Journal
SOCIAL SCIENCE & MEDICINE
Volume 272, Issue -, Pages -Publisher
PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113566
Keywords
Social identity; Biopsychosocial model; Health; Metatheory; Behavioural medicine
Ask authors/readers for more resources
The BPS-P model builds on Engel's biopsychosocial model, providing a framework for understanding the multiple pathways and mechanisms between biological, psychological, and social influences on health. However, its treatment of these influences as separate systems may limit its holistic approach.
Karunamuni et al.'s (2020) biopsychosocial-pathways (BPS-P) model provides an important framework for elaborating on Engel's (1977) biopsychosocial (BPS) model of health. In particular, the BPS-P model improves on Engel's by articulating and evidencing the multiple pathways between biological, psychological, and social influences on health and identifying mechanisms that might be implicated in these pathways. Yet its analytic treatment of these influences as separate systems means that, as with Engel's model, the BPS-P model is more a list of ingredients than an integrated whole. In this commentary, following Haslam et al.'s (2019) specification of a sociopsychobio model, we underscore the value of a synthetic appreciation of biology, psychology, and society as dynamically interdependent aspects of an integrated whole which is more than just the sum of its parts and the pathways between them. In particular, our alternative framework centres on an appreciation of people as social beings whose group memberships and associated social identities open up 'changeways' (not just pathways) that, as we have seen during the COVID-19 pandemic, can fundamentally restructure biology, psychology and society.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available