 | The 131st Annual Meeting (November 15-19, 2003) of APHA |
|
| The 131st Annual Meeting (November 15-19, 2003) of APHA |
Cynthia J Kapphahn, MD, MPH1, Supriya Rao, MPH2, Christine Jesser, MPH2, Elizabeth Ozer, PhD3, Lee Anna Botkin, MD4, Thien-Nhien Luong, MPH2, Aimee Reedy, MPH2, and Guadalupe S Olivas, PhD2. (1) Division of Adolescent Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, 750 Welch Road, Suite 325, Palo Alto, CA 94034, (650) 725-8293, kapp@leland.stanford.edu, (2) Santa Clara County Public Health Department, 3003 Moorpark Avenue, San Jose, CA 95128, (3) Division of Adolescent Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, 3333 California St., Suite 245, Box 0503, San Francisco, CA 94109, (4) Pediatrics Department, Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, Pediatric Annex Building, 751 S. Bascom Ave., San Jose, CA 95128
Objective: To evaluate knowledge of California adolescent confidentially laws among primary health care providers in Santa Clara County, CA, and associations with training and self-confidence.
Methods: An 8-page, pilot-tested survey was sent to health care practitioners, including physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants.
Results: Of the 557 survey respondents who see adolescent patients for at least 10 hours in a week, 316 met the eligibility criteria of personally providing preventative care and reproductive health services. Average responses to personal self-confidence in application of California law reported on a scale of 1-5 (not at all to very confident) were high, (mean=4). In contrast, only 21.5% of providers correctly answered that there is no lower age limit for an adolescent to obtain contraception without parental consent. Only 11.4% knew the legal lower age limit (12 years) at which an adolescent can obtain treatment for a sexually transmitted infection (STD) without parental consent. Logistic regression analysis revealed that being a female provider (OR 2.3: 95% CI 1.1, 5.1), being trained in OB (OR 2.0: 95% CI 1.1, 3.9), and being confident in providing reproductive health screening were the only factors associated with correctly answering both legal questions. Since ‘no-response’ was treated as incorrect response, analysis will be further refined to treat ‘no-response’ as separate category (to factor hesitation in response) by using Generalized Multinomial Regression.
Conclusion: This survey suggests that providers are personally confident in providing reproductive health care to adolescents, but limited in their knowledge of California laws.
Learning Objectives:
Keywords: Adolescent Health, Health Law
Presenting author's disclosure statement:
Organization/institution whose products or services will be discussed: none
I do not have any significant financial interest/arrangement or affiliation with any organization/institution whose products or services are being discussed in this session.
Handout (.ppt format, 66.0 kb)