Psychosocial And Biomedical Models Of Health And Illness

Definition of Health: Psychosocial Model vs. Biomedical Model

Psychosocial and 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. 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 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).

Causes of Illness: Psychosocial Model vs. Biomedical Model

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 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 20^th 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 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.

Treatment Options: Psychosocial Model vs. Biomedical Model

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 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.

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.

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.