Biopsychosocial model

The idea behind the model was to express mental distress as a triggered response of a disease that a person is genetically vulnerable when stressful life events occur.

[2] It is now referred to as a generalized model that interprets similar aspects,[3] and has become an alternative to the biomedical and/or psychological dominance of many health care systems.

In the Victorian era, psychiatry was faced with two key challenges: firstly, taking control of the asylum system from lay administrators and secondly, constructing a credible knowledge base for medical authority over mental illness.

At the time, the solution to this was developing a rhetoric of justification for psychiatry which was that the brain is the root of insanity, and physicians are the guardians of mental health.

[11] Past psychologists such as Urie Bronfenbrenner, popularized the belief that social factors play a role in developing illnesses and behaviors.

Engel's model represents a broader and more integrated approach that considers biological, psychological, and social factors as interconnected elements.

[16] By broadening the scope of patients that are encompassed in healthcare, the biopsychosocial model incorporates the idea of non-biological factors such as socioeconomic status, race, and sex to be important components to one's health along with the common biological indicators.

Scholars are now working on developing a broader health model, incorporating insights from psychology and social sciences, with the intention of improving its practical application in clinical settings.

[19] A holistic biopsychosocial model approach considers additional elements influencing the perceived necessity for healthcare and the focus on health-related matters: Information, Beliefs, and Conduct.

Based on the model's dependence on perception, it has been considered imperative to actively engage the individuals or communities whose requirements are being addressed,[20] regardless of whether the focus is on their health, education, employment, housing, or any other needs.

A key term in the biopsychosocial model is "syndemic" which refers to a set of health problem factors that interact synergistically with each other ranging from socioeconomic status to genetics.

The biomedical model, historically prevalent, takes a reductionist approach by focusing on biological factors and treating diseases through medical interventions.

[23] In contrast, the biopsychosocial model adopts a holistic viewpoint, acknowledging the complex interplay of biological, psychological, and social factors in shaping health and illness.

Gatchel and colleagues argued in 2007 the biopsychosocial model is the most widely accepted as the most heuristic approach to understanding and treating chronic pain.

[37] In another study of enduring marriages, they looked to see if hostile marital interactions in the early middle years could wear down couples regulator systems through greater psychological distress, more health-risk behaviors, and a higher body mass index (BMI).

[26] Within the framework of the biopsychosocial model, gender is regarded by some as a complex and nuanced construct, shaped by the intricate interplay of social, psychological, and biological factors.

[46] In essence, this characterization aligns with the fundamental principles of the biopsychosocial model, emphasizing the need to consider not only biological determinants but also the profound influences of psychological and social contexts on the formation of gender.

[45][47] According to the insights of Alex Iantaffi and Meg-John Barker, the biopsychosocial model provides a comprehensive framework to understand the complexities of gender.

[45] They illustrate that biological, psychological, and social factors are not isolated entities but rather intricately intertwined elements that continually interact and shape one another.

In this dynamic process, a person's gender identity emerges as the result of a complex interplay between their biological characteristics, psychological experiences, and social interactions.

[45] This holistic perspective is in harmony with the biopsychosocial model's approach, which acknowledges the inseparable connection between these various dimensions in influencing an individual's overall well-being.

[1][45] This perspective urges a more nuanced understanding, encouraging researchers and medical professionals to consider the intricate interplay of social, psychological, and biological factors when exploring and addressing the complexities of gender.

[48][49][50] Benning summarized the arguments against the model including that it lacked philosophical coherence, was insensitive to patients' subjective experience, was unfaithful to the general systems theory that Engel claimed it be rooted in, and that it engendered an undisciplined eclecticism that provides no safeguards against either the dominance or the under-representation of any one of the three domains of bio, psycho, or social.