4.3 Article

The biobehavioral family model and the family relational assessment protocol: Map and GPS for family systems training

期刊

FAMILY PROCESS
卷 -, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/famp.12945

关键词

family model; family research; family therapy training; family-based intervention

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Biobehavioral Family Model (BBFM) and its related assessment approach (FRAP) are introduced in this article, aiming to investigate the impact of family relational function on individual family member wellbeing and disorder. Through examples and case studies, the application of BBFM and FRAP in clinical practice and training is demonstrated.
The Biobehavioral Family Model (BBFM) was developed and evolved as a heuristic research model to support the investigation of pathways by which family relational function impacts individual family member wellbeing and disorder. Recently, the BBFM and its related assessment approach, the Family Relational Process Assessment Protocol (FRAP), have emerged as tools for clinical practice and training. The BBFM model will be presented, along with definitions of the dimensions constructed in the model, and research evidence in support of the model. To illustrate how the BBFM and FRAP are used in training, instructions for conducting the FRAP will be presented. Then, transcripts from two contrasting families participating in one of the interaction tasks will illustrate how, in training, the FRAP is interpreted through the BBFM lens to illuminate how these patterns of family relationship impact the identified patient. Finally, three applications of this training approach will exemplify the use of the BBFM and FRAP in the context of a Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Fellowship, a Family Medicine Fellowship, and a Family Therapy Training Program in Istanbul, Turkey. Limitations and future directions for the application of the BBFM in the exploration of multicultural aspects of family function for clinical and training purposes will be discussed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据