(078) HOW HAS THE BIOPSYCHOSOCIAL MODEL FAIRED IN SEXUAL MEDICINE/SEXUAL THERAPY AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE FUTURE
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Introduction Engel’s (1977) introduction of the biopsychosocial model emphasized multiple etiological determinants and upended traditional medical views of disease and its treatments. Evidence gradually accumulated that a combined biomedical and psychotherapeutic approaches were the most effective treatment for most sexual conditions. Urologists were late to this realization, in part because of sildenafil’s successful launch (1998), which catalyzed urology’s ascendancy over other specialties (psychiatry, psychology, and gynecology) which previously had managed sexual issues. The educational efforts of sexual medicine societies (ISSM, ISSWSH, SMSNA, SSTAR, etc.) in the early 21st century helped rebalance appreciation for multidisciplinary expertise and multidimensional understanding. Subsequently, most sex therapy and sexual medicine experts have adopted a biopsychosocial model. Objective The biopsychosocial model’s path to its current predominance is reviewed, including the specifics of how its underlying factors’ can determine sexual disorder etiology and treatment. Given the biopsychosocial model’s importance to sexual medicine and sex therapy, the need for periodic re-examination is encouraged in order to optimize the models’ strengths and minimize misapplication. The authors encourage sexual health professionals to embrace a broadened recognition of all facets of the model, not merely those emphasized by their profession of origin disciplines. Methods The author searched relevant terms using databases, including PubMed, Google Scholar, https://clinicaltrials.gov, etc. Co-authors reviewed the articles, offering additional references and expert opinions. Authored by an intentionally recruited diverse expert group from different disciplines, geography, gender, and opinion, their view has substantial merit. However, it lacks the rigorous process used by professional societies’ methodologies when producing guidelines. Results The biopsychosocial model is used productively, but many secondary to their discipline’s training have limited focus with insufficient awareness of alternative etiologic factors. Clinicians support a multidisciplinary approach, but siloed thinking remains. Collegial respect is increasing, but perspectives remain separated. Sex therapists are aware of psychosocial nuances, but many are ignorant regarding the impact of biomedical advances in diagnosis and treatment that impact sexuality. Reciprocally, too many physicians are insufficiently aware of the cognitive, emotional, behavioral, social and cultural factors contributing to sexual disorders. Physicians preferring broader assessment often find office time limitations negating multilayered engagement. Conclusions The necessity of fully embracing the comprehensive scope of the biopsychosocial model for sexual health professionals cannot be overstated. Biopsychosocial must stand for all the predisposing, precipitating, and maintaining biological, medical/surgical, cognitive, behavioral, emotional, social, and cultural factors involved in the etiology and management of sexual disorders. These components are best understood at a granular detail level that recognizes multiple proportional factor contributions. Having disciplines spending more time training together would enhance understanding of each other’s strengths and contributions. We must train the next generation of sexual medicine and sex therapy/sexology experts to have an appreciation of all the contributory and mutually influential factors that underlie sexual disorder etiology and treatment to best serve their patients. Furthermore, it is incumbent upon all of us to mindfully seek continuing education opportunities (offered by our professional societies, etc.) to fill in our own gaps in both knowledge and expertise. Disclosure Any of the authors act as a consultant, employee or shareholder of an industry for: None of the relationships to industry are relevant to this presentation’s content. If the presentation is selected and if detailed information regarding the above question is required, all 8 authors would be happy to detail all industry relationships they have, despite their clear lack of relavance to the presentation.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,005 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».