Objective: Parents routinely access young children's medical records, but medical societies strongly recommend confidential care during adolescence, and most medical centers restrict parental records access during the teen years. We sought to assess public opinion about adolescent medical privacy. Materials and Methods: The Cornell National Social Survey (CNSS) is an annual nationwide public opinion survey. We added questions about a) whether parents should be able to see their 16-year-old child's medical record, and b) whether teens would avoid discussing sensitive issues (sex, alcohol) with doctors if parents could see the record. Hypothesizing that highlighting the rationale for adolescent privacy would change opinions, we conducted an experiment by randomizing question order. Results: Most respondents (83.0%) believed that an adolescent would be less likely to discuss sensitive issues with doctors with parental medical record access; responses did not differ by question order (P = .29). Most also believed that parents should have access to teens' records, but support for parental access fell from 77% to 69% among those asked the teen withholding question first (P = .01). Conclusions: Although medical societies recommend confidential care for adolescents, public opinion is largely in favor of parental access. A brief "nudge," asking whether parental access might harm adolescent-doctor communication, increased acceptance of adolescent confidentiality, and could be part of a strategy to prepare parents for electronic patient portal policies that medical centers impose at the beginning of adolescence.

Objective: Medical privacy policies, which are clear-cut for adults and young children, become ambiguous during adolescence. Yet medical organizations must establish unambiguous rules about patient and parental access to electronic patient portals. We conducted a national interview study to characterize the diversity in adolescent portal policies across a range of institutions and determine the factors influencing decisions about these policies. Methods: Within a sampling framework that ensured diversity of geography and medical organization type, we used purposive and snowball sampling to identify key informants. Semi-structured interviews were conducted and analyzed with inductive thematic analysis, followed by a member check. Results: We interviewed informants from 25 medical organizations. Policies established different degrees of adolescent access (from none to partial to complete), access ages (from 10 to 18 years), degrees of parental access, and types of information considered sensitive. Federal and state law did not dominate policy decisions. Other factors in the decision process were: technology capabilities; differing patient population needs; resources; community expectations; balance between information access and privacy; balance between promoting autonomy and promoting family shared decision-making; and tension between teen privacy and parental preferences. Some informants believed that clearer standards would simplify policy-making; others worried that standards could restrict high-quality polices. Conclusions: In the absence of universally accepted standards, medical organizations typically undergo an arduous decision-making process to develop teen portal policies, weighing legal, economic, social, clinical, and technological factors. As a result, portal access policies are highly inconsistent across the United States and within individual states.