Background <p>Previous studies have suggested that the intrauterine system increases the risk of depression, particularly in adolescents. However, these studies relied on national registry data collected at a time when medical guidelines discouraged adolescent use of this contraceptive method. As a result, the adolescents who appeared in these registries represented an atypical group who had this contraceptive prescribed against medical recommendations. Consequently, unknown or unmeasured participant characteristics may have introduced confounding variables and influenced conclusions. Although prescription guidelines for intrauterine systems now include adolescents, selective prescribing may persist. If so, it could affect future studies on hormonal contraceptives, even though the decision is clinically sound. We thus aimed to explore current contraceptive prescription practices, investigating user characteristics, policies, and contextual factors that might influence prescribing the intrauterine system rather than other hormonal contraceptive products, or vice versa.</p> Methods <p>We conducted focus group interviews with 23 healthcare professionals employed at six health centers in Norway, prescribing hormonal contraceptive drugs to adolescent women. We used thematic analysis to identify factors that can influence which products are recommended and requested.</p> Results <p>Our analysis generated three themes: “Old conceptions die hard” describes skepticism among family doctors and mothers regarding adolescent use of the intrauterine system, “Particular promotion of the intrauterine system to “vulnerable” adolescents” outlines the practice of healthcare professionals recommending this contraceptive method to individuals identified as vulnerable, and “What tips the scale: Pros, peeves and other people” discusses influences on adolescents’ contraceptive choice.</p> Conclusions <p>This exploratory study suggests that both prescription practices and personal preferences influence choice of contraceptive product, and that it is not arbitrary who has the intrauterine device inserted. Future quantitative research should incorporate the factors identified in this exploration, to minimize their confounding effects when aiming to draw causal conclusions on the effects of the intrauterine system on mental health.</p>