9 3 Biopsychosocial Plus Model Drugs, Health, Addictions & Behaviour 1st Canadian Edition

Proponents of a ‘war on drugs’, for example, believe that laws and policies that are lenient towards substance use are linked with greater prevalence of use and criminal activity. In one study comparing cannabis use in San Francisco (where cannabis is criminalized) and http://www.fashionbank.ru/photographers/user/92.html Amsterdam (de facto decriminalization), there was no evidence to support claims that criminalization laws reduce use or that decriminalization increases use. In fact, San Francisco reported a higher cannabis use rate than Amsterdam (Reinarman, Cohen and Kaal 2004).

the biopsychosocial model of addiction

Somatic markers are acquired by experience and are under control of a neural “internal preference system [which] is inherently biased to avoid pain, seek potential pleasure, and is probably pretuned for achieving these goals in social situations” (Damasio 1994, 179). The brain responds to particular social cues that may provide http://androidgate.ru/ringtones/rock/129780-sober.html instant pleasure, or regulate biological homeostasis, such as relief from withdrawal (Li and Sinha 2008). Brain systems that moderate feeling, memory, cognition, and engage the individual with the world influence the decision to consume or not consume a drug, or participate in a specific behaviour or series of actions.


The type of treatment a doctor recommends depends on the severity and stage of the addiction. Later stages may benefit from inpatient addiction treatment in a controlled setting. Charity Action on Addiction, 1 in 3 people in the world have an addiction of some kind. Giordano, A. L., Prosek, E. A., Stamman, J., Callahan, M. M., Loseu, S., Bevly, C. M., Cross, K., Woehler, E. S., Calzada, R.-M. R., & Chadwell, K. Richard Contrada, Ph.D., is a Professor in the Department of Psychology at Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey.

Regarding clinical diagnosis, as it is typically used in scientific and clinical parlance, addiction is not synonymous with the simple presence of SUD. Nowhere in DSM-5 is it articulated that the diagnostic threshold (or any specific number/type of symptoms) should be interpreted as reflecting addiction, which inherently connotes a high degree of severity. Indeed, concerns were raised about http://esmeraldashipwreck.com/team/ setting the diagnostic standard too low because of the issue of potentially conflating a low-severity SUD with addiction [116]. In scientific and clinical usage, addiction typically refers to individuals at a moderate or high severity of SUD. This is consistent with the fact that moderate-to-severe SUD has the closest correspondence with the more severe diagnosis in ICD [117,118,119].

Biopsychosocial Plus Model

For alcohol addiction, meta-analysis of twin and adoption studies has estimated heritability at ~50%, while estimates for opioid addiction are even higher [44, 45]. It has been argued that a genetic contribution cannot support a disease view of a behavior, because most behavioral traits, including religious and political inclinations, have a genetic contribution [4]. This statement, while correct in pointing out broad heritability of behavioral traits, misses a fundamental point. The fact that normal anatomy shapes healthy organ function does not negate that an altered structure can contribute to pathophysiology of disease.

  • Most importantly, we argue that the brain is the biological substrate from which both addiction and the capacity for behavior change arise, arguing for an intensified neuroscientific study of recovery.
  • Nowhere in DSM-5 is it articulated that the diagnostic threshold (or any specific number/type of symptoms) should be interpreted as reflecting addiction, which inherently connotes a high degree of severity.
  • Many countries have regressive and punitive national policies which are based on prohibitive and moralistic views rather than evidence-based policies promoting the integration of biopsychosocial services and care for individuals with SUD.

Recent advances in DNA analysis are helping researchers untangle complex genetic interactions by examining a person’s entire genome all at once. Technologies such as genome-wide association studies (GWAS), whole genome sequencing, and exome sequencing (looking at just the protein-coding genes) identify subtle variations in DNA sequence called single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). SNPs are differences in just a single letter of the genetic code from one person to another. If a SNP appears more often in people with a disease than those without, it is thought to either directly affect susceptibility to that disease or be a marker for another variation that does.

Brain Biology and Addiction

We argue that when considering addiction as a disease, the lens of neurobiology is valuable to use. It is not the only lens, and it does not have supremacy over other scientific approaches. We agree that critiques of neuroscience are warranted [108] and that critical thinking is essential to avoid deterministic language and scientific overreach. It is not trivial to delineate the exact category of harmful substance use for which a label such as addiction is warranted (See Box 1). Throughout clinical medicine, diagnostic cut-offs are set by consensus, commonly based on an evolving understanding of thresholds above which people tend to benefit from available interventions.

Additionally, just like we can have genetic predisposition to a physical disability, mental health has genetic roots as well. Estimates indicate that up to 29% of persons misuse prescription pain relievers for chronic pain, [1] and between 8 to 12% develop a use disorder [2, 3]. The United States (US) Department of Health and Human Services declared the opioid crisis a public health emergency in 2017, although the first wave of the epidemic emerged in the 1990s [3]. Subsequently, between July 2016 and September 2017 deaths due to illicit opioid overdose increased by 30%, leading to an emergency declaration in 45 states [4].

Second, although the data are nationally representative, the survey is cross-sectional, and it excludes some subsets of the population. The NSDUH only targets noninstitutionalized US citizens, so active-duty military members and institutionalized groups (e.g., prisoners, hospital patients, treatment center patients, and nursing home members) are excluded. Thus, if substance use differs between US noninstitutionalized and institutionalized groups by more than 3%, data may be problematic for the total US population [44]. A particularly notable limitation of the NSDUH is that it does not include information regarding chronic pain. This omission necessarily narrowed our analysis and inhibited our ability to create a truly comprehensive model. Another issue that may have introduced bias is participant knowledge or lack thereof concerning opioids and other substances [70].

  • So, they tend to misuse substances that make them feel better, even if only temporarily.
  • Lastly, our study using a biopsychosocial model elucidated that the opioid epidemic is not an epidemic as much a syndemic.
  • The number of individuals receiving care for opioid use disorder, for example, increased nearly twofold after Oregon’s Medicaid expansion in 2014 (87).
  • If you’re tempted by something questionable—like eating ice cream before dinner or buying things you can’t afford—the front regions of your brain can help you decide if the consequences are worth the actions.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

× How can I help you?