Introduction to Health: Biomedical vs. Psychosocial Models Analysis

This essay provides a comprehensive analysis of the biomedical and psychosocial models of health and illness. It begins by defining and outlining the core principles of each model, highlighting the biomedical model's focus on biological and cellular abnormalities as the root cause of disease, and the psychosocial model's emphasis on the interconnectedness of psychological, social, and biological factors. The essay then delves into a detailed comparison, contrasting the similarities and differences between the two models, including their approaches to treatment, their views on the nature of health, and their consideration of external factors. The discussion includes critical arguments and evaluations of each model's strengths and weaknesses, such as the biomedical model's potential to oversimplify complex health issues and the psychosocial model's complexity. The essay recommends a combined approach, integrating the strengths of both models to promote holistic, evidence-based interventions tailored to individual patient needs, ultimately concluding that healthcare professionals should leverage the positive aspects of both models to enhance patient care.

Running head: BIOMEDICAL VS. PSYCHOSOCIAL MODELS OF HEALTH AND ILLNESS
BIOMEDICAL VS. PSYCHOSOCIAL MODELS OF HEALTH AND ILLNESS
Name of the Student:
Name of the University:
Author note:

1BIOMEDICAL VS. PSYCHOSOCIAL MODELS OF HEALTH AND ILLNESS
Introduction
While there exist a number of frameworks and models to expound upon the concepts of
illness and health, the bio-psychosocial and biomedical models of health continue to be one of
the most widely relied upon and criticized frameworks for understanding illness and disease
states (Olufowote and Wang 2017). Thus, the following sections of this paper will provide an
extensive and elaborate discussion on the key principles underlying biomedical and psychosocial
models, the existence of comparative similarities between the two as well as the prevalence of
differences in the form of critical arguments.
Discussion
The Biomedical Model
The ‘Biomedical model’ of illness and health first underwent emergence during the 19th
and 20th century and has been one of the oldest and prevalently used models for the purpose of
understanding an individual’s underlying disease pathologies and health status (Farre and Rapley
2017). The biomedical model aims to demonstrate or project a surrogate framework for an
individual or a human biological system so as to comprehensive comprehend the prevalence of
abnormal and normal functioning across phenotypes and genes. Such comparative
understandings, as per the biomedical model, paves the way for the development of therapeutic
or preventive interventions for disease management (Chambers, Feero and Khoury 2016).
Thus, with this respect, the biomedical model views optimum health as a complete
absence of any form of defects of diseases and believes that illness is a result of abnormalities in
the cellular mechanisms of the body. Such perceptions of the biomedical model are largely
reflective of the prevalent health and treatment opinions during its times of conception, when it

2BIOMEDICAL VS. PSYCHOSOCIAL MODELS OF HEALTH AND ILLNESS
was believed that diseases are caused entirely by pathogens such as viral or bacterial strains
(Ostaszkiewicz, Dunning and Streat 2018). Based on such assumptions, the biomedical model
believes that for the purpose of developing treatment interventions, there is a need to first
understand the pathology underlying disease followed by outlining the key factors which may be
contributing to the same (Farre and Rapley 2017). Therapeutic interventions and action plans are
thus developed as models which best fit mitigation of the causative factors underlying disease
pathology. Since the biomedical model places greater importance on the prevalence of disease
and not overall health, treatment interventions proposed by this model are single-factorial in
nature – meaning that they only target the factors causing illness, and not non-disease related
contributory factors associated with an individual’s health (Hankivsky et al. 2017).
The Bio-psychosocial Model
The bio-psychosocial model of health and illness was formulated by George Engel during
the 1970s. This model, as the name suggests, is based upon the principle that the fields of
psychology, biology and an individual’s social and environmental factors are strongly
interconnected to each other and this interconnection can be used to understand the causative
factors of disease and health status in an individual (Bolton and Gillett 2019). The bio-
psychosocial model thus relies on the idea that an individual’s health status can be defined
merely by the presence or absence of illness but rather must be viewed as an equilibrium across
the above three fields. Due to such principles, the bio-psychosocial model contributed to the need
for considering and individual’s cultural and social identities as well as existing psychological
conditions and mental health status for the purpose of developing health assessments and
therapeutic interventions (Kusnanto, Agustian and Hilmanto 2018).

3BIOMEDICAL VS. PSYCHOSOCIAL MODELS OF HEALTH AND ILLNESS
Like the biomedical model, such perceptions and principles underlying the development
and emergence of the bio-psychosocial model are largely associated with the perceptions held by
the clinical community during its time of conception. The 1970s noticed the rise in the
prevalence of psychological disorders and mental health issues across individuals, a phenomena
named as ‘shell shock’ in the United Kingdom, which has been largely attributed as a result of
the trauma inflicted during World Wars I and II (Wojcik and Lawrie 2016). Initially, due to the
popularity of the biomedical model, there was little attention given to the mental health status of
individuals resulting in the prevalence of asylums and psychiatric centers with poor treatment
quality and living conditions. The emergence of the bio-psychosocial model contributed to shift
comprising of increased emphasis being administered on the association between emotions,
mental health, thoughts and illness (Trachsel et al. 2016). This is because the bio-psychosocial
model is largely associated with the principle that individuals, when exposed to traumatic
conditions and experiences, can encounter illnesses and borderline psychosis. Thus, unlike the
biomedical model, treatment interventions developed by the bio-psychosocial model relies
largely on the need to address contributory factors underlying the overall health of an individual,
namely individual’s behaviors, culture and social conditions (Bolton and Gillett 2019).
Comparison, Contrasts and Recommendations
Despite their differing approaches in terms of viewing health and diseases, both the
biomedical as well as bio-psychosocial model can be found to present a range of similarities and
differences when compared and contrasted against in each other. In terms of similarities, both
models can be found to emphasize on the presence of disease as the key determining factor of the
overall health condition and wellbeing of an individual (MacDougall, George and Dover 2019).
In criticism however, as evidenced by Lady et al. (2018), it can be observed that while the

4BIOMEDICAL VS. PSYCHOSOCIAL MODELS OF HEALTH AND ILLNESS
biomedical model focusses upon the exact factors contributing directly to disease pathology, the
bio-psychosocial model adopts a broader perspective of considering possible factors indirectly
facilitating the factors underlying disease pathology. For example, if the biomedical mode views
depression as a result of neurotransmitter disturbances, the bio-psychosocial model will assess
the prevalence of traumatic experiences and dysfunctional thought processes underlying
depression.
An additional similarity which can be detected is that both models view disease as a
process or abnormality which may be acquired by the individual during the course of life.
However, in contrast, it may be postulated that while the biomedical model attributes the
acquisition of disease due to physiological or cellular abnormalities, the bio-psychosocial model
believes that a number of external or environmental factors may contribute to this abnormality,
such as, for example: experiences of war or civil violence (Pincus and Castrejon 2019).
Additionally, a major contrasting difference, as evidenced by Edwards (2020), underlying each
model is the biomedical model’s opinion that health is closely linked to disease while the bio-
psychosocial model is of the opinion that health, disease and one’s mental soundness are closely
interlinked with each other. Due to such contrasting differences in perception, an additional
difference which emerges is the biomedical model’s strict reliance upon medications in
comparison to the bio-psychosocial model’s tendency to not just conduct comprehensive
psychosocial assessments but also consider a holistic treatment approach for mitigation of
psychological, social and cultural factors contributing to disease (Babalola, Noel and White
2017).
Due to relative differences in treatment, the biomedical model has been criticized to be
inconsiderate towards the uniqueness of the thoughts, ideas and emotions held by a patient and

5BIOMEDICAL VS. PSYCHOSOCIAL MODELS OF HEALTH AND ILLNESS
instead focusses merely on the disease states in an individual. Additionally, the biomedical
model’s tendency to view treatment interventions with a single-factorial approach has been
heavily criticized on the grounds that that it is too simplistic in nature and largely overlooks the
role of additional external factors affecting health, disease and mental health of an individual
(Farre and Rapley 2017). The excessive reliance over pharmacological interventions, by the
biomedical model, has been criticized to overlook the risk of medication side effects as well as
encouraging healthcare professionals to overlook their traditional roles of providing safety,
compassionate care and empowering the patient towards self-management of their health
(Kandula and Tirodkar 2018).
The bio-psychosocial model of illness and health, in contrast, as evidenced by Kusnanto,
Agustian and Hilmanto (2018), has been applauded for its contribution to the emergence of
patient-centeredness in clinical care, which comprises of clinicians working together with
patients for the development of diverse assessment protocols and interventions suited to the
unique biological, cultural, psychological and social factors contributing to disease in a patient.
In contrast however, due to such approaches, the bio-psychosocial model of health has been
criticized as being too complicated and detailed in nature due to its lack of definite standards and
overall emphasis to include all possible individual factors (Smith et al. 2019). Additionally, due
to its emphasis on subjective patient parameters, the bio-psychosocial model has been criticized
as being devoid of measurable and objective patient factors underlying disease which are
necessary for the purpose of developing interventions which are valid, evidence-based and with
measurable outcomes (Farre and Rapley 2017).
Thus, it is recommended that healthcare professionals adopt the best of both these models
when addressing disease and health in a patient. The concise nature of the biomedical model is

6BIOMEDICAL VS. PSYCHOSOCIAL MODELS OF HEALTH AND ILLNESS
perfectly complemented by the subjective, comprehensive aspects of the bio-psychosocial model
(Bolton and Gillett 2019). Nevertheless, the definite pathologies presented by the biomedical
model, make it easier to expound upon the role of subjective patient parameters, like emotions or
experiences upon disease states in individuals (Chang et al. 2018). Since both models
complement themselves and an individual’s health is too subjective and unique to be defined by
a single model, it is imperative for healthcare professionals to integrate the positives of both
these models to encourage holistic, evidence-based interventions customized to the healthcare
needs of an individual (Farre and Rapley 2017).
Conclusion
This paper thus provides a succinct yet detailed insight into the overarching principles
underlying the development of the bio-psychosocial and biomedical models of health as well as
their comparative similarities and differences. Nevertheless, while both models present differing
yet comprehensive understanding concerning health and illness, both have been the subject of
considerable criticism, with one being regarded as too simplistic and the other, too complex and
detailed. To conclude, it is recommended that healthcare organizations reap the benefits of both
models to develop interventions customized to the unique healthcare and disease needs of each
individual.

7BIOMEDICAL VS. PSYCHOSOCIAL MODELS OF HEALTH AND ILLNESS
References
Olufowote, J.O. and Wang, G.E., 2017. Physician Assimilation in Medical Schools: Dualisms of
Biomedical and Biopsychosocial Ideologies in the Discourse of Physician Educators. Health
communication, 32(6), pp.676-684.
Chambers, D.A., Feero, W.G. and Khoury, M.J., 2016. Convergence of implementation science,
precision medicine, and the learning health care system: a new model for biomedical
research. Jama, 315(18), pp.1941-1942.
Ostaszkiewicz, J., Dunning, T. and Streat, S., 2018. Models of care for aged care-social or
biomedical?. Australian Nursing and Midwifery Journal, 25(7), p.45.
Hankivsky, O., Doyal, L., Einstein, G., Kelly, U., Shim, J., Weber, L. and Repta, R., 2017. The
odd couple: using biomedical and intersectional approaches to address health inequities. Global
Health Action, 10(sup2), p.1326686.
Bolton, D. and Gillett, G., 2019. The Biopsychosocial Model of Health and Disease: New
Philosophical and Scientific Developments. Springer.
Kusnanto, H., Agustian, D. and Hilmanto, D., 2018. Biopsychosocial model of illnesses in
primary care: A hermeneutic literature review. Journal of family medicine and primary
care, 7(3), p.497.
Wojcik, W. and Lawrie, S.M., 2016. Towards a biopsychosocial model of Gulf War
Illness?. EBioMedicine, 3, pp.6-7.
Chang, E.C., Perera, M.J., Batterbee, C.N.H. and Jilani, Z., 2018. Introduction to
Biopsychosocial Approaches to Understanding Health in South Asian Americans.

8BIOMEDICAL VS. PSYCHOSOCIAL MODELS OF HEALTH AND ILLNESS
In Biopsychosocial Approaches to Understanding Health in South Asian Americans (pp. 1-12).
Springer, Cham.
Smith, R., Weihs, K.L., Alkozei, A., Killgore, W.D. and Lane, R.D., 2019. An embodied
neurocomputational framework for organically integrating biopsychosocial processes: An
application to the role of social support in health and disease. Psychosomatic medicine, 81(2),
pp.125-145.
Trachsel, M., Irwin, S.A., Biller-Andorno, N., Hoff, P. and Riese, F., 2016. Palliative psychiatry
for severe and persistent mental illness. The Lancet Psychiatry, 3(3), p.200.
MacDougall, H.L., George, S.Z. and Dover, G.C., 2019. Low Back Pain Treatment by Athletic
Trainers and Athletic Therapists: Biomedical or Biopsychosocial Orientation?. Journal of
Athletic Training, 54(7), pp.772-779.
Lady, S.D., Haas, M., Takagi, R. and Takaki, L., 2018. A Preliminary Study of Chiropractors’
Beliefs About Biomedical and Biopsychosocial Pain: A Survey of University of Western States
Alumni. Journal of chiropractic medicine, 17(1), pp.16-21.
Pincus, T. and Castrejon, I., 2019. Low socioeconomic status and patient questionnaires in
osteoarthritis: challenges to a “biomedical model” and value of a complementary
“biopsychosocial model”. Clin Exp Rheumatol, 37(120), pp.S18-S23.
Babalola, E., Noel, P. and White, R., 2017. The biopsychosocial approach and global mental
health: Synergies and opportunities. Indian journal of social psychiatry, 33(4), p.291.
Edwards, D.J., 2020. Psychology of Health and Illness. The Textbook of Health and Social Care,
p.20.

9BIOMEDICAL VS. PSYCHOSOCIAL MODELS OF HEALTH AND ILLNESS
Kandula, N.R. and Tirodkar, M.A., 2018. Biological Models of Health. In Biopsychosocial
Approaches to Understanding Health in South Asian Americans (pp. 53-70). Springer, Cham.
Farre, A. and Rapley, T., 2017, December. The new old (and old new) medical model: four
decades navigating the biomedical and psychosocial understandings of health and illness.
In Healthcare (Vol. 5, No. 4, p. 88). Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute.
Farre, A. and Rapley, T., 2017, December. The new old (and old new) medical model: four
decades navigating the biomedical and psychosocial understandings of health and illness.
In Healthcare (Vol. 5, No. 4, p. 88). Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute.