The role of social workers in Slovenian mental health institutions: Interdisciplinarity approach addressing youth mental health

Abstract

This qualitative study examined how social workers enact their roles within interdisciplinary mental health services for children and youth in Slovenia, amid an ongoing shift from hospital‑centred, biomedical care to community‑based, rights‑oriented practice, through the process of deinstitutionalisation. Grounded in model of interdisciplinary collaboration (Bronstein's, 2003; Kelly et al., 2019) and the psychosocial ecosystemic approach (Martinez-Brawley & Zorita, 2017; Walker, 2003), using methodological triangulation through observational journaling, across public mental health settings in Slovenia, semi‑structured interviews with practicing Slovenian social workers with experience in mental health, and Slovenian mental health document analysis. Objectives were to: (1) explore the perceptions about the role of social workers within interdisciplinary mental health teams in Slovenia; (2) identify the challenges commonly encountered concerning mental health care and different discipline approaches in a social workers viewpoint; and (3) describe the strategies and practices social workers develop to address these dilemmas in everyday professional contexts. Findings indicated that social workers provide a distinctive, humanizing, and integrative contribution: bridging clients and systems; integrating intrapsychic, relational, family, school, community, and policy dimensions; and advocating for autonomy, inclusion, and rights guarantee of the clients. Interdisciplinarity is present but uneven: formal case conferences coexist with informal collaboration, while medical hierarchies, staff shortages, workload, over bureaucracy and weak interministerial/sectorial coordination constrain shared decision‑making, prevention, and continuity of mental health treatment. In response, practitioners rely on relational investment, role flexibility beyond formal remits, and supervision, even though scarce, to sustain reflexivity and resilience. Document analysis corroborates a policy–practice gap: despite national goal to community treatment and intersector aims, deinstitutionalization proceeds slowly and rights concerns persist in institutional settings as it is highlighted by the reports analyzed within violations. Recommendations include operationalizing cross‑sector governance, embedding protected interdisciplinary reflection and joint goal‑setting in team routines, strengthening education background and services training for collaborative practice, and accelerating rights‑aligned, co‑produced deinstitutionalization. Future work should foreground power dynamics in mental health services and also seek for service‑user perspectives to assess whether interdisciplinary psychosocial practice yields measurable gains in youth mental health and social inclusion.