In una recente intervista (Pincus & Ferris, 1993), Nancy C. Andreasen, nuovo editor dell' American Journal of Psychiatry (AJP), ha ricordato come la proposta di adottare il metodo della blind review, cioè della revisione degli articoli inviati per la pubblicazione da parte di referee ai quali non viene reso noto il nome degli autori, venga riproposta ad ogni riunione del Comitato Direttivo dell'AJP. Finora, dice Andreasen, il Comitato si è sempre espresso in senso contrario, sostanzialmente per due motivi: il primo è che alcune Unità di Ricerca ed alcuni gruppi sono noti per essere più rigorosi di altri e questa «autorevolezza» è utile al referee per prendere una decisione; il secondo dipende dalla difficoltà di fare una review veramente blind, in quanto lo stile, la bibliografia e altri elementi spesso rendono possibile o addirittura facile l'identificazione degli autori del lavoro. Ciò non è giusto per quelli che invece non vengono identificati.

Il problema di assicurare una valutazione equilibrata e non distorta degli articoli inviati potrebbe più semplicemente essere risolto: a) facendo in modo che la revisione «in aperto» da parte dei referee sia fatta da persone non solo competenti, ma anche disinteressate, attendibili e note per la loro correttezza; b) garantendo ampia possibilità di accesso alla pubblicazione anche ai gruppi «minori» o agli autori che lavorano fuori dalle istituzioni più note, purché ovviamente i loro articoli soddisfino gli standard di qualità della rivista in questione. Il punto cruciale, dunque, è la scelta dei referee, scelta che spetta quasi sempre al direttore della rivista.

Objectives - To present the results obtained from a cross-sectional evaluation of a sample of primary care attenders selected in Verona in the framework of the World Health Organization International Multicentre Study on Psychological Problems in Primary Care Settings. Methods - Among consecutive attenders at 16 primary care clinics in Verona during the period April 1991/February 1992, a random sample, stratified on the basis of GHQ-12 scores, was selected for a thorough evaluation of psychological status, physical status and disability in occupational and other daily activities. All patients with psychopathological symptoms at baseline assessment and a 20% random sample of those without psychopathological symptoms were interviewed again after 3 and 12 months (data not presented here). Results - Overall, 1,656 subjects were approached at the primary care clinics and 1,625 met inclusion criteria. The screening procedure was completed by 1,558 subjects and the second-stage evaluation by 250. Psychiatric disorders according to ICD-10 criteria were diagnosed in 12.4% of consecutive primary care attenders; of these, about one-third (4.5% of consecutive primary care attenders) satisfied ICD-10 diagnostic criteria for two or more disorders. Current Depressive Episode (4.7%) and Generalized Anxiety Disorder (3.7%) were the most common diagnoses. In addition, 11.2% of consecutive primary care attenders had ‘sub-threshold’ psychiatric disorders (i.e., they suffered from symptoms in at least two different areas among those listed in ICD-10, but they did not satisfy diagnostic criteria for well-defined disorders). Psychiatric disorders were more common among females and those aged 24-44 years. Only 20.6% of the subjects with psychiatric disorders contacted the general practitioner for their psychological symptoms, 5.7% complained of symptoms which might have had a psychological origin, whereas in about 70% of the cases the psychiatric disorder was concealed behind the presentation of somatic symptoms, pains in various parts of the body or chronic physical illness. Sixty-two percent of the subjects with psychiatric disorders rated their health status as fair or poor, as compared to 52.0% of those with chronic physical illness and 31.3% of those without such disorders. According to the general practitioner, 40.1% of the subjects with psychiatric disorders and 45.3% of those with chronic physical illness had a fair or poor health status, compared to 14.4% of those without such disorders. Disability in occupational and other daily activities was reported by 52.5% of the subjects with psychiatric disorders (in 40.1% of the cases disability was moderate or severe), 44.4% of those with chronic physical illness (in 26.8% of the cases disability was moderate or severe), and 15.0% of the subjects without such disorders (in 9.1% of the cases disability was moderate or severe). According to the interviewer, disability was identified in 48.4% of the subjects with psychiatric disorders, 39.0% of those with chronic physical illness, and 27.6% of the subjects without such disorders. Sixty per cent of the subjects with psychiatric disorders suffered from concurrent chronic physical illness; these subjects had a poorer health status and higher disability levels than those with psychiatric disorders only. Conclusions - Psychiatric disorders among primary care attenders are frequent and represents a major public health problem, since they entail severe functional limitations for the patients and high costs for the society. Thus, appropriate programs for their recognition and treatment are needed.

The balanced care model proposes that a comprehensive mental health system needs to include both community-and hospital-based care. The model is based on a structured review of scientific evidence, and is also informed by the experience of experts active in mental health system change in many countries worldwide.