Rethinking the nature of the person at the heart of the biopsychosocial model: Exploring social changeways not just personal pathways

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.

Automated summary

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.