Biopsychosocial model

The biopsychosocial model ("BPS") is a broad view that attributes disease causation or disease outcome to the intricate, variable interaction of biological factors (genetic, biochemical, etc), psychological factors (mood, personality, behavior, etc), and social factors (cultural, familial, socioeconomic, medical, etc).[1] The biopsychosocial model counters the biomedical model, which attributes disease to roughly only biological factors, such as viruses, genes, or somatic abnormalities.[2] The biopsychosocial model applies to disciplines ranging from medicine to psychology to sociology; its novelty, acceptance, and prevalence vary across disciplines[3] and across cultures.[1]

History
In a 1977 article in Science,[2] psychiatrist George L. Engel called for "the need for a new medical model."

We have been attacked by gremlins
A 1994 study by Pawlikowska, Trudie Chalder and Simon Wessely, looking at general fatigue and psychological distress, found that women are more likely to complain of fatigue; and that the commonest reasons for fatigue were work, family, and lifestyle ('psychosocial', 40% of patients). Their conclusion was that fatigue is closely associated with 'psychological morbidity'.

"'Somewhere between the analysis and the printed copy we have been attacked by gremlins. Sadly, the passage of time, theft of a computer containing the original draft, and the fact that none of us can find the proofs anymore, mean that we have no idea when this happened.'" "'Missing proofs, theft of a computer and passage of time might seem like poor excuses and indicate unreliable researchers.'"
 * A 2000 response by Martin Bland, a professor of mathematical statistics, questioned the seemingly impossible statistical results of that study, and some other statistical errors..
 * A response from Chalder and Wessely admitted the error, and said:
 * David Marchevsky, a consultant psychiatrist, responded on the dangers of 'unsupported conclusions derived from faulty analyses', especially when 'this doctor was an important key figure in a Cochrane collaboration group.'
 * Jon Håvard Loge wrote that he had a copy of the original 1993 manuscript submitted for review, which did not include the errors, and he suggested that 'The gremlins seem to have attacked somewhere in the production line because the referees at the BMJ reviewed a manuscript with correct means.'
 * Simon Wessely replied, reaffirming that the BMJ was attacked by gremlins.
 * Anthony Pelosi, who reviewed the original manuscript, responded that he had told the authors of a number of statistical errors, and suggestions to fix them.
 * Richard Smith, the editor of the BMJ, replied that the errors were "ultimately unimportant", and suggested a dinner be held.