As you already mentioned, you need general well-founded induction to prove this. So we consider a formula $p \to \theta$, and we assume that the property
holds for all formulas $p \to \theta'$, where $\theta'$ has fewer symbols than $\theta$.
Since $\theta$ consists only of $\land$, $\lor$, and $p$, we have to consider three cases:
Case 1: $\theta = p$. Then the formula is $p \to p$, and that is obviously a tautology.
Case 2: $\theta = \theta' \lor \theta''$, and both $\theta'$ and $\theta''$
consist only of $\land$, $\lor$, and $p$. Obviously, $\theta'$ and $\theta''$ have fewer symbols than $\theta$, so we may apply the induction hypothesis. By induction,
$p \to \theta'$ and $p \to \theta''$ are tautologies. That means in particular that every truth assignment $v$ that maps $p$ to true
must also map $\theta'$ and $\theta''$ to true.
Now consider an arbitrary truth assignment $v$. If $v$ maps $p$ to false,
then it maps $p \to \theta$ to true. If $v$ maps $p$ to true, then
it maps by induction $\theta'$ and $\theta''$ to true,
therefore it maps $\theta' \lor \theta''$ to true,
and therefore it maps $p \to (\theta' \lor \theta'')$ to true.
Combining both subcases, we see that every truth assignment $v$ maps $p \to \theta$ to true, as required.
Case 3: $\theta = \theta' \land \theta''$, and both $\theta'$ and $\theta''$
consist only of $\land$, $\lor$, and $p$. This case is handled analogously to case 2.