Open main menu

The "biopsychosocial model" was proposed in 1977 by George L. Engel as a psychological approach which combines biological, psychological, and social factors in a person’s mental and physical health.



The biopsychosocial model was first proposed by George L. Engel and Jon Romano of Rochester University in 1977.[1] As opposed to the biomedical approach, Engel strived for a more holistic approach by recognizing that each patient has his or her own thoughts, feelings, and history. [2][non-primary source needed] In developing the model, Engel framed this model for both illnesses and psychological problems. The biopsychosocial model reflects the development of illness through the complex interaction of biological factors (genetic, biochemical, etc.), psychological factors (mood, personality, behavior, etc.) and social factors (cultural, familial, socioeconomic, medical, etc.). [3][non-primary source needed][4][non-primary source needed] For example, a person may have a genetic predisposition for depression, but he or she must have social factors such as extreme stress at work and family life and psychological factors such as a perfectionistic tendencies which all trigger this genetic code for depression. A person may have a genetic predisposition for a disease, but social and cognitive factors must trigger the illness. Specifically, Engel revolutionized medical thinking by re-proposing a separation of body and mind. The idea of dualism goes back to Rene Descartes, but was forgotten during the biomedical approach. Engel emphasized that the biomedical approach is flawed because the body alone does not contribute to illness.[5] Instead, the individual mind (psychological and social factors) plays a significant role in how a illness is caused and how it is treated. Engel proposes a dialogue between the patient and the doctor in order to find the most effective treatment solution.[6] Similarly, materialistic and reductionist ideas proposed with the biomedical model are flawed because they cannot be verified on a cellular level (according to Engel).[7]. Instead, the proposed model focuses on the research of past psychologists such as Urie Bofenbrenner, popularized by his belief that social factors play a role in developing illnesses and behaviors. Simply, Engel used Bofenbrenner’s research as a column of his biopsychosocial model and framed this model to display health at the center of social, psychological, and biological aspects. After Engel’s publication, the biopsychosocial model was adopted by the World Health Organization as a basis for the International Classification of Function (ICF).[8]

Current ModelEdit

25 years after Engel’s publication, the biopsychosocial model is still widely used as a psychological model. The biological, psychological, and social categories have expanded into bigger categories: specifically, the social aspect has greatly expanded through ideas such as spirituality and culture. Even though many psychologists may not completely accept this model as their own, it is known for interconnecting three important categories.[9] Even if all aspects do not apply to the situation, the biopsychosocial model is widely used to organize one’s thoughts. It shows that a person’s problems are all connected, and they may be more complex than previously imagined.


There have been a number of criticisms of the biopsychosocial model. 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.[10]. Really, how can each category be perfectly represented, and how does one define what falls into which category? For example, a person would most likely put “chemistry of the brain” under biological; but if the wording is revised to “thoughts,” it would then be considered psychological even if they are essentially the same. Others argue that these categories are pointless, since all can be boiled down to just the physical.[3][non-primary source needed] Some have argued that the approach borders on anarchy because of the suggestion that the target and focus on intervention is determined by the practitioner based on personal preference.[11] Some became reductionistic about the model itself, attempting to predict small parts of one aspect to predict the functioning in one field of medicine, for example psychiatry.[12] Other limitations include the probability of bias within a doctor-patient relationship, the presumed superiority of psychiatric problems to others, and the current debate of dualism. [13]

See alsoEdit


  1. ^ "The Biopsychosocial Model Approach" (PDF). Rochester University. Rochester University. Retrieved 18 April 2019.
  2. ^ Engel, George L. (6 July 2009). "The Need for a New Medical Model: A Challenge for Biomedicine". Holistic Medicine. 4 (1): 37–53. doi:10.3109/13561828909043606.
  3. ^ a b Engel, GL (8 April 1977). "The need for a new medical model: a challenge for biomedicine". Science. 196 (4286): 129–36. doi:10.1126/science.847460. PMID 847460.
  4. ^ Engel G. L. (1980). "The clinical application of the biopsychosocial model". American Journal of Psychiatry. 137 (5): 535–544. doi:10.1176/ajp.137.5.535. PMID 7369396.
  5. ^ Dombeck, Mark. "The Bio-Psycho-Social Model". MentalHelp.Net. American Addiction Centers. Retrieved 18 April 2019.
  6. ^ Gatchel, Robert; Haggard, Robbie. "Biopsychosocial Prescreening of Spinal Chord and Peripheral Nerve Stimulation Services". Science Direct. Elsevier. Retrieved 18 April 2019.
  7. ^ Lehman, Barbara. "Rethinking the Biopsychosocial Model of Health". Wiley Online Library. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Retrieved 18 April 2019.
  8. ^ Hopwood, Val. "Current Context: Neurological Rehabilitation and Neurological Physiotherapy". Science Direct. Churchhill Livingstone. Retrieved 18 April 2019.
  9. ^ Borrell-Carrió, Francesc; Suchman, Anthony; Epstein, Ronald. "The Biopsychosocial Model 25 Years Later". Annals of Family Medicine. US National Libraries of Medicine. Retrieved 18 April 2019.
  10. ^ Lehman, Barbara. "Rethinking the Biopsychosocial Model of Health". Wiley Online Library. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Retrieved 18 April 2019.
  11. ^ Benning, TB (2015). "Limitations of the biopsychosocial model in psychiatry". Advances in Medical Education and Practice. 6: 347–52. doi:10.2147/AMEP.S82937. PMC 4427076. PMID 25999775.
  12. ^ McLaren, N (February 1998). "A critical review of the biopsychosocial model". The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry. 32 (1): 86–92, discussion 93–6. doi:10.3109/00048679809062712. PMID 9565189.
  13. ^ Ghaemi, SN (July 2009). "The rise and fall of the biopsychosocial model". The British Journal of Psychiatry. 195 (1): 3–4. doi:10.1192/bjp.bp.109.063859. PMID 19567886.

External linksEdit