Talk:Biopsychosocial model

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)

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. HrafnTalkStalk 06:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


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

Tag Resolution 2008-07
Removed undated 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)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 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 ).

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

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)

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)

Edits to the page
Hello everyone: Following a conversation with CFCF 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)
 * , 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)


 * 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)
 * I notice you're also removing criticism. What's your involvement in this topic off-Wikipedia? Guy (help!) 17:24, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * — We very much would like to incorporate your edits into the article. In order to do that they need to be as 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 '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)


 * – 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)


 * , 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)


 * , 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 regarding this.


 * Sandyshore (talk) 17:52, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

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)


 * 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)

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

NPOV - History
The history section seems to have POV problems. Born25121642 (talk) 03:30, 24 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Please elaborate. What POV is being given undue weight, and what is the alternative view? ParticipantObserver (talk) 10:44, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * This article still has a POV tag: does it give undue weight to Engel's model? Jarble (talk) 14:13, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: ENGW3307 Adv Writing for the Sciences 11520
— Assignment last updated by Suyash sau (talk) 01:25, 27 November 2023 (UTC)