Psychosocial and Biomedical Models of Health and Illness

This paper compares and contrasts both the psychosocial and the biomedical models of health and illness. The psychosocial model of health and illness is a model that is used to link psychosocial condition and the body conditions to understand and treat diseases better.

Models of health and illness 1
PSYCHOSOCIAL AND BIOMEDICAL MODELS OF HEALTH AND ILLNESS
by
Course
Tutor
University
City and State
Date

Models of health and illness 2
The psychosocial model of health and illness is a model that is used to link psychosocial
condition and the body conditions to understand and treat diseases better. The model was
advanced by George Engel in 1977 as he was trying to argue about the psychosocial factors of
diseases and the need to focus on psychiatry in treating various conditions. On the other hand,
the biomedical model simply relies on biological factors of a disease. According to the medical
model, health can be simply be defined as the absence of pain or illness from the body and rather
not depending on how a patient feels (Greene, 2017). This paper compares and contrasts both the
psychosocial and the biomedical models of health and illness.
According to Leung, 2015, the psychosocial model differs from the biological model in
their definition of health. This is expressed in the sense that the psychosocial model focuses on
disease as the complete physical, mental and cognitive health on the body. This definition
extends to focus on the psychosocial factors of human conditions such as mental health,
depression or stress. On the other hand the definition of health by the biomedical model has
stripped the definition of its psychosocial aspect. It narrows down its focus on biomedical,
genetic, physical status of the body.
According to Bowling, 2014 the two models also differs in their explanations of the
causes of illness. In the psychosocial model, ill health is caused by an interplay of both medical
and psychosocial factors. Behaviour and personality are seen as key constituents of disease or ill
health. Following this model it is quite clear to suggest that a person is likely to fall sick by
developing certain habits or by choosing to live according to a certain lifestyle. This very
concept makes this model the best in explaining the cause and organ of certain lifestyle diseases,
mental disorders and personality related disease such as eating disorders. On the other hand
however the biomedical model focuses alienates the psychosocial causes of disease and focuses

Models of health and illness 3
on the disease causes as a malfunctioning of the brain. These theorists then attribute the disease
to the malfunction. At the same time, both ideas bear weight as both the brain controls both the
mental and the physical condition of the body. It is therefore true to rule out the fact that both
models need to be used to accurately describe ill health. This is because most diseases affect both
the body and the brain function which in turn affects the psychosocial characteristics of a person
such as the facial expression moods and the personality for the case of long-term illness (Coulter,
2017).
Consequently, the models differs in the ways in the ways in which diseases are treated.
For instance, if a doctor who uses the biomedical model fails to consider the psychosocial factors
of health, it will be hard for the same physician to focus on a behavioural approach to care. This
presents the very difference between the two models in the way that they handle treatment
options. While proponents of the biomedical models will restrict themselves to treating causes
and effects of diseases, the psychosocial proponents will focus on a more holistic approach that
will focus on the comorbidities and the risk factors that surround a certain illness (Rogers, and
Pilgrim, 2014).
Another difference that can be drawn from this difference in quantitative terms is that the
biomedical proponents focus more on causation which borrows heavily from the concept of
hammering a nail into a wood. These proponents believe that the relationship between health and
illness is a cause and effect relationship. It is according to these theorists who argue that causes
cause effects and effects effect changes in the health of an individual. This is not so with the
psychosocial proponents who focus not only on causation but also on correlation as a
relationship between disease and health does not be a causation. These proponents focuses on the
likelihood of having two factors which in this case may be presence of 2 diseases not because

Models of health and illness 4
one cause the other but because there are conditions that favour the development of both diseases
(Van de Velde, Eijkelkamp, Peersman, and De Vriendt, 2016).
In quantifiable terms a contrast can be drawn to discuss the categories of diseases that
these two models can effective discuss and interpret. The biomedical theory developed in the 20th
century when most of the diseases were caused by virus or bacteria. It was therefore a very
essential tool in the interpretation of disease of this kind. It is not until recently that non-
communicable diseases, mental health disorders, personality disorders and other classes of
diseases have emerged demanding the rise of the psychosocial theory that offers a
multidisciplinary approach that can be used to explain almost all types of diseases. The
psychosocial model therefore covers many groups of diseases as opposed to the biomedical
model. The psychosocial model offers a multidisciplinary approach to the understanding of
health and illness using various disciplines such as sociology and psychology which helps
explain the nature of man that makes it possible to understand diseases from a medical, social
and psychological context (Clarke, 2018).
In quantifiable terms it is also possible to point out more differences and similarities
between the two models of health and illness. According to Bentley, 2018, the two models
differs in the number of people who can use them to analyse and diagnose health and illness. The
biomedical model is limited to health professionals who understand the different causes and
effects of various diseases. It can therefore only be used by health officers who understand
diseases. On the other hand, Bhaskar, Danermark, and Price, 2017 argues that the psychosocial
model can be left out to various groups of people as the model focuses on the psychological and
the social explanations of disease and illness which can be analysed by many individuals in the
society. For instance it would be difficult for a person who is not in a medical field to tell

Models of health and illness 5
someone that they are suffering from a certain disease because they consumed food
contaminated by a certain bacteria, fungi or another microorganism. It is also unthinkable that
such a person would be in a position to prescribe medication. However focusing on the
psychosocial model, it is likely for an ordinary person to argue out that one is suffering from a
stomach ache because of food poisoning. This means that the biomedical model lays more
burden on the healthcare officers and the ministry of health in managing diseases and infections
unlike the psychosocial model that may also be interpreted by the other people in the society
therefore easing the burden of the health ministry and health care officers as well.
A considerable difference in the qualitative terms is the argument that the psychosocial
model focuses more on prevention while the biomedical model focuses more on the treatment of
diseases argues Foley, and Timonen, 2015. This has influenced the use and application of these
models in the diagnosis, epidemiology and aetiology of diseases, treatment and prevention. The
psychosocial model is the most used theory currently as opposed to the biomedical model that
was used several years ago. This is because governments and healthcare systems are focusing
more on a patient centred and holistic approach to healthcare and treatment of diseases that not
only focuses on the clinical aspects of a disease but also the psychosocial conditions surrounding
a certain disease.
According to Northwood, Ploeg, Markle‐Reid, and Sherifali, 2018 the models have a
basic similarity in their function which encompasses the identification, control and cure of
illnesses. The two models are applicable in the identification of diseases since almost all diseases
have a biological explanation and at the same time they can all be attributed to certain behaviours
mental attitudes and personality traits. Following these two explanations, it is therefore sane to
conclude that the two models complement each other in their explanations and the examinations

Models of health and illness 6
of root causes of disease and illness, the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of these diseases.
The similarity function of the two models demands that it is not possible to alienate either of
them in the context of health and illness despite the fact that one may bear more weight than the
other in certain circumstances.
Another similarity is observable in quantitative terms where the model is both applicable
to individuals and large groups of people. This is to mean that the models can be applied to
diseases that affect an individual and those that affects a large group of people such as
epidemics. According to the psychosocial model, it is clear that individual behaviours may
predispose someone to a certain illness. Similarly, if the same behaviours are culturally accepted,
they may cause diseases to the entire population. In regard to the biomedical model, it is possible
to isolate a disease causing organism that may pose a health risk to all members of an entire
population group (Northwood, Ploeg, Markle‐Reid, and Sherifali, 2018).
In conclusion, it is important to point out that there are significant differences between
the two models. The psychosocial model is highly advantageous over the biomedical model that
is not frequently used due to this difference in comparative advantage. However, both models
can effectively complement each other in the study and practical applications in the health and
illness.

Models of health and illness 7
REFERENCES
Bentley, D., 2018. Quantitative Assessment of Psycho-Social Factors Associated with Alcoholics
Anonymous Involvement.
Bhaskar, R., Danermark, B. and Price, L., 2017. Interdisciplinarity and Wellbeing: A Critical
Realist General Theory of Interdisciplinarity. Routledge.
Bowling, A., 2014. Research methods in health: investigating health and health services.
McGraw-Hill Education (UK).
Clarke, S., 2018. Researching beneath the surface: Psycho-social research methods in practice.
Routledge.
Coulter, I., 2017. Integration and paradigm clash: The practical difficulties of integrative
medicine. In Mainstreaming Complementary and Alternative Medicine (pp. 103-122).
Routledge.
Foley, G. and Timonen, V., 2015. Using grounded theory method to capture and analyze health
care experiences. Health services research, 50(4), pp.1195-1210.
Greene, R.R., 2017. Human Behavior Theory and Professional Social Work Practice. In Human
Behavior Theory and Social Work Practice (pp. 31-62). Routledge.
Leung, L., 2015. Validity, reliability, and generalizability in qualitative research. Journal of
family medicine and primary care, 4(3), p.324.
Northwood, M., Ploeg, J., Markle‐Reid, M. and Sherifali, D., 2018. Integrative review of the
social determinants of health in older adults with multimorbidity. Journal of advanced
nursing, 74(1), pp.45-60.

Models of health and illness 8
Northwood, M., Ploeg, J., Markle‐Reid, M. and Sherifali, D., 2018. Integrative review of the
social determinants of health in older adults with multimorbidity. Journal of advanced
nursing, 74(1), pp.45-60.
Rogers, A. and Pilgrim, D., 2014. A sociology of mental health and illness. McGraw-Hill
Education (UK).
Van de Velde, D., Eijkelkamp, A., Peersman, W. and De Vriendt, P., 2016. How competent are
healthcare professionals in working according to a bio-psycho-social model in
healthcare? The current status and validation of a scale. PloS one, 11(10), p.e0164018.