Universality in daily primary care practice: a qualitative study of mental health management in Italy and Spain.

IF 1.7
Roberto Giosa
{"title":"Universality in daily primary care practice: a qualitative study of mental health management in Italy and Spain.","authors":"Roberto Giosa","doi":"10.1017/S1463423626101923","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>This article examines how general practitioners (GPs) in Italy and Spain manage patients with mental health needs in daily primary care practice, and how their discretionary choices shape the substantive reach of universal access to care.</p><p><strong>Background: </strong>Modern healthcare systems in Italy and Spain formally guarantee universal access to primary care. However, mental health services in primary care reveals persistent gaps between this normative principle and everyday practice. Drawing on Lipsky's Street-Level Bureaucracy (SLB) theory, GPs are understood as frontline professionals whose discretion operates within, and is shaped by, conditions of resource scarcity, time pressure, and limited access to psychosocial services.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A qualitative cross-national design was employed, including 42 semi-structured interviews with 20 GPs and 22 patients with mental health needs in Spain and Italy, conducted between June and November 2022. Data were analysed through an inductive-deductive coding process.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>Two principal patterns of discretionary practice emerged. First, GPs exercise discretion differentially by patient age: investing in psychoeducation, counselling, and motivational support with younger patients, while moving more rapidly towards pharmacological management with older patients. This age-based categorization operates as a coping strategy that shapes patients' candidacy for psychosocial versus pharmacological care. Second, GPs actively normalize psychological distress as a counter-medicalization strategy, primarily with younger patients. Despite significant institutional differences between the two healthcare systems, these patterns converge across Italy and Spain, suggesting they reflect structural features of the SLB role under resource scarcity rather than system-specific dynamics.</p>","PeriodicalId":74493,"journal":{"name":"Primary health care research & development","volume":"27 ","pages":"e116"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Primary health care research & development","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1463423626101923","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim: This article examines how general practitioners (GPs) in Italy and Spain manage patients with mental health needs in daily primary care practice, and how their discretionary choices shape the substantive reach of universal access to care.

Background: Modern healthcare systems in Italy and Spain formally guarantee universal access to primary care. However, mental health services in primary care reveals persistent gaps between this normative principle and everyday practice. Drawing on Lipsky's Street-Level Bureaucracy (SLB) theory, GPs are understood as frontline professionals whose discretion operates within, and is shaped by, conditions of resource scarcity, time pressure, and limited access to psychosocial services.

Methods: A qualitative cross-national design was employed, including 42 semi-structured interviews with 20 GPs and 22 patients with mental health needs in Spain and Italy, conducted between June and November 2022. Data were analysed through an inductive-deductive coding process.

Findings: Two principal patterns of discretionary practice emerged. First, GPs exercise discretion differentially by patient age: investing in psychoeducation, counselling, and motivational support with younger patients, while moving more rapidly towards pharmacological management with older patients. This age-based categorization operates as a coping strategy that shapes patients' candidacy for psychosocial versus pharmacological care. Second, GPs actively normalize psychological distress as a counter-medicalization strategy, primarily with younger patients. Despite significant institutional differences between the two healthcare systems, these patterns converge across Italy and Spain, suggesting they reflect structural features of the SLB role under resource scarcity rather than system-specific dynamics.

日常初级保健实践的普遍性:意大利和西班牙心理健康管理的定性研究。
目的:本文考察了意大利和西班牙的全科医生(全科医生)如何在日常初级保健实践中管理有心理健康需求的患者,以及他们的自由裁量选择如何塑造普遍获得护理的实质性影响。背景:现代医疗保健系统在意大利和西班牙正式保证普遍获得初级保健。然而,初级保健中的精神卫生服务表明,这一规范原则与日常实践之间存在着持续的差距。根据利普斯基的街头官僚主义(SLB)理论,全科医生被理解为一线专业人员,他们的自由裁量权在资源稀缺、时间压力和获得社会心理服务的机会有限的条件下运作,并受到这些条件的影响。方法:采用定性的跨国设计,包括在2022年6月至11月期间对西班牙和意大利的20名全科医生和22名有心理健康需求的患者进行42次半结构化访谈。数据通过归纳演绎编码过程进行分析。发现:自由裁量权实践出现了两种主要模式。首先,全科医生根据患者年龄的不同行使酌处权:对年轻患者投资于心理教育、咨询和动机支持,而对老年患者则更快地转向药物管理。这种基于年龄的分类作为一种应对策略,塑造了患者对心理社会和药物治疗的候选资格。第二,全科医生积极地将心理困扰正常化,作为一种反医疗化策略,主要针对年轻患者。尽管两种医疗保健系统之间存在显著的制度差异,但这些模式在意大利和西班牙都趋于一致,这表明它们反映了资源稀缺下SLB角色的结构特征,而不是系统特定的动态。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书