“The Biopsychosocial model, the missing link or missing a link?”

"The whole is greater than the sum of all its parts in relation to coaching and clinical practice"

Biopsychosocial vs Biomedical model

The biopsychosocial (BPS) model was proposed by George L Engel and Jon Romano of the University of Rochester in 1977. The BPS aims to incorporate biology, psychology and socioenvironmental factors and how they interlace within health, disease and human development. This more holistic approach opposes the standard biomedical model (BM), which has been in use since the mid 19th century and is the central system used by physicians in medicine to this day. The biomedical model approach tends not to consider subjective or social factors or the physician's direction. Instead, it prioritises pathology, biochemistry and physiology.

Pros and Cons

The BPS model has been criticised for lacking completeness and unclear boundaries but conversely praised for introducing aspects and complexities that may contribute to an individual's overall wellness and bridge the gap between philosophy and practice.

The BPS model encompasses an open-ended approach that may border heavily in the direction of philosophy with too much room for misinterpretation. Interestingly the BPS model has gained popularity possibly due to topical discussions in academic realms filtering down through clinical practice. It may merely be that transparency from practitioners who consider a multifaceted approach to practice and less authoritarian treatment methods could encourage a more thorough practice. Moreover, understanding pain science and the potential factors underpinning it might be a more significant bridge between the practitioner and Individual confidence, and reduce healthcare costs from a rehabilitation perspective.