生物心理社会模型在性医学和性治疗中表现如何?

IF 3.4 2区 医学 Q1 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY
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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

引言:本文回顾了生物心理社会模式的优势,包括其决定性功能障碍病因和治疗的潜在因素。我们建议性健康专业人员更广泛地认识到该模式的各个方面。定期复查是必要的,以优化其优势,尽量减少误用。目标:改善生物心理社会模型的全面应用将有助于确保其保持稳健和包容性。对其局限性的认识应促使临床医生通过继续教育扩大他们的知识。方法:共同作者回顾了数据库搜索,包括PubMed、谷歌Scholar和ClinicalTrials.gov。除了专家意见外,还考虑了出版物、性社会演讲和指南。由有意招募的、代表不同学科、地理区域、性别和观点的不同专家小组撰写,我们的手稿值得大量考虑。然而,这项工作没有采用专业协会在制定指导方针时使用的严格方法。结果:生物心理社会模型被广泛应用;然而,太多的性治疗师和性医学专家声称采用这种模式,但只是嘴上说说而已。临床医生支持多学科方法,但孤立的思维仍然存在。大学之间的尊重正在增加,但观点仍然存在分歧。虽然性治疗师认识到心理社会的细微差别,但许多人不知道生物医学在诊断和治疗方面的进步会影响性行为。相反,许多医生对导致性功能障碍的认知、情感、行为和文化因素缺乏足够的认识。喜欢更广泛评估的医生经常发现临床实践中的时间限制阻碍了多层次的参与。结论:生物-心理-社会模型必须包含所有诱发、促成和维持性功能障碍的生物学、医学/外科、认知、行为、情感、社会和文化因素,这些因素涉及性功能障碍的病因和管理。病因学最好理解在颗粒水平,承认多个比例的贡献因素。我们建议各学科的临床医生提高他们对所有相关病因和治疗因素的认识,同时继续使用易于理解的术语“生物心理社会”。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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."

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Sexual medicine reviews
Sexual medicine reviews UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY-
CiteScore
7.60
自引率
8.30%
发文量
5
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信