Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41994602›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in sociology2026

Understanding medical professionalism in Italy-welfare regimes, regulatory models, paths to medical professionalization/professionalism, and gender inclusion.

Elena Spina, Maria Giovanna Vicarelli

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in sociology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Elena SpinaDepartment of Social and Economic Sciences, Università Politecnica delle Marche, Ancona, Italy.
Maria Giovanna VicarelliDepartment of Social and Economic Sciences, Università Politecnica delle Marche, Ancona, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This article proposes a theoretical interpretation of the transformation of medical professionalism in Italy by integrating four analytical dimensions that are often examined separately: welfare regimes, healthcare regulatory models, professionalization pathways/models of professionalism, and gender inclusion. Drawing on comparative welfare state theory and the sociology of professions, the study argues that medical professionalism in Italy has historically developed within a complex institutional configuration characterized by the interaction of state, market, and community coordination mechanisms. Using a historical-figurational perspective, the article shows how the relative weakness of both state regulation and healthcare markets fostered the emergence of clan-based forms of professional coordination, as conceptualized by Ouchi. These relational networks-rooted in academic, political, associative, and community ties-have played a central role in structuring access to careers, economic and political resources, and professional status. The creation of the Italian National Health Service in 1978 introduced a universalistic institutional framework. Still, subsequent reforms, austerity policies, and the expansion of private healthcare have reinforced rather than displaced these particular governance arrangements. At the same time, the progressive feminization of the medical profession and generational change are reshaping professional hierarchies and leadership patterns. The Italian case thus offers a useful lens for understanding how historically stratified institutional contexts influence the contemporary transformation of medical professionalism.

Indexed as

clan governancefeminization of the professionItalymedical professionalismwelfare state

Identifiers

PMID41994602
PMCPMC13079581

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.