The biopsychosocial model promised a more integrated psychiatric approach to patients. It assumed biological and psychosocial factors were paramount to effectively treat human disease and suffering. It has not, however, influenced conventional psychiatry as George Engel had envisioned. This article describes many of the strengths and weaknesses of the biopsychosocial model, as well as how AQAL and Integral Methodological Pluralism include the model’s partial truths and transcend its shortcomings.

Introduction

This article was sparked by a conversation with a psychiatric colleague of mine, wherein we briefly discussed the AQAL model. Near the end of our discussion (mostly about the four quadrants), she said that AQAL was interesting but not much different from the biopsychosocial model. My understanding is that there are some similarities, as both call for a more comprehensive approach; however, there are clear differences and significant advancements in the AQAL model.

In this article, I will first review the biopsychosocial model and its more recent critiques. I will then offer a more advanced formulation using the AQAL model, which addresses several theoretical shortcomings of the biopsychosocial model. Subsequent articles will further explore the theoretical and practical implications of an AQAL psychiatry.