Our clinical visits are important opportunities to support development and position parents to nurture their children’s growth. This may be particularly true when those visits take place on the cusp of adolescence. We have to deliver information that is at once important and sensitive.The information presented matters, but so does how it is delivered. The choices in how clinicians say what they say influence what parents and young people think about the time of life that they are about to enter, how they feel about their respective identities, and how they will choose to play their roles. For example, an encounter that begins by acknowledging the dominant public understanding that adolescence is an unfortunate and unpleasant time for both parents and adolescents, even in an effort to debunk this idea, can activate and engrain these ideas, establishing unproductive ways of looking at and acting in the years to come. Instead, avoiding these myths and advancing the idea that adolescence is a time of tremendous opportunity, in which experiences and relationships are vital inputs and lifelong interests ignite, establishes a very different way of thinking, feeling, and acting. All of this from the choice of just a few words.These clinical moments are framing opportunities. Understanding the importance of the choices we make in how we present information and having evidence-based guidance on the effects of these choices is vital. Framing is a tool that can add value in the examination room and in the roles that many pediatric clinicians play as researchers, influencers, and advocates.At some level, we are aware that the words we choose matter. We recall times when we have said something in a way that motivated engagement or adherence or that positively changed behavior. We also know of times when we thought we said something clearly and effectively, only to find it generated a takeaway miles away from what we intended. We may know the choices we make as communicators matter but may not be aware that there is a science of framing that can help us more wisely choose words and phrases that lead to our intended impact. In Table 1, we use our communication with parents and caregivers in the preadolescent or adolescent clinical visit to illustrate how to apply framing strategies.Framing refers to the choices we make in presenting information. These might be decisions about the values we use to argue for why an issue matters, such as using the values of both compassion and justice to call for racial equity. It might be using the metaphor of building “brain architecture” to emphasize the importance of the first months and years of human development.1 Framing is also more subtle and nuanced. It is in the pronouns that we choose, whether we talk in “us” and “them” terms or use “we” and “our.” It is about how we choose to emphasize resilience in the face of hardship rather than only speaking of “vulnerability,” which can perpetuate stigma and stereotypes when not placed in full context. It is in the verbs we select and how they imply or deny agency or assign responsibility (for example, talking about the increase in the number of families that have “skipped” versus “not been able to attend” well-child visits and scheduled vaccinations).The early 1990s saw the beginning of a multidisciplinary science of framing. The field emerged from political science and was focused on the effects of news and media framing on perceptions and behavior, for example, testing how different ways of presenting information in news broadcasts triggered underlying racial biases and altered support for criminal justice policies2 or examining how different ways of telling stories affects perceptions of political responsibility.3The science of framing is now used to explore issues directly relevant to pediatrics. For example, research has found that the use of metaphor can help correct misperceptions and build understanding of the developmental science of resilience.4 Researchers have also found that subtle choices in how nutritional information is presented to middle schoolers leads to significant differences in the food choices young people make.5 Other researchers have found that vaccine communications that highlight the physical risks and dangers of not receiving the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine backfire and make vaccine-hesitant individuals believe more strongly in the misinformation that touts its side effects.6 This growing body of research demonstrates that framing choices can open productive space for people to consider and act on scientific information or close it down, further entrenching existing beliefs and even leading to outright rejection of recommendations.The importance of framing led to a project that explored how Americans think about adolescent development and how frames can move people past unproductive understandings and unlock new ways of thinking about how we can best support young people.7 It set out to support those communicating about adolescence with evidence-based framing strategies. This led to new ways of understanding the cultural underpinnings of stereotypes of young people and our proclivity toward policies that restrict, rather than develop, adolescents in an effort to protect them, and worse, that protect us from them.The project produced a set of evidence-based strategies that communicators can use to shift the conversation and open space for productive engagement on adolescent development. For example, presenting people with concrete examples of adolescents making positive contributions to their communities shifts people’s thinking away from the dominant preoccupation with adolescence as an inherently dangerous and unfortunate time that we just need to make it through toward a sense of the promise and opportunity that characterizes this time of life. Emphasizing the idea of “discovery” shifted people from a view in which our goal should be to insulate and protect young people from contexts and experiences to one in which we need to provide rich and challenging experiences to young people and support them as they learn how to navigate situations. These frames also shifted people’s thinking about the role of parents from strict protector to supportive guide.These recommendations can help clinicians have more productive interactions with young people and their parents. They can help open productive dialogue, increase the uptake and application of information, encourage specific types of relationships and, importantly, avoid traps and missteps that send things in the wrong direction. These framing strategies can encourage parents to realize that they matter more, not less, than ever in the lives of their children.Pediatric clinicians are child advocates who often influence policies and programs. Framing offers us a skill set to use as we wear each of our hats. The examples in Table 1 cover different contexts or topics that may arise in the preadolescent or adolescent clinical visit and offer suggestions on how best to frame discussions with parents and caregivers. Our goal is to cue productive discourse about adults’ vital role in supporting adolescents in their journey toward adulthood. Highlighting the importance of parents supporting adolescent development early in the visit creates the kind of parent-clinician partnership that may help the caregiver better understand and accept that the confidential portion of the visit that follows is also intended to support their adolescent’s health. The language suggested in Table 1 should be adapted depending on the context of the clinical encounter, the provider-family relationship, and the background and identity of the patient and parent or caregiver(s).