Michael A Perelman, Annamaria Giraldi, Sharon Parish, Daniela Wittmann, William Fisher, Sharon L Bober, Alexander Pastuszak, James Pfaus
{"title":"生物心理社会模型在性医学和性治疗中表现如何?","authors":"Michael A Perelman, Annamaria Giraldi, Sharon Parish, Daniela Wittmann, William Fisher, Sharon L Bober, Alexander Pastuszak, James Pfaus","doi":"10.1093/sxmrev/qeaf029","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The purported predominance of the biopsychosocial model is reviewed, including its underlying factors that determine the etiology and treatment of sexual disorders. We recommend that sexual health professionals embrace a broader recognition of all facets of the model. Periodic re-examination is necessary to optimize its strengths and minimize misapplication.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Improving the application of the full scope of the biopsychosocial model will help ensure that it remains robust and inclusive. Awareness of its limitations should prompt clinicians to expand their knowledge through continuing education.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Co-authors reviewed database searches, including PubMed, Google Scholar, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Publications, sexual society presentations, and guidelines were also considered, along with expert opinions. Authored by an intentionally recruited, diverse group of experts representing different disciplines, geographic regions, genders, and perspectives, our manuscript deserves substantial consideration. However, this work does not employ the rigorous methodology used by professional societies in producing guidelines.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The biopsychosocial model is widely used; however, too many sex therapists and sexual medicine experts claim to adopt the model while merely paying it lip service. Clinicians support multidisciplinary approaches, yet siloed thinking persists. Collegial respect is increasing, but perspectives remain divided. While sex therapists recognize psychosocial nuances, many are unaware of biomedical advances in diagnosis and treatment that impact sexuality. Conversely, many physicians lack sufficient awareness of the cognitive, emotional, behavioral, and cultural factors contributing to sexual disorders. Physicians who prefer broader assessments often find that time constraints in clinical practice hinder multilayered engagement.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The biopsychosocial model must encompass all predisposing, precipitating, and maintaining biological, medical/surgical, cognitive, behavioral, emotional, social, and cultural factors involved in the etiology and management of sexual disorders. Etiology is best understood at a granular level that acknowledges multiple proportional contributing factors. We recommend that clinicians across disciplines increase their awareness of all relevant etiologic and treatment factors while continuing to use the accessible term \"biopsychosocial.\"</p>","PeriodicalId":21813,"journal":{"name":"Sexual medicine reviews","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How has the biopsychosocial model fared in sexual medicine and sex therapy?\",\"authors\":\"Michael A Perelman, Annamaria Giraldi, Sharon Parish, Daniela Wittmann, William Fisher, Sharon L Bober, Alexander Pastuszak, James Pfaus\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/sxmrev/qeaf029\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The purported predominance of the biopsychosocial model is reviewed, including its underlying factors that determine the etiology and treatment of sexual disorders. We recommend that sexual health professionals embrace a broader recognition of all facets of the model. Periodic re-examination is necessary to optimize its strengths and minimize misapplication.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Improving the application of the full scope of the biopsychosocial model will help ensure that it remains robust and inclusive. Awareness of its limitations should prompt clinicians to expand their knowledge through continuing education.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Co-authors reviewed database searches, including PubMed, Google Scholar, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Publications, sexual society presentations, and guidelines were also considered, along with expert opinions. Authored by an intentionally recruited, diverse group of experts representing different disciplines, geographic regions, genders, and perspectives, our manuscript deserves substantial consideration. However, this work does not employ the rigorous methodology used by professional societies in producing guidelines.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The biopsychosocial model is widely used; however, too many sex therapists and sexual medicine experts claim to adopt the model while merely paying it lip service. Clinicians support multidisciplinary approaches, yet siloed thinking persists. Collegial respect is increasing, but perspectives remain divided. While sex therapists recognize psychosocial nuances, many are unaware of biomedical advances in diagnosis and treatment that impact sexuality. Conversely, many physicians lack sufficient awareness of the cognitive, emotional, behavioral, and cultural factors contributing to sexual disorders. Physicians who prefer broader assessments often find that time constraints in clinical practice hinder multilayered engagement.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The biopsychosocial model must encompass all predisposing, precipitating, and maintaining biological, medical/surgical, cognitive, behavioral, emotional, social, and cultural factors involved in the etiology and management of sexual disorders. Etiology is best understood at a granular level that acknowledges multiple proportional contributing factors. We recommend that clinicians across disciplines increase their awareness of all relevant etiologic and treatment factors while continuing to use the accessible term \\\"biopsychosocial.\\\"</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21813,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Sexual medicine reviews\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Sexual medicine reviews\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/sxmrev/qeaf029\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sexual medicine reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/sxmrev/qeaf029","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
How has the biopsychosocial model fared in sexual medicine and sex therapy?
Introduction: The purported predominance of the biopsychosocial model is reviewed, including its underlying factors that determine the etiology and treatment of sexual disorders. We recommend that sexual health professionals embrace a broader recognition of all facets of the model. Periodic re-examination is necessary to optimize its strengths and minimize misapplication.
Objectives: Improving the application of the full scope of the biopsychosocial model will help ensure that it remains robust and inclusive. Awareness of its limitations should prompt clinicians to expand their knowledge through continuing education.
Methods: Co-authors reviewed database searches, including PubMed, Google Scholar, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Publications, sexual society presentations, and guidelines were also considered, along with expert opinions. Authored by an intentionally recruited, diverse group of experts representing different disciplines, geographic regions, genders, and perspectives, our manuscript deserves substantial consideration. However, this work does not employ the rigorous methodology used by professional societies in producing guidelines.
Results: The biopsychosocial model is widely used; however, too many sex therapists and sexual medicine experts claim to adopt the model while merely paying it lip service. Clinicians support multidisciplinary approaches, yet siloed thinking persists. Collegial respect is increasing, but perspectives remain divided. While sex therapists recognize psychosocial nuances, many are unaware of biomedical advances in diagnosis and treatment that impact sexuality. Conversely, many physicians lack sufficient awareness of the cognitive, emotional, behavioral, and cultural factors contributing to sexual disorders. Physicians who prefer broader assessments often find that time constraints in clinical practice hinder multilayered engagement.
Conclusion: The biopsychosocial model must encompass all predisposing, precipitating, and maintaining biological, medical/surgical, cognitive, behavioral, emotional, social, and cultural factors involved in the etiology and management of sexual disorders. Etiology is best understood at a granular level that acknowledges multiple proportional contributing factors. We recommend that clinicians across disciplines increase their awareness of all relevant etiologic and treatment factors while continuing to use the accessible term "biopsychosocial."