This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
I edited this article because it's original format when I discovered it this morning clearly presented a one-sided, narrow view of the impact of Engel's biopsychosocial model. While it inaccurately portrayed the model as some "fly-by-night" perspective, it completely ignored the empirical research & clinical work over the last three decades in behavioral medicine (including general medicine, nursing, social work, health psychology, public health, patient education). I have expanded the description and arguments made by the biopsychosocial approach with references. Editor's should be mindful that productive discussions of scientific inquiry are best when evidence is provided and integrated in the absence (or at least, restriction) of personal biases. I felt the need to edit the format (edits listed as 126.96.36.199 were made by me prior to registering a Wiki account) simply because I felt the model and its effects were being misrepresented with one-sided, albeit weak, evidence to support a view that was clearly discriminatory toward the biopsychosocial approach.
An RfC has been created on Talk:Biopsychiatry controversy on the subject: "Is the majority viewpoint of the psychiatric profession, and particularly of the psychiatric research community, that the biopsychiatric model of psychiatry is, by and large, accepted or rejected?" Comments from editors involved in this article/project may prove useful. HrafnTalkStalk 06:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
"biopsychiatric" ? Don't you mean "Biopsychosocial"? Lycurgus (talk) 02:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
NPOV/CON My reading is that it is not as currently read by a non specialist.
But should say that I am a reductionist. It's not clear if the reason it's thought POV is that it isn't sufficiently enthusiatic about the BPS model. If that's the case then the tag is spurious. Lycurgus (talk) 02:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)