical University’s Institutional Review Board.

Results

Young women and health workers discussed the complications of confidentiality and how these factors impacted patient-provider reproductive health. Young women considered mothers as a source of information and access to healthcare; however, both young women and health workers shared concerns of incorrect sexual health information stemming from these conversations. Moreover, young women and health workers valued patient privacy in the healthcare setting, but health workers were hesitant in their ability to remove parents from sensitive conversations. Clinical best practices included intermingled components of clinical office policies, state laws, and clinical guidelines, which influenced the ability for patients and providers to have confidential conversations. CAB members reaffirmed these findings and offered potential solutions.

Maternal figures as an information source

Young women considered maternal figures as a source of advice, information, and resources. They reported that their mothers helped connect them to community and healthcare resources. Acquiring sexual education from community and school settings was dependent on their parents’ permission and support. As a 15–19-year-old African American woman stated, “I took all of my classes here [local community center], and I took like one when I was in 7th grade maybe. My mom always made me come here…so I used to come to all of them here. Even if they were repetitive, I still came.”

Young women discussed their perceived validity of the information they received from maternal conversations. Many had high regard for their maternal figures’ health advice, citing life experiences and professions (Licensed Practical Nurse, Registered Nurse, etc.) that made them credible. Though most valued their mothers’ health information, some questioned the validity of information that maternal figures provided about sexual education and advice due to the dynamics of the mother-daughter relationship. One African American 20–24 year old explained, “[My mother’s advice] doesn’t ever make sense, because I know what she’s saying is just for my sake, you know. So it’s just like, ‘Are you telling the truth or you just want me to hear it?’ you know?”

It is important to note that while the majority of young women and health workers reported that having confidential sexual health conversations was desirable to ensure that young women had the information and nonjudgmental space to make sexual health decisions, some examples were given of maternal figures playing supportive roles in sexual health. Some shared stories of observed mother-daughter interactions surrounding health and commented on the comfortability of these situations. Health workers also noted that parents called to provide helpful information and ask questions to support their daughters: “An example [is]… Mom calling to say, ‘I know she’s not taking them regularly as she supposed to.’ And there’s a concern knowing that she’s either definitely or most likely sexually active but not using the birth control that has been provided [accurately].”Also, some young women found comfort in their mother’s presence in the exam room. For example, a white 20-24-year-old woman stated, “I’m not good with questions, so that’s why I usually have somebody with me at the doctors, like my mom”.

However, the majority of health workers recognized that young women confide in and seek advice from them, as people young women trust and respect. Health workers discussed the lack of parental education on the benefits and risks of contraceptive methods, especially new methods and the updated IUD options, or even how to be a reproductive health consumer. Several health workers confirmed young women’s concerns of misinformation that they addressed and corrected during clinical visits. One health worker reported, "Some parents don’t have that conversation [about sexual education and patient self-efficacy] because they’re not expecting their child to have sex at a young age. It happens but they don’t want their child to be the ones doing it.”

Need for privacy

Young women valued their providers’ promise to ensure confidentiality. They reported trusting their providers with sensitive information, feeling supported by nurses, and more comfortable when health workers assured their protected privacy. As one college student explained, “[The provider] will ask me ‘Are you sexually active? This [is] confidential.’ I’m like, ‘Yes I am sexually active.’ Before my mom ever knew I was sexually active…that was like a peace of mind that I know my information is not going to get back to my mother because it is confidential, so I had no problem with that.”.

Many young women reported being uncomfortable talking to their maternal figures about their own sexual experiences. They feared the consequences of honest dialog such as losing their social freedom. As one 15-19-year-old African American woman said, “Even though I just turned 18, it’s like she’s [my mother] still like wants to over protect me. And it’s just uncomfortable. I’m afraid that she might say I can’t like go certain places once I tell her about what’s going on in my relationship.”

Young women expressed concern with confidentiality issues surrounding insurance and billing information. Patients asked their providers how to overcome these barriers. One college student said, “You can get those confidential services, but you do have to talk with your provider about the way that they bill”. Health workers noted that their billing staff took care in supporting patient confidentiality by ensuring that billing information would not go to parents and asking young women if there is another electronic or mailing address they could use for Explanation of Benefits forms.

Provider responsibility in preserving confidentiality

Clinical best practices include intermingled components of clinical office policies, state laws, and clinical guidelines. These components work either together or against each other to create an environment where confidential patient-provider conversations could occur. While health workers were generally aware of best practice recommendations to allow for a confidential conversation about sexual health [1,37], it became clear from focus groups with both young women and health workers that these recommendations are not uniformly implemented. Both groups reported a variety of scenarios: 1) provider firmly asks the parent to leave for a private conversation; 2) provider asks parent to leave, but allows for negotiation, after which some parents stay; and 3) provider asks the patient if they want the parent to leave in front of the parent, which results in patients either saying “yes” or “no”. The last two scenarios were particularly problematic from the standpoint of both young women and health workers. The majority of young women reported that they wanted a private clinician discussion, but negotiations and the fear of stating their desire for a confidential conversation meant that not all young women who wanted a private clinical discussion actually had one. Young women felt pressured to include their mother and thought that asking their mother to leave the providers’ office for a private conversation may indicate that they are keeping secrets. Some felt that they were unable to answer questions about sexual health truthfully when their mother was present.

In one focus group of 18–28 year old college students, several women agreed that it should be the providers’ responsibility to tell maternal figures to leave during private conversations. One stated, “My mom always gives me the stare, so… I know what answer she wants. And it’s not like I can go against it.” Another agreed, saying “The doctor should be like, ‘Alright, parent, please step out of the room,’ because if you’re like, ‘Do you want your parent to leave?’…then the parent’s like, ‘You’re hiding something from me.’ So then they like dig at you and find out…”

Health workers discussed the challenges between their ethical responsibility to ensure the patient has their confidentiality protected, and the sometimes-difficult conversation required to exclude parents from the exam room: "The teen is our patient …For parents, it’s sometimes hard to come to our office and to relinquish that [decision making] role…but when they leave our office, they’re still a child and that’s their parent, so it’s hard to say, ‘You don’t have to do what your parent wants you to do.‴

Many nurses felt strongly supported throughout their clinic to discuss contraception with every patient in a confidential manner, citing that they recognized when young women do not feel comfortable talking about sexual health with their mothers in the exam room. While in the minority, some health workers were unsure of their office procedures on the implementation of confidentiality laws. As one nurse explained, “I don’t know what’s ever discussed …I mean, I know that there are specific questions that they [MD or NP] ask the patients, but what specifically is discussed when the parent is out of the room, I don’t know, because I’ve never been in the room.”

Health workers observed that some maternal figures had strong opinions on which contraceptive method would be the best fit for their child. One health worker stated, “I think one of the problems that I’ve run into…are the very young girls that come in and say, ‘My mother says I have to get on Depo’ and they really don’t want to.’”. In response to these situations, health workers reported they focus on empowering young women to make their own individual choices, which they felt resulted in more informed reproductive health decisions. For example, one nurse mentioned “…so I tell them, ‘Come back without your mom…and we can do the appointment, you know, with just you….and we’ll find a way for you to conceal whatever [contraceptive method] it is’”.

Community Advisory Board interpretations

Overall, the CAB agreed that sexual education should begin at a young age, involve parental figures, and ensure dissemination of evidence-based information. The CAB discussed a variety of family dynamics and parental characteristics that influence how mothers contribute to the counseling experience of a young woman. They felt that youth and their parents need to be informed about federal and state laws permitting reproductive health autonomy to minors, which, in turn, could support young women’s ability to have private contraceptive conversations with their providers. Community members deliberated conflicting focus group data about if providers should request parents to leave the exam room to have a private conversation, or if providers should ask the young women to choose whether they want a private conversation. As was mirrored in the focus group data, CAB members did not achieve consensus on this topic.

The CAB discussed the benefits and shortcomings of community and school-based sexual education. Some adolescents have been excluded from community and school-based sexual education because they did not obtain permission from their guardians or have dropped out of the school system. Considering further research or development of an intervention for young women, the CAB posed the question “How do we assure parents that what we [community health educators] are teaching is accurate and beneficial to their child?” They also suggested that focus groups with guardians of minors should be conducted to understand the parental perceptions on reproductive health and sexual education.

Discussion

Paternalistic power influences young women’s ability to have confidential and effective reproductive health conversations in myriad and complex ways. As suggested in the best practice guidelines (2), young women and health workers both expressed the importance of confidential sexual health conversations, while recognizing the value of parent involvement. Maternal figures were an agent of reproductive knowledge and decisions. This concurs with literature in both national and urban settings which discussed the existing influences of peer and familial relationships on contraceptive uptake and sexual education [38,39].

We showed that young women who preferred their mothers’ presence in the reproductive health appointment felt empowered to ask the provider questions. In support of this theme, health workers highlighted the positive impacts supportive parents can have on making informed decisions. A 2010 systematic review of parental influences on adolescent contraceptive decision making discussed the importance of parental communication, connectedness, and approval in delaying sexual activity and promoting healthier sexual behaviors [15]. However, young women and health workers provided more insight on how mothers negatively influence reproductive health conversations than they did on how mothers help facilitation of sensitive information. This finding is supported by literature suggesting that confidentiality protocols improve patient comfortability and honest patient-provider dialogue [11,12]. However, this study’s contradicting findings of mothers as a facilitator or barrier to young women’s informed reproductive health decisions can be explained by paternalism’s role in parent-child agreement and concurring autonomy expectations’ impact on adolescence adjustment [28]. Since existing clinical guidelines all support protecting adolescent confidentiality, more effort needs to be made to ensure that the confidentiality of young women is prioritized and uniformly implemented [7]. Clinic leadership needs to ensure that all staff, from the nurse and clinic managers to the intake person, know their clinic’s stance on supporting young women’s rights to confidential sexual health conversations. Various strategies can be employed to integrate this value throughout the clinic, supporting efficient clinic flow.

Within the focus groups, several health workers discussed ways to have a confidential conversation or prescribe contraception to young women that they identify as having an unsupportive family network. Researchers interpreted these data as an example of the healthcare teams’ value for adolescent reproductive health privacy. These findings are similar to a national survey of obstetricians and gynecologists showing 95% of physicians would likely provide oral contraceptives to a young woman without notifying her parents [40]. Further, the CAB discussed possible solutions to avoid tension between young women and their mothers when a provider asks the patient if they would prefer a confidential conversation. The suggestion already mentioned by both young women and health workers to have time dedicated to talking to young women in private was reiterated by the CAB. By taking this approach, young women have more autonomy on choosing how they participate in reproductive health conversations.

As with all qualitative studies, these focus groups represent the thoughts and feelings of participants in one community. However, these findings identify barriers and facilitators to young women’s confidential reproductive health care and inform protocol/policy on the implementation of clinical best practices supporting adolescent confidentiality. We did not hold any focus groups with physicians, which often act as prescribers and counselors to young women. The perceptions and experience of midlevel and other health workers who were interviewed offer a valuable contribution to the literature, as they may have more opportunity to build rapport with patients due to physician time constraints. Further, this research used paternalism as an emergent theory. Therefore, inductive investigation may have missed detailed information about the maternal role in patient-provider contraception conversations. Specifically, the study design is limited by secondary analysis because it did not include paternalism driven focus group guides or focus groups with maternal figures of young women.

In addition to exploring how maternal figures and clinical best practice influences young women’s navigation of reproductive healthcare, we showed that these factors contribute to young women’s autonomy in making reproductive health decisions. Clinical recommendations about adolescent reproductive healthcare coincide with this study’s findings, highlighting the importance of the provider ensuring confidential space for having confidential sexual health conversations with young women. Though New York State law protects the reproductive health confidentiality of most adolescents [10], not all young women are given an opportunity for a private patient-provider conversation. To increase young women’s confidentiality in the healthcare setting, more research is necessary to reach other stakeholder input, including gathering the perspective of reproductive health physicians and maternal figures. Further research may be designed and implemented through theories that focus on paternalistic influences on clinical health decisions.

Conclusion

Both young women and providers benefit from situations in which providers firmly ask the parent to leave the exam room for a private conversation with the patient. Young women reported this improves their comfort in asking the questions they want, to obtain the information they need to make the best decision for themselves. Clinic leadership needs to ensure that confidentiality surrounding young women’s reproductive health is uniform throughout their practice and integrated into patient flow. Providers should implement a variation of a shared decision making model to mitigate the possibility of paternalistically imposing on young women’s health decisions [30]. These strategies can improve the efficacy of reproductive health counseling and autonomy among young women.

Supporting information

S1 File. COREQ checklist.

(PDF)

Acknowledgments

We appreciate the time and effort of focus group participants and the Community Advisory Board. We would also like to thank Desirree Pizarro, MPH for her contribution to data collection and analysis.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

This work was funded, in part, by the Society of Family Planning Research Fund [SFPRF9-CBPR2] and a Research Pilot Project Award from the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of Rochester, both of which were received by BAL. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology or the University of Rochester. The Society of Family Planning Research Fund provided support in the form of salaries for all authors (NKR, EC, CPM, BAL). Neither funder had any role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section. There was no additional external funding received for this study.

References

  • 1.Ford C, English A, Sigman G. Confidential health care for adolescents: Position paper of the society for adolescent medicine. J Adolesc Heal 2004. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Committee Opinion No. 710: Counseling Adolescents About Contraception. Obstet Gynecol 2017;130:e74–80. 10.1097/AOG.0000000000002234 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.American Academy of Family Physicians. Adolescent Health Care, Confidentiality. 2018. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.American Medical Association. Code of Medical Ethics Opinion 2.2.2. n.d.
  • 5.Standards for privacy of individually identifiable health information. Final rule. Fed Regist 2002. [PubMed]
  • 6.Committee on Adolescence. Contraception for Adolescents. Pediatrics 2014.
  • 7.Burstein GR, Blythe MJ, Santelli JS, et al. Confidentiality Protections for Adolescents and Young Adults in the Health Care Billing and Insurance Claims Process. J Adolesc Heal 2016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Ford CA, Thomsen SL, Compton B. Adolescents’ interpretations of conditional confidentiality assurances. J Adolesc Heal 2001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Guttmacher Institute. An Overview of Minors’ Consent Law. 2018. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.New York Civil Liberties Union. Teenagers, Health Care and the Law: A Guide to Minors’ Rights in New York State. 3rd ed. 2018.
  • 11.Klein JD, Wilson KM, Mcnulty M, et al. Access to medical care for adolescents: Results from the 1997 Commonwealth Fund Survey of the Health of Adolescent Girls. J Adolesc Heal 1999. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Thrall JS, McCloskey L, Ettner SL, et al. Confidentiality and adolescents’ use of providers for health information and for pelvic examinations. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2000. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Brubaker SJ. Denied, embracing, and resisting medicalization: African American teen mothers’ perceptions of formal pregnancy and childbirth care. Gend Soc 2007. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Martin KA. Giving birth like a girl. Gend Soc 2003. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Commendador KA. Parental influences on adolescent decision making and contraceptive use. Pediatr Nurs 2010. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Diiorio C, Pluhar E, Belcher L. Parent-child communication about sexuality: A review of the literature from 1980–2002. J HIVAIDS Prev Educ Adolesc Child 2003;5:7–32. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Santa Maria D, Markham C, Bluethmann S, et al. Parent-Based Adolescent Sexual Health Interventions And Effect on Communication Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses. Perspect Sex Reprod Health 2015. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.O'Rourke-Suchoff DK, Arora KS, Hildebrand VM, et al. Exploring maternal attitudes towards adolescent contraception: implications for use of LARC. Int J Adolesc Med Health 2017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Rubin SE, Felsher M, Korich F, et al. Urban adolescents and young adults’ decision-making process around selecting intrauterine contraception. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol 2015. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Donenberg GR, Emerson E, Mackesy-Amiti ME. Sexual Risk Among African American Girls: Psychopathology and Mother-Daughter Relationships. J Consult Clin Psychol 2011. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Akers AY, Gold MA, Bost JE, et al. Variation in sexual behaviors in a cohort of adolescent females: The role of personal, perceived peer, and perceived family attitudes. J Adolesc Heal 2011. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Kienzler SE. Social referent influences on hormonal contraceptive decisions [Order No. 10124494]. ProQuest Diss Publ 2016. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Ferrer HB, Trotter C, Hickman M, et al. Barriers and facilitators to HPV vaccination of young women in high-income countries: A qualitative systematic review and evidence synthesis. BMC Public Health 2014. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Cohen EF. Neither seen nor heard: Children’s citizenship in contemporary democracies. Citizensh Stud 2005. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Cohen EF, Morley CP. Children, ADHD, and citizenship. J Med Philos 2009. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Chang J, Ipp LS, de Roche AM, et al. Adolescent-Parent Dyad Descriptions of the Decision to Start the HPV Vaccine Series. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol 2018. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Shaw DM, Busch J. Rawls and religious paternalism. J Med Philos (United Kingdom) 2012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Pérez JC, Cumsille P, Martínez ML. Brief report: Agreement between parent and adolescent autonomy expectations and its relationship to adolescent adjustment. J Adolesc 2016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Raidoo S, Kaneshiro B. Contraception counseling for adolescents. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Sandman L, Munthe C. Shared decision making, paternalism and patient choice. Heal Care Anal 2010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Navin MC, Wasserman JA. Reasons to Amplify the Role of Parental Permission in Pediatric Treatment. Am J Bioeth 2017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Pizarro D, Richards NK, Coots S, et al. Community-Based Participatory Research: Incorporating the Integral Voice of Community in Study Design. Patient 2019. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Shultz R, Lenkiewicz B, Gupta I. Onondaga County Community Health Assessment and Improvement Plan 2016–2018. 2017. [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Barbour RS. Checklists for improving rigour in qualitative research: A case of the tail wagging the dog? Br Med J 2001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Aronson J. A pragmatic view of thematic analysis. Qual Rep 1994. [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Bernard AW, Malone M, Kman NE, et al. Medical student professionalism narratives: A thematic analysis and interdisciplinary comparative investigation. BMC Emerg Med 2011. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Confidentiality A, Health E. ACOG Committee Opinion no. 599: Committee on Adoscent Health Care: Adolescent confidentiality and electronic health records. Obstet Gynecol 2014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.George AE, Abatemarco DJ, Terry MA, et al. A qualitative exploration of the role of social networks in educating urban African American adolescents about sex. Ethn Heal 2013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Lindau ST, Basu A, Leitsch SA. Health literacy as a predictor of follow-up after an abnormal pap smear: A prospective study. J Gen Intern Med 2006. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Ali MM, Amialchuk A, Dwyer DS. Social Network Effects in Contraceptive Behavior Among Adolescents. J Dev Behav Pediatr 2011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Whitney S Rice

12 Sep 2019

PONE-D-19-19922

Young women’s reproductive health conversations: Roles of maternal figures and clinical practices

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr Levandowski,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

More specifically, the reviewers and I are in agreement that as currently written, it is unclear that the manuscript meets the following PLOS ONE publication criteria:

  • Experiments, statistics, and other analyses are performed to a high technical standard and are described in sufficient detail.

  • Conclusions are presented in an appropriate fashion and are supported by the data.

See specific comments from the reviewers and I regarding this and other matters below and attached. 

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Oct 27 2019 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Whitney S. Rice, DrPH

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please amend your current ethics statement to address the following concerns: Please explain why was written consent was not obtained, how you recorded/documented participant consent, and if the ethics committees/IRBs approved this consent procedure.

3. Please include a copy of the interview guide used in the study, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information, or include a citation if it has been published previously.

4.  Thank you for stating in your Funding Statement:

 [This work was funded, in part, by the Society of Family Planning Research Fund [SFPRF9-CBPR2] and a Research Pilot Project Award from the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of Rochester, both awarded to BAL.  The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology or the University of Rochester.]. 

* Please provide an amended statement that declares *all* the funding or sources of support (whether external or internal to your organization) received during this study, as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now.  Please also include the statement “There was no additional external funding received for this study.” in your updated Funding Statement.

* Please include your amended Funding Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section:

[No authors have competing interests].   

We note that one or more of the authors are employed by a commercial company: 'REACH CNY, Inc'.

  1. Please provide an amended Funding Statement declaring this commercial affiliation, as well as a statement regarding the Role of Funders in your study. If the funding organization did not play a role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript and only provided financial support in the form of authors' salaries and/or research materials, please review your statements relating to the author contributions, and ensure you have specifically and accurately indicated the role(s) that these authors had in your study. You can update author roles in the Author Contributions section of the online submission form.

Please also include the following statement within your amended Funding Statement.

“The funder provided support in the form of salaries for authors [insert relevant initials], but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.”

If your commercial affiliation did play a role in your study, please state and explain this role within your updated Funding Statement.

2. Please also provide an updated Competing Interests Statement declaring this commercial affiliation along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, or marketed products, etc.  

Within your Competing Interests Statement, please confirm that this commercial affiliation does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to  PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests) . If this adherence statement is not accurate and  there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

* Please include both an updated Funding Statement and Competing Interests Statement in your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

  • l agree with the reviewer 2 that the introduction and discussion in particular seem to miss important contextual literature on mothers' and providers' involvement in the healthcare interactions of young women. The paper largely does not engage with (or even acknowledge) the tension between the benefits of confidentiality for young women on one end, the potential for medical providers to limit patient autonomy (and enact paternalism) on the other end, and then the potential for mothers or other family members to facilitate patient autonomy and act in the best interest of young women on the other end. Consider drawing upon the extant literature regarding family engagement in healthcare and patient-provider relationship dynamics (including paternalism) in this context. 

  • How did the authors analyze their findings "through the lens of paternalism"? This doesn't come through clearly in the methods or results.

  • Please ensure that your description of qualitative methods meet the requirements of the COREQ checklist (attached) or other qualitative reporting checklist appropriate for your professional discipline.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This manuscript was well written, clear, and concise. The demographic table (Table 1) was confusing in that the age groups overlapped and using "n=" in each box was redundant. A review of this table and further explanation as to why the age groups overlap would be helpful. Race was not broken down for the 18-28 age group, which was confusing. An explanation as to why this age category was not broken down by race would be helpful.

Reviewer #2: I have uploaded my review as an attachment. For some reason, when I pasted in my comments, it stated that I did not meet the minimum character count.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: PLOS Review.docx

Attachment

Submitted filename: ISSM_COREQ_Checklist.pdf

PLoS One. 2020 Jan 23;15(1):e0228142. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0228142.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


29 Oct 2019

Greetings Dr. Rice,

We are pleased to submit our revised manuscript entitled “Young women’s reproductive health conversations: Roles of maternal figures and clinical practices” to PLOS One for your consideration. We have responded to the reviewer comments below, and uploaded a revised submission with track changes marked.

Journal Requirements:

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming.

AUTHOR RESPONSE:

We appreciate these guidelines and have made appropriate changes to the manuscript’s headings, citations, and acknowledgement section.

2. Please amend your current ethics statement to address the following concerns: Please explain why was written consent was not obtained, how you recorded/documented participant consent, and if the ethics committees/IRBs approved this consent procedure.

AUTHOR RESPONSE:

We have provided further information on the consent process and disclosed the IRB’s approval of this method of consent.

3. Please include a copy of the interview guide used in the study, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information, or include a citation if it has been published previously.

AUTHOR RESPONSE:

We appreciate your commitment to transparency. Our interview guides has been submitted with another manuscript with this data, offering the main findings of the study, which is currently under review. We would prefer to keep the interview guide published with the main study findings versus a secondary data analyses, and appreciate the timing is not desirable. We appreciate your patience and understanding.

4. Please provide an amended statement that declares *all* the funding or sources of support (whether external or internal to your organization) received during this study, as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now. Please also include the statement “There was no additional external funding received for this study.” in your updated Funding Statement.* Please include your amended Funding Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

AUTHOR RESPONSE: Please find our amended Funding Statement below:

This work was funded, in part, by the Society of Family Planning Research Fund [SFPRF9-CBPR2] and a Research Pilot Project Award from the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of Rochester, both of which were received by BAL. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology or the University of Rochester.

The Society of Family Planning Research Fund provided support in the form of salaries for all authors (NKR, EC, CPM, BAL). Neither funder had any role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section. There was no additional external funding received for this study.

5. Please provide an amended Funding Statement declaring this commercial affiliation, as well as a statement regarding the Role of Funders in your study. If the funding organization did not play a role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript and only provided financial support in the form of authors' salaries and/or research materials, please review your statements relating to the author contributions, and ensure you have specifically and accurately indicated the role(s) that these authors had in your study. You can update author roles in the Author Contributions section of the online submission form.

Please also include the following statement within your amended Funding Statement.

“The funder provided support in the form of salaries for authors [insert relevant initials], but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.”

If your commercial affiliation did play a role in your study, please state and explain this role within your updated Funding Statement.

Please also provide an updated Competing Interests Statement declaring this commercial affiliation along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, or marketed products, etc.

AUTHOR RESPONSE: Please see our amended Funding Statement above. No authors had Competing Interests.

Editor.

1. The introduction and discussion in particular seem to miss important contextual literature on mothers' and providers' involvement in the healthcare interactions of young women. The paper largely does not engage with (or even acknowledge) the tension between the benefits of confidentiality for young women on one end, the potential for medical providers to limit patient autonomy (and enact paternalism) on the other end, and then the potential for mothers or other family members to facilitate patient autonomy and act in the best interest of young women on the other end. Consider drawing upon the extant literature regarding family engagement in healthcare and patient-provider relationship dynamics (including paternalism) in this context.

AUTHOR RESPONSE:

Thank you for this comment. Based on these suggestions, we have added information on A. The role of confidentiality protocols in young women’s health utilization. B. The potential for providers to act as gatekeepers to patients’ health information and decision options. C. Using mothers as advocates for autonomous health choices. D. Connected the influence of both parents and providers to broad paternalism and medical paternalism.

2. How did the authors analyze their findings "through the lens of paternalism"? This doesn't come through clearly in the methods or results.

AUTHOR RESPONSE:

We appreciate this question. To give more transparency in our analysis through the lens of paternalism, we have elaborated on the steps of our methods by including how paternalism theory emerged from our codes.

3. Please ensure that your description of qualitative methods meet the requirements of the COREQ checklist (attached) or other qualitative reporting checklist appropriate for your professional discipline.

AUTHOR RESPONSE:

We appreciate you providing this checklist, which was attached as supplemental information in the original submission. We have reviewed this list and added more information addressing the rigor qualifications by explaining more about the consent process. We also provide an explanation for the decision not to member-check.

Reviewer 1:

1. The demographic table (Table 1) was confusing in that the age groups overlapped and using "n=" in each box was redundant. A review of this table and further explanation as to why the age groups overlap would be helpful. Race was not broken down for the 18-28 age group, which was confusing. An explanation as to why this age category was not broken down by race would be helpful.

AUTHOR RESPONSE:

We appreciate these observations. Based on these comments, we agree that table 1 was confusing. Therefore, we have removed the redundant “n=” and added a note to the table explaining age and race inconsistencies. We also provide a further explanation within the methodology text.

Reviewer 2:

1. Is it possible to put the total number of focus group participants in the abstract? Should the concept of paternalism be added to the abstract since it’s a major part of this manuscript?

AUTHOR RESPONSE:

Thank you for these abstract recommendations. We revised the abstract to include the number of participants and elaborated on the role of paternalism.

2. Lines 80-87: Why isn’t there a mention about the specific role of father’s? If the

focus of the manuscript is mothers over fathers, it should be explained why.

AUTHOR RESPONSE:

We appreciate this point and have explained why this manuscript focuses on the mother’s role.

3. Line 106: Is parental authority always an imposition? Lines 109-110: “We focus specifically on mothers’ imposition in the reproductive health decisions of their daughters. “
Is this statement too harsh? Are you exploring whether this happens or how it happens? Or are you saying it happens all the time?

AUTHOR RESPONSE:

We appreciate these insightful questions and comments. We have adjusted our wording around this statement. In addition, we have added information throughout the introduction and discussion on both the positive and negative influences of paternalism.

4. Lines 93-110: Could you explain more about the theme of paternalism that you found in your primary analysis of this data? Is paternalism always negative? Could you define medical paternalism? What is the difference between parental paternalism and medical paternalism? How can an adolescent be protected from both parental paternalism and medical paternalism to ensure they are making their own autonomous decision? Or is it even possible? This could possibly be included in the discussion section. Or is medical paternalism important to this manuscript since it was not mentioned in the discussion/conclusion sections? How does amplifying the role of a parent, help against medical paternalism? Could you explain more about paternalism and reproductive health decision-making? Is there a difference between parental paternalism versus medical paternalism in reproductive decision-making? It might be helpful to include how paternalism can hinder (or may help?) the ability of young women to have confidential conversations with their provider.

AUTHOR RESPONSE:

We appreciate these questions and have restructured our introduction, methodology, discussion, and conclusion to give a better picture of how we used paternalism in our analysis as well as paternalism’s negative and positive influences in the decision-making process. We added more information on medical paternalism’s definition and role in decision making. We also included suggestions to mitigate negative influence and how to appropriately include parents.

5. Line 112: Could you explain more about the role of the CAB for your study beyond what is stated in Line 151-154? Why was there interpretation of the data important (Lines 259-274)?

AUTHOR RESPONSE:

Thank you for this question. We have further explained the role of the CAB and added an example of their interpretations suggesting actionable steps to address paternalism in the healthcare setting.

6. Lines 121-122: “Hispanic women could choose a focus group with women of similar race or ethnicity.” Why was this decided? 
Why couldn’t other race of women do the same?

AUTHOR RESPONSE:

We appreciate this point. Upon discussion, we agreed to eliminate this sentence as it was redundant since we mention that any participant was able to self-identify their race or ethnicity.

7. Table 1: Could you add the racial breakdown of the final two focus groups (Aged 18-28) and the average age of these focus groups?

AUTHOR RESPONSE:

Thank you for this question. Our qualitative research was iterative in nature. We first conducted focus groups with young women which were divided by age and race/ethnicity. We analyzed this data and found no variation of experiences or perceptions between age or race/ethnicity within the original focus groups. However, we were missing the perspective of college aged young women, prompting the final two focus groups of young women aged 18-28. For these focus groups, we did not collect these participant demographics.

8. From the results sections it appears that some of the young women did not mind or wanted their mothers to be in the room in their discussions with their providers. In lines 299-201 and lines 319-320, you discussed that health care providers would like to provide oral contraceptives to young women without their parent’s consent and you stated that young women and providers benefit from situations where the provider asks the parent to leave the room. However how should it be navigated when the young woman wants her mother involved? How do we ensure a young woman makes an autonomous decision about her reproductive health whether the mother is in the clinic room or not?

AUTHOR RESPONSE:

We appreciate these questions on how to address this complex issue. We have added the CAB’s suggestions to navigate including and excluding parents in sensitive patient-provider conversations. We have also suggested using protocols that facilitate patient autonomy.

9. Additionally shouldn’t we still have concerns about medical paternalism? For example, if a young woman comes into the clinic and wants birth control pills, but through private counseling with the provider she is convinced to get an IUD, are we sure she made an autonomous decision?

AUTHOR RESPONSE:

We appreciate this thoughtful question. Upon discussion, we decided it was important to touch more on the effects of medical paternalism throughout the introduction and discussion.

We hope these responses and the subsequent changes to our manuscript fully address the comments. We thank you for this review of our work and look forward to a favorable response.

Sincerely,

Brooke A. Levandowski, PhD, MPA

Assistant Professor

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology

Clinical and Translational Science Institute

University of Rochester Medical Center

Brooke_levandowski@URMC.rochester.edu

585-275-3727

Decision Letter 1

Whitney S Rice

31 Dec 2019

PONE-D-19-19922R1

Young women’s reproductive health conversations: Roles of maternal figures and clinical practices

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr Levandowski,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE, and for your patience in awaiting an outcome. Before we can accept the paper for publication, we would like you to re-submit a final revision which addresses additional editorial comments (listed below), and PLOS ONE’s publication criteria.

Methods• Page 5, Line 127: I agree with Reviewer 2 that extent to which this research is participatory is unclear. Please expand upon the statements around "This collaborative community based participatory research" and the inclusion of a "Community Advisory Board (CAB)". Did the CAB contribute to study design or to the development of study materials? did the CAB directly refer the connections that facilitated recruitment?• The methods section lacks detail about the focus group process. Was discussion facilitated by a focus group guide? Were questions about adolescent women's relationships and their influence on sexual health decisions asked? What questions were asked?• Page 5, Line 128 - Page 6, Line 130: How did the authors assess that women had or would have contraceptive conversations with a provider?• Page 7, Line 170: Please expand upon what is meant by "minute, detailed ratings"Discussion• Should the lack of mothers' perspectives in this study be included as another limitation? How might the study have been enriched by these perspectives?Additionally, how comprehensively could this study have explored paternalism and adolescent sexual health decision-making considering that it is a secondary data analysis?  We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Feb 14 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Whitney S. Rice, DrPH

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2020 Jan 23;15(1):e0228142. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0228142.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


6 Jan 2020

Methods:

1. Page 5, Line 127: I agree with Reviewer 2 that extent to which this research is participatory is unclear. Please expand upon the statements around "This collaborative community based participatory research" and the inclusion of a "Community Advisory Board (CAB)". Did the CAB contribute to study design or to the development of study materials? did the CAB directly refer the connections that facilitated recruitment?

AUTHOR RESPONSE:

We appreciate this question. We have expanded on the role of the CAB (lines 128 – 132) and included a link to our publication about this project’s CAB for more details on their contributions. More information about the CAB’s contributions to materials can be found in lines 167-169 and participant recruitment in lines 135-136, 147-148.

2. The methods section lacks detail about the focus group process. Was discussion facilitated by a focus group guide? Were questions about adolescent women's relationships and their influence on sexual health decisions asked? What questions were asked?

AUTHOR RESPONSE:

Thank you for these recommendations to improve clarity. We have added the term “focus group guide” to our statement about question development in lines 167 – 168. As mentioned in the last revision, we have submitted another manuscript with the main study findings with the study guides included. Therefore, we have not included them here.

3. Page 5, Line 128 - Page 6, Line 130: How did the authors assess that women had or would have contraceptive conversations with a provider?

AUTHOR RESPONSE:

We appreciate this question about inclusion process. We have included more detail on how we received self-reported future and/or past patient-provider contraceptive conversations in lines 137 – 139.

4. Page 7, Line 170: Please expand upon what is meant by "minute, detailed ratings"

AUTHOR RESPONSE:

We agree that this description does not adequately explain this step of thematic analysis. We have changed this sentence to better communicate what we mean by coding (lines 176 – 177).

Discussion

5a. Should the lack of mothers' perspectives in this study be included as another limitation? How might the study have been enriched by these perspectives?

5b. Additionally, how comprehensively could this study have explored paternalism and adolescent sexual health decision-making considering that it is a secondary data analysis?

AUTHOR RESPONSE:

Thank you for these questions. We agree that this research design is limited by paternalism as an emergent theory. We have included lack of paternalism driven questions and mothers’ perspectives as another limitation in lines 351 -354. Please also see lines 361 – 364 for our recommended next steps.

Decision Letter 2

Whitney S Rice

9 Jan 2020

Young women’s reproductive health conversations: Roles of maternal figures and clinical practices

PONE-D-19-19922R2

Dear Dr. Levandowski,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Whitney S. Rice, DrPH

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Whitney S Rice

13 Jan 2020

PONE-D-19-19922R2

Young women’s reproductive health conversations: Roles of maternal figures and clinical practices

Dear Dr. Levandowski:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Whitney S. Rice

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File. COREQ checklist.

    (PDF)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PLOS Review.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: ISSM_COREQ_Checklist.pdf

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES