Mapping future directions to test biopsychosocial pathways to health and well-being.

Abstract

The original biopsychosocial (BPS) model by Engel, although important for challenging the biomedical model and adding psychological and social factors to the study of health, has long been criticized for being too vague and untestable. The BPS-Pathways model introduced by Karunamuni et al. (2020) builds on the original model by making the model more specific and testable. The authors cite research that provides support for individual pathways between biological, psychological, and social variables that influence subjective well-being and physical health. The current commentary discusses three considerations for scientists and practitioners using the model, including: 1) expanding the range of outcomes that should be considered within the model to include mental health and societal well-being, 2) considering how certain factors may fall into more than one category (biological, psychological, and/or social), and 3) considering ways that social factors may directly affect biology independent of psychological mediation. Future directions are discussed, which include considering biopsychosocial pathways across development, studying individual differences in susceptibility to specific biological, psychological, or social factors, and using rigorous methods such as randomized controlled trials and advanced statistical tools at the biological, psychological, and societal levels to test these pathways and create more effective interventions.