Talk:Biopsychosocial model

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Psychology High‑importance Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Neuroscience Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Medicine Low‑importance Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Disability Biopsychosocial model is within the scope of WikiProject Disability. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

References lack quality

While the overall quality of the article is not bad, some of the statements need references or higher quality references. Anyone want to help out? Arch (talk) 11:44, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve noticed that many of the references on this page are nearly a decade old, and while much of the information is still interesting and relevant, some of it could benefit from updated sources. As knowledge and research have evolved since these citations were originally added, it would be great to see more recent studies or data incorporated to ensure the page reflects the most current information.

I encourage anyone with access to newer, reliable sources to help update these references. This will not only enhance the accuracy and credibility of the article but also provide readers with the most up-to-date context. I'll do my part by contributing where I can, but any help from the community would be greatly appreciated! MickeyJSweats (talk) 03:05, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Id be a perfect person to use as a study on this thesis 85.255.236.48 (talk) 17:43, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently looking into connections between my issues, both physically and mentally. And have interestingly discovered how closely many symptoms and health conditions are linked. This has given reasons and thankfully know why certain serious health problems accured. Unfortunately I've not had any treatment nor further investigation. Im often consumed with guilt and confusion that my actions are killing me and I'm scared. 85.255.236.48 (talk) 18:00, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Content

I edited this article because it's original format when I discovered it this morning clearly presented a one-sided, narrow view of the impact of Engel's biopsychosocial model. While it inaccurately portrayed the model as some "fly-by-night" perspective, it completely ignored the empirical research & clinical work over the last three decades in behavioral medicine (including general medicine, nursing, social work, health psychology, public health, patient education). I have expanded the description and arguments made by the biopsychosocial approach with references. Editor's should be mindful that productive discussions of scientific inquiry are best when evidence is provided and integrated in the absence (or at least, restriction) of personal biases. I felt the need to edit the format (edits listed as 74.130.203.84 were made by me prior to registering a Wiki account) simply because I felt the model and its effects were being misrepresented with one-sided, albeit weak, evidence to support a view that was clearly discriminatory toward the biopsychosocial approach.

RfC on Talk:Biopsychiatry controversy

An RfC has been created on Talk:Biopsychiatry controversy on the subject: "Is the majority viewpoint of the psychiatric profession, and particularly of the psychiatric research community, that the biopsychiatric model of psychiatry is, by and large, accepted or rejected?" Comments from editors involved in this article/project may prove useful. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"biopsychiatric" ? Don't you mean "Biopsychosocial"? Lycurgus (talk) 02:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tag Resolution 2008-07

Removed undated {{Multiple issues|article=y}} for explicit resolution here.

NPOV

• NPOV/CON My reading is that it is not as currently read by a non specialist.

But should say that I am a reductionist. It's not clear if the reason it's thought POV is that it isn't sufficiently enthusiatic about the BPS model. If that's the case then the tag is spurious. Lycurgus (talk) 02:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Biopsychosocial model. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131029200951/http://www.bu.edu/paideia/existenz/volumes/Vol.6-1Ghaemi.html to http://www.bu.edu/paideia/existenz/volumes/Vol.6-1Ghaemi.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:07, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism Section purely psychiatric

The criticisms (as of 2018), are all in relation to Psychiatry. Are we to take it that apart from in Psychiatry,the Biopsychosocial Model is universally accepted in medicine and related fields? Egmason (talk) 09:10, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also - having looked more, this relies heavily on one person's works; six of the 12 references in this section are from one author, Niall McLaren, M.D. The ideas seem common enough that there must be more authors than this. Egmason (talk) 09:47, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to the page

Hello everyone: Following a conversation with CFCF (Carl Fredrik) I brought back my edits (in which I had incorporated only secondary and tertiary sources). I will write a more detailed explanation of my edits after I complete them.

Sandyshore (talk) 15:21, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sandyshore, He said "if". But the "if" was not satisfied. Example: a 1980 paper by the inventor, Engel, fails the test of independence. The problem here is that much of the content you are introducing looks like alt-med woo. So you need to stick to what WP:MEDRS sources say - high level systematic reviews and the like, not primary studies; newer work, not older; and avoid work by the inventor or main proponents of the thing. Guy (help!) 17:04, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Guy, I used secondary sources and tertiary sources (please take a look yourself). The 1980 paper is the original article of Engle that we are discussing here, so it needs to be listed. Can you please list any of the primary references I have added? Please be specific.

Thank you,

Sandyshore (talk) 17:21, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you're also removing criticism. What's your involvement in this topic off-Wikipedia? Guy (help!) 17:24, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Guy – you deleted all my edits while I was working on the edits (this is why the criticism edits came later). If you look at my edits carefully (in the criticism section), you will see that I have kept all the references, but have summarized them and also stated that many of the criticisms have been addressed. Please read carefully. Also, I am still waiting for you list any primary sources I have used in my edits - please be specific.

Thank you,

Sandyshore (talk) 17:45, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sandyshore — We very much would like to incorporate your edits into the article. In order to do that they need to be as JzG said: 1) secondary or tertiary, 2) recent (preferably within the last 5 years, 10 years is acceptable), 3) preferably independent.

I have very high confidence in JzG's judgement, and if he found that any of those were at issue — I can not see that I would find anything different. I'm quite busy right now, and whereas I am interested in the article topic, I am unable to assist in cutting away the non-WP:MEDRS sources from your contributions.

As for the 1980-paper: it might be relevant for a historical perspective, but little else. If you are going to cite it, I suggest you not hinge upon it any even potentially controversial statements.

If you are planning major additions that you will be undertaking in a step-by-step process, where any of the intermediary versions would contribute to a less-than-ideal article here, please do so at User:Sandyshore/sandbox (your personal sandbox).

Also be aware that Wikipedia is strict when it comes to WP:fringe views. If you think that in any way your additions could be conceived of as "Woo", you're better off spending your time elsewhere, as they simply won't be included no matter how hard you try.
Carl Fredrik ^talk 08:06, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Fredrik – Thank you very much for your message. I have listed the four articles I newly added to the article at the very end of this message. You can see for yourself that all of them are secondary and tertiary sources (#1 and #4 are secondary sources, and #2 and #3 are tertiary sources that summarize primary and secondary sources to give an overview of the topic).

Regarding publication years, two of these articles were published in 2020 and the publication years of the other two are 2018 and 2017 – so, all the articles I newly added were published within the last three years. Please note that Engel (1980) article was already listed in the original Wikipedia article that I started editing (you can check this for yourself) – however, since I wanted to list this reference in another place in the article (when discussing the ‘systems theory’), and since I could not find a ‘ref name’ in the existing citation format, I reformatted it first and then listed it.

Regarding “Woo" – I have an academic background (university research) so, none of what I have edited is woo. You can see for yourself that all the references I have added are articles published in established peer reviewed academic journals.

I would also like to add that the current version of this Wikipedia article has several problematic issues that need to be corrected (which I did address in my edits, although they were all deleted). I have listed a few of these issues below:

- In the article, the section “Current Model” cites only one old article published more then 15 years ago.

- The reference ‘Simon et al.,’ is a primary source (it is a singular study conducted in a group of patients) – this reference should be removed.

- In the “History” section, there were a couple of sentences that make unsupported claims (see “… a person may have a genetic predisposition ……… ). These sentences do not have a citation, and also research shows that just the opposite may be the case (see the reference https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28373689 ).

- There are other issues like the use of improper terminology – for example, the article says that the biomedicine is “flawed” – but none of the citing references state this. Even in Engel’s original article, he talks about the “limitations” of the biomedical model – not about it being “flawed.”

- The article is unnecessarily ‘wordy’ – there are several places where the sentence structure can be improved. It also talks in length about things like dualism – Instead, more details on the ‘systems theory’ upon which Engel built his theory need to be provided.

References:

1. Wade, D. T., & Halligan, P. W. (2017). The biopsychosocial model of illness: a model whose time has come. Clinical Rehabilitation, 31(8):995-1004. doi: 10.1177/0269215517709890

2. Karunamuni, N., Imayama, I., Goonetilleke, D., Pathways to well-being: Untangling the causal relationships among biopsychosocial variables, Social Science & Medicine (2020), doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.112846

3. Frazier, L. D. (2020). The past, present, and future of the biopsychosocial model: A review of The Biopsychosocial Model of Health and Disease: New philosophical and scientific developments by Derek Bolton and Grant Gillett. New Ideas in Psychology, 57, 100755.

4. The Lancet (2018). UK life science research: Time to burst the biomedical bubble. The Lancet, 392, 187. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31609-X

Sandyshore (talk) 17:16, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sandyshore, doi for the first, please? Also, with respect, being a university researcher is no guarantee against woo. There are university researchers who promote homeopathy, reiki, acupuncture and "integrative medicine". Guy (help!) 17:19, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JzG, I have added the doi: 10.1177/0269215517709890 (sorry I had missed it the first time). Regarding “Woo” – ‘woo’ for you doesn’t mean it is ‘woo’ for everyone. When people originally believed that the earth was flat, if that had not been questioned, science wouldn’t have advanced this far. What you are saying (biopsychosocial model has no value, and that it is "woo") is very similar to that. Perhaps you need to read up more about these matters. Anyway, I would like to hear from Carl Fredrik regarding this.

Sandyshore (talk) 17:52, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Criticisms and achievements section

The section is just criticisms, not achievements. This theory is taught in medical schools today, is this article reflective of current feeling as a whole? 37.60.108.228 (talk) 22:23, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this page really does not reflect at all just how dominant this model actually is; it makes it look like some sort of fringe model.--Megaman en m (talk) 06:24, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Biosychosocial

riot happened in a soccer game.what question would biosychosocial ask? 43.245.57.173 (talk) 15:18, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV - History

The history section seems to have POV problems. Born25121642 (talk) 03:30, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Born25121642: Please elaborate. What POV is being given undue weight, and what is the alternative view? ParticipantObserver (talk) 10:44, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The POV observation is a constructive point, thank you. It was okay when the article was only about Engel's model. The historical development of other models should be added. ConflictScience (talk) 18:15, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ConflictScience, ParticipantObserver, and Born25121642: This article still has a POV tag: does it give undue weight to Engel's model? Jarble (talk) 14:13, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: ENGW3307 Adv Writing for the Sciences 11520

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 September 2023 and 13 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Suyash sau (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Suyash sau (talk) 01:25, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request to add Sexual Tipping Point model as an applied clinical example

Disclosure: I am Dr. Michael A. Perelman, the originator of the Sexual Tipping Point® model. In line with Wikipedia’s conflict of interest guidelines, I am submitting this proposal for neutral review and editing. My biography appears here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Perelman_(psychologist), and I am a faculty member at Weill Cornell Medicine: https://vivo.weill.cornell.edu/display/cwid-map2014. I am also the recipient of the Lifetime Achievement Award from the Sexual Medicine Society of North America (SMSNA). I propose adding a brief example to the Applications section of the article: In sexual medicine, the Sexual Tipping Point® model developed by Michael A. Perelman, Ph.D., is a clinical application of the biopsychosocial approach. It provides a framework for understanding how biological, psychological, interpersonal, and cultural factors dynamically influence sexual function, conceptualizing dysfunction as the result of inhibitory factors outweighing excitatory ones beyond a "tipping point." This is a variable dual control model which highlights how a sexual response or lack of one can change from moment to moment based on the net proportional impact of the above mind and body factors.

References

• Perelman, M.A. (2009). The sexual tipping point: A mind/body model for sexual medicine. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 6(3), 629–632. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2008.01177.x
• Perelman, M.A. (2018). Sex coaching for non-sexologist physicians: How to use the Sexual Tipping Point model. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 15(12), 1667–1672. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsxm.2018.09.011
• Perelman, M.A. (2016). Psychosexual therapy for delayed ejaculation based on the Sexual Tipping Point model. Translational Andrology and Urology, 5(4), 563–575. https://doi.org/10.21037/tau.2016.07.05
• Rullo, J.E., Faubion, S.S., Hartzell, R.M., et al. (2018). Biopsychosocial Management of Female Sexual Dysfunction: A Pilot Study of Patient Perceptions From 2 Multi-Disciplinary Clinics. Sexual Medicine, 6(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esxm.2018.04.003Pfaus, J.G. (2009).
• Pathways of sexual desire. The Journal of Sexual Medicine, 6(6), 1506–1533. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2009.01309.x

Thank you for considering this addition. Drpnyc (talk) 15:17, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for following the COI guidelines. A few points regarding style: we don't use the ® symbol in Wikipedia articles, per MOS:TMRULES; we don't include people's post-nominal credentials such as Ph.D., per MOS:CREDENTIAL; and we wouldn't put the name of the model in boldface, per MOS:NOBOLD. We also want to follow the due weight policy (WP:DUE), so it's not clear that we would want to include information about this particular model, as it is not especially important to the overall concept of biopsychosocial model. It may be more appropriate simply to mention that biopsychosocial models are relevant to sexual health, without explicitly naming this particular model and its creator in the text, and citing whichever source is most relevant.

This request to add the Sexual Tipping Point model to this article seems to be part of a larger WP:PROMOTION campaign to insert the name of the model into multiple Wikipedia articles. A clue is that Drpnyc prominently added trademark symbols to each instance of the name of the model and requested that he be named in the article as the creator of the model: whereas psychological models are not usually trademarked, as there is no need for it unless there is a commercial business involved, and the fact that the model is trademarked and prominently marked as being trademarked with a trademark symbol here seems to indicate a business WP:PROMOTION motive rather than the open knowledge motive of Wikipedia, and may be a good reason to avoid mentioning this particular model. Biogeographist (talk) 19:28, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up to the editor's response: Thank you again for your consideration and detailed review. I would like to respectfully clarify one important point regarding the trademark status of the Sexual Tipping Point model. The Sexual Tipping Point® trademark is not used for commercial business purposes. It was registered to protect the name for a non-profit organization, the MAP Education and Research Foundation (a 501(c)(3) public charity). The Foundation uses the name in the context of educational initiatives, including student awards and academic programs. (For reference: https://www.mapedfund.org) The registration was undertaken on the advice of legal counsel after instances began occurring where others used the model’s name without attribution or appropriate context. The intent was to preserve the academic integrity of the model and ensure its use in charitable and educational settings, not for personal or commercial gain. I fully understand Wikipedia's requirements for neutrality and due weight, and I am happy to support rewording the proposed addition, however the name Sexual Tipping Point as a clinically important biopsychosocial model for the treatment of sexual disorders is supported my dozens of peer reviewed professional publications. I would be happy to provide more references if needed, but I had hoped (perhaps erroneously) that ones initially offered above were sufficient. At this point over 25 Awards have been given, the site has been accessed by clinicians in over 135 countries as was my intent for this legacy project after being a pioneer in this field for over 50 years. My own Wikipedia site has links to my Professorship at Cornell medicine where I have led the longest continuously running sex therapy case conference in the world at the program started by my own mentor Helen Kaplan. That said, there is no need to include my name as the originator of the model if that would be preferable. My goal is simply to contribute relevant, verifiable information regarding the application of a specific example of how the biopsychosocial models relevant and can be applied to sexual health. I fully understand Wikipedia's requirements for neutrality and due weight, and again I am happy to support rewording the proposed addition to avoid mentioning my name if that would be preferable. My goal is simply to contribute relevant, verifiable information regarding the application of biopsychosocial models to sexual health. Thank you again for your time and consideration. Michael A. Perelman Co-Director, Human Sexuality Program Clinical Professor Emeritus of Psychology in Psychiatry Former Clinical Professor of Reproductive Medicine & Urology Weill Cornell Medicine | NewYork-Presbyterian

Grammar

Why is the use of past and present tense inconsistent? ComfortnJoy (talk) 19:08, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Possible AI generated text

Hi - I added the AI generated tag here. Honestly there are a lot of diffs that seem suspect, but this edit in particular displays many indicators of LLM use and so that text needs scrutiny for hallucinations, tone, etc. Gnomingstuff (talk) 05:50, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Suyash sau: Was any of this text generated by a large language model? Jarble (talk) 01:26, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]