The Biopsychosocial Model of Health and Disease: New Philosophical and Scientific Developments

Nassir Ghaemi , a psychiatrist at Tufts, in his 2010 book with the telling title: ‘The Rise and Fall of the Biopsychosocial Model’ [2]. Ghaemi argues that the model is vague, too general, tells us nothing specific of value, hence is inefficient and sometimes distracting; it ‘gives mental health professionals permission to do everything but no speci

Such radical criticisms are of two main types: first, that the model lacks specific content, is too general and vague; and second, that it lacks scientific validity and philosophical coherence.

with the psychological and the social as much as the biomedical, primary care (family medicine) being the clearest example

It is particularly useful in psychology and social work healthcare professions, and in medical practice that has to deal

Engel wrote his papers some 40 years ago, the biopsychosocial model has become the orthodox overarching model for health, disease and healthcare. It is much cited and taught in healthcare trainings of all sorts and in workshops and ward rounds the world over. In simple terms it recommends to healthcare to take into account all three aspects, the bi

major illnesses, physical and mental, start early in development, many in childhood, and that risks include social factors such as poverty and other forms of social exclusion , some specific family level factors such as neglect and abuse, and life-style factors such as exercise and diet.

Prospective epidemiological studies suggest that risks for many

Engel argued that a broadening of the biomedical approach, a new biopsychosocial model, was needed to take account of all these factors ‘contributing to both illness and patienthood’ ([1], p. 133).

comprising failure to take account of the following: the person who has the illness, the person’s experience of, account of and attitude towards the illness ;