Engel’s (1977) Biopsychosocial Model (BPM) offers a multifaceted framework that recognizes that biological, psychological, social, and structural processes interdependently influence health and illness (Suls, Krantz & Williams, 2013; Smith & Nicassio, 1995; McKay, McDonald, Lie & McGowan, 2012) due to the difficulty in distinguishing between health and disease caused by varying sociocultural and psychological issues (Engel, 1977). However, selected areas of social-health psychology have still to espouse the complex systems approach fundamental to the BPM (Suls et al., 2013). Moreover, critics have questioned its feasibility, where some assert that the model can be too expansive, culminating in forfeiture of scientific rigour and verifiability of hypothesis, others assert that the model can be subjectively implemented (McKay et al., 2012). Nevertheless, the BPM has been successfully applied in various areas of health-related research, treatments, assessments and training programs (Suls et al., 2013; Fabricius & Luecken, 2007; Ownsworth, Hawkes, Chambers, Walker & Shum, 2010; Smith & Nicassio, 1995). This paper will review ways in which socio-health units may fully adopt the BPM and how areas such as neuropsychology and child psychology have previously utilized the BPM.
Advocators for the BPM, such as Suls et al. (2013), were especially concerned with the sub-optimal attempts to discern the ramification of patients and illness through the construction of comprehensive