The Neurobiopsychosocial (NBPS) Model: A Paradigm Shift in Integrated Health

Table of Contents

1. The Conceptual Evolution of Integrated Medicine: From Reductionism to the NBPS Model

2. Mechanistic Validation: Neuroplasticity as the Integrated Causal Mechanism

3. Clinical Application Across Complex Health Syndromes

4. Operationalizing NBPS: Implementation in Integrated Care Systems

5. Conclusion

---

The Conceptual Evolution of Integrated Medicine: From Reductionism to the NBPS Model

Critique of the Biomedical Model and the Rise of Biopsychosocial Theory

Historically, the understanding of health and disease was largely governed by the biomedical model, which operated on principles of reductionism and Cartesian dualism. This approach treated disorders as medical diseases or physical ailments, often divorcing the physical body from its mental and environmental context.¹ While science and technology vastly improved the diagnosis and treatment of acute diseases, this exclusionary emphasis limited the development of a model capable of humanizing healthcare and accounting for the full complexity of human experience.³

In response to these limitations, the Biopsychosocial (BPS) model, popularized by George Engel in 1980, emerged as a much-needed alternative. This framework was built on the fundamental premise that the concepts and boundaries of health and disease are themselves biopsychosocial.² BPS successfully broadened the scope of medical consideration, acknowledging that core features of illness—such as pain, distress, and activity limitations—involve not only biological factors but also psychological states and social life.² This recognition provided a conceptual basis for linking psychosocial factors, such as chronic stress, with biological damage.²

The Inadequacies of the Biopsychosocial (BPS) Model

Despite its intuitive appeal and widespread acknowledgment, the BPS model struggled to achieve the expected traction in research fields over the four decades following its introduction.¹ A primary reason for this difficulty lay in its inherent theoretical nature and a lack of identified mechanisms. The BPS framework often failed to articulate a robust, functional architecture that could authentically integrate biochemical processes with psychological and social processes.¹

The consequence was a significant translational gap. The biopsychosocial approach remained largely theoretical, making it difficult to integrate effectively into advanced quantitative research domains, such as pain neuroimaging.⁴ While BPS correctly identified that psychosocial factors influence biology, it did not provide the specific, embodied neural mechanism to explain how that influence was executed and mediated. This conceptual ambiguity limited its utility as a precise framework for interdisciplinary diagnostics and targeted intervention development.

Defining the NBPS Model: The Mandate for a Distinct Neural Component

The Neurobiopsychosocial (NBPS) model developed by Dr. David Priede represents the necessary conceptual evolution addressing the mechanistic ambiguities inherent in the BPS framework.⁵ The distinguishing feature of NBPS is the introduction of a distinct, explicit "neural" component.⁵ This addition acknowledges the indispensable and central role of the brain and nervous system—the primary operating system—in mediating the intricate relationships between the mind, body, and external environment.⁵

Under the NBPS framework, neurological factors are no longer implicitly subsumed under the biological domain. Instead, they are recognized as a critical, distinct element warranting specific consideration in the assessment of health and illness.⁵ These factors include specific brain function, neuroplasticity (the brain’s ability to reorganize itself), and dedicated neural pathways.⁵ By operationalizing the neurological component, the NBPS model elevates the discussion from abstract holism to a structured, functional framework articulated around four interdependent pillars: Neurological, Biological, Psychological, and Social.⁶

The explicit inclusion of the neural component is foundational because the central nervous system acts as the unified operational system and translation layer for all other components. If the neurological domain mediates neuroplasticity ⁵, and social and psychological factors are powerful drivers of plastic change ⁷, then the 'N' is the mechanism by which the environment is biologically internalized. This structural advancement ensures that the model can be articulated in functional terms, moving away from purely descriptive theory toward models that incorporate concrete processes, such as hierarchical neural architecture governed by negative feedback systems.¹

Table 1 illustrates the critical conceptual shift enabled by the NBPS model:

Model Component	Biopsychosocial (BPS) Interpretation	Neurobiopsychosocial (NBPS) Interpretation
Neural/Brain Function	Generally subsumed under the 'Biological' domain (often implicitly).	Distinct, primary factor emphasizing neuroplasticity, functional architecture, and specific neural pathways. 5
Mechanistic Focus	Theoretical integration; lacked a robust, functional unifying mechanism. 1	Explicitly seeks functional architecture (e.g., Perceptual Control Theory) to link biochemistry to psychological processes via neural pathways. 1
Causation Focus	Acknowledges chronic stress linking psychosocial factors to biological damage. 2	Demonstrates specific structural and functional alterations in brain regions (e.g., amygdala, PFC) as the direct, quantifiable result of psychological stress and social environment. 7

Mechanistic Validation: Neuroplasticity as the Integrated Causal Mechanism

The Neurobiological Underpinnings of NBPS Integration

The scientific validation of the NBPS model rests upon the discovery of a mechanism that is authentically integrated across all domains—biochemical, psychological, and social.¹ One framework that attempts to provide this functional architecture is Perceptual Control Theory (PCT), which proposes that negative feedback is the mechanism required to govern the activity of organisms.¹ PCT describes how negative feedback establishes control at increasing levels of perceptual complexity, providing an embodied, hierarchical neural architecture that controls physiological, psychological, and social variables.¹

Central to this functional integration is the principle of neuroplasticity. Experiential factors are recognized as having a powerful influence in inducing plastic changes in the neural circuits that underlie social and emotional behavior throughout the entire lifespan, from the prenatal period onward.⁷ This capacity for plastic change demonstrates unequivocally that the environment, mediated through sensory and psychological input, directly shapes both the structure and function of the central nervous system.⁷ Neuroplasticity thus serves as the essential biological bridge between the psychological and social worlds and the quantifiable physical substrate of the body.

Structural and Functional Alterations Driven by Psychosocial Stress

The most compelling empirical support for the NBPS model lies in the concrete evidence showing that psychological and social adversity translates into measurable, lasting neurological alterations. Chronic stress is therefore understood not merely as a consequence of illness but as a quintessential NBPS concept, acting as a profound causal mechanism.²

Studies involving animal models and clinical populations have mapped the specific neurological consequences of stress and adversity ⁷:

1. Limbic System Remodeling: Moderate to severe stress drives distinct structural alterations in the limbic system. Specifically, stress appears to increase the growth of several sectors of the amygdala (involved in threat processing), while often having the opposite effect—resulting in reduced volume or altered dendritic morphology—in the hippocampus (memory and stress regulation) and the prefrontal cortex (PFC, executive function).⁷ These changes occur over days and, while largely reversible in young adults, fundamentally restructure the brain's baseline threat-response system.⁷

2. Impact of Early Social Adversity: The duration and severity of social stress correlate directly with neurological damage. For instance, physically abused teenagers have been shown to possess smaller orbitofrontal cortex (OFC) volumes compared to typically developing children. Within the abused sample, the reduction in OFC volume directly correlated with the reported severity of social stress.⁷ This confirms that the social environment operates as a direct structural determinant of neurodevelopment.

3. The Epigenetic Pathway: The link between social adversity and biology extends to the molecular level. Child abuse is associated with alterations in the epigenetic regulation of the glucocorticoid receptor, a critical component of the stress-response (HPA) axis.⁷ Specifically, researchers have identified decreased levels of glucocorticoid receptor mRNA and increased cytosine methylation of the NR3C1 promoter in the hippocampus of suicide victims with a history of child abuse.⁷ This mechanism illustrates how severe social trauma can trigger epigenetic shifts that impair the biological mechanisms necessary for effective stress resilience.

4. Environmental Enrichment and Deprivation: Postnatal factors, including nutrition, social interaction, and environmental enrichment, significantly influence neurodevelopment and neuroplasticity.⁸ Social deprivation, such as that experienced by abandoned children in institutions, can produce profound cognitive impairment.⁷ Conversely, appropriate maternal contact promotes lifelong stress resilience in animal models, and quality environmental enrichment increases neuroplasticity and improves cognitive outcomes.⁸ This evidence confirms that the quality of social interaction is not merely an external psychological variable, but a critical neurochemical and structural regulator.

Neuroimaging techniques provide quantitative evidence for these principles, confirming measurable functional dysfunctions in various disorders. For example, neuroimaging consistently demonstrates dynamic and measurable dysfunctions in brain networks in functional movement disorders (FNDs), including altered activity in the right temporoparietal junction (rTPJ) and decreased coupling with the default mode network (DMN).⁹ Although the integration of the BPS approach into complex neuroimaging research, such as pain studies, remains a persistent challenge that requires formalized translation ⁴, the available evidence solidifies the indispensable role of the 'Neuro' pillar in the pathophysiology of integrated disorders.

Table 2 provides a summary of the mechanistic evidence linking psychosocial factors directly to neurological outcomes:

Causal Factor (Pillar)	Neural/Biological Outcome	Brain Region/Mechanism	Source of Evidence
Chronic Stress/Adversity (Social/Psychological)	Increased growth and dendritic length/branching.	Amygdala (Threat Processing)	Clinical & Animal Studies 7
Chronic Stress/Adversity (Social/Psychological)	Decreased volume and altered dendritic morphology.	Hippocampus, Prefrontal Cortex (Executive Function)	Clinical & Animal Studies 7
Early Child Abuse (Social)	Epigenetic alteration: Increased cytosine methylation of NR3C1 promoter; decreased glucocorticoid receptor mRNA.	Hippocampus (Stress Regulation/HPA Axis)	Molecular/Clinical Studies 7
Compassion Meditation (Psychological)	Enhanced gamma oscillations and BOLD signal activation.	Insula, Temporoparietal Junction (Empathy/Agency)	Neuroimaging Studies 7
Environmental Enrichment (Social)	Increase in neuroplasticity and improved cognitive outcomes.	General Brain Function	Postnatal Research 8

Intentional Plasticity: How Interventions Remodel the Brain

Just as adversity alters brain structure, intentional therapeutic interventions can harness neuroplasticity to promote resilience and well-being.⁷ This demonstrates that psychological and social interventions function, in effect, as biological tools capable of functional and structural remodeling.

Structural and functional changes in the brain have been observed with cognitive therapy and specific meditation practices, supporting the concept that prosocial characteristics and well-being can be enhanced through deliberate neural training.⁷ For example, participants in an 8-week Mindfulness-based Stress Reduction (MBSR) course exhibited neuroplastic changes, including reductions in medial prefrontal activation and increased activation of the insula and lateral prefrontal cortices during tasks requiring focused, non-judgmental present-moment experience.⁷ Expert practitioners of compassion meditation show enhanced gamma oscillations and BOLD signals in key regions involved in empathy and agency, such as the insula and temporoparietal junction, reflecting enhanced synaptic plasticity.⁷

Furthermore, positive lifestyle interventions, such as regular physical activity, have been shown to increase human hippocampal volume, a change likely stimulated through neurogenesis.⁷ These findings collectively reinforce the NBPS principle: the brain is not static, and the psychological and social inputs are powerful therapeutic levers for effecting measurable biological change.⁷

Clinical Application Across Complex Health Syndromes

The structured, mechanistic approach of the NBPS model makes it ideally suited for diagnosing and managing complex, multifactorial health conditions where the traditional medical model has proven insufficient. The model standardizes holistic care into a mechanistic, structured practice, enabling clinicians to categorize and treat the contributions of each of the four pillars coordinately.⁶

Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) and Post-Concussive Syndrome

The NBPS model is critical for understanding the long-term consequences of Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), particularly mild TBI (mTBI) and post-concussive syndrome.⁵ These conditions involve primary neural damage but manifest through a wide array of interrelated physical, cognitive, and emotional symptoms.⁵

The model provides the foundational structure necessary for effective interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary care.¹⁰ Given the diffuse impacts of chronic concussive injuries, comprehensive assessment requires collaboration among diverse clinical providers, including neurology, speech-language pathology (SLP), physical therapy (often focusing on visual–vestibular issues), and behavioral health (psychology/social work).¹⁰ The NBPS model reinforces the value of team members like SLPs, who traditionally incorporate both internal (neural/cognitive) factors and external (social/environmental) factors when planning care for mTBI patients.¹⁰ By encompassing all causal factors related to recovery from a traumatic brain injury, the neurobiopsychosocial framework ensures that treatment addresses both the root neural damage and the psychological and social factors influencing recovery.¹⁰

Chronic Pain Disorders

Chronic pain exemplifies a condition where a reductionist biological view fails completely. The NBPS model explicitly views chronic pain not as a purely physical sensation but as a complex experience fundamentally influenced by neural sensitization, in which brain pathways become over-sensitive.⁵

Effective management under the NBPS framework mandates addressing the interplay between these factors. Treatment must simultaneously target the underlying neural pathway dysfunctions, alleviate psychological distress (such as fear, anxiety, and catastrophizing), and mitigate social factors (including workplace stress, inadequate support, or feelings of loneliness) that perpetuate the pain cycle.⁵ This integrated view allows for highly personalized treatment plans that acknowledge the role of mental state and psychosocial stress in causing physical symptoms, such as high blood pressure or tension headaches.¹¹

Neuropsychiatric and Autoimmune Conditions

In neuropsychiatry, NBPS offers a far more nuanced understanding of common mental health disorders, such as depression and anxiety, by examining underlying neural circuit dysfunctions in conjunction with the influence of chronic psychosocial stressors.⁵ This approach facilitates diagnosis and treatment plans that move beyond simple pharmacotherapy to address the neural and contextual roots of the disorder.

Furthermore, the model is crucial for conditions involving the neuroimmunology axis, acknowledging the intimate link between the nervous and immune systems. For autoimmune disorders, NBPS is instrumental in explaining how psychosocial factors, mediated through neurological pathways (e.g., chronic stress activation of the HPA axis), can contribute to both the development and acute exacerbation of these chronic conditions.⁵

Operationalizing NBPS: Implementation in Integrated Care Systems

The Necessity of Integrated Practice Units (IPUs)

The comprehensive nature of the NBPS model, which requires the simultaneous assessment and treatment across four distinct domains, presents significant practical and logistical challenges for implementation within traditionally siloed healthcare systems.⁶ Successful adoption requires a fundamental, institutional commitment to organizational structures that support genuine transdisciplinary collaboration.

Care must transition from a simple multidisciplinary model (where specialists consult separately) to an integrated, often transdisciplinary model.¹⁰ In transdisciplinary practice, all clinical providers are trained to incorporate and integrate aspects of care from multiple disciplines into their own specific practices.¹⁰

The organizational framework most conducive to this approach is the Integrated Practice Unit (IPU). IPUs consist of groups of clinicians (including neurology, clinical pharmacy, physical therapy, speech-language pathology, and behavioral health) and non-clinicians working together to maximize overall patient outcomes efficiently.¹⁰ Implementation in specialized settings, such as Brain Medicine Clinics, demonstrates the practical benefits for patients with overlapping neurological and psychiatric symptoms, leading to definitive diagnoses, integrated opinions, and a time-saving process by eliminating the need for separate visits to different specialists.¹² These systematic structures offer the greatest potential for improved understanding and treatment of complex health conditions.⁶

NBPS-Guided Intervention Strategies

The application of the NBPS model yields highly personalized treatment plans that address pathology across all four foundational pillars.¹¹

Neurological Interventions

These interventions directly target the function and structure of the nervous system. Neurofeedback, a form of biofeedback that uses real-time displays of brain activity (EEG), is used to teach patients to self-regulate brain function.⁵ Additionally, interventions informed by Neuroimaging-Guided Therapy can target specific brain networks, such as those identified as dysfunctional in FNDs.⁹

Psychological Interventions

By acknowledging that psychological state directly alters neural pathways, NBPS leverages psychological therapy as a form of applied neuroplasticity. Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy (CBT) helps individuals identify and change negative thinking and behavior patterns, intentionally altering underlying neural pathways.⁵ Similarly, Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) is employed because it has been proven to reduce stress and induce measurable, positive neuroplastic changes in the brain.⁵

Biological and Social Interventions

These pillars are addressed through lifestyle medicine and contextual support.

Comprehensive Lifestyle Interventions—focusing on nutrition, exercise, and sleep hygiene—are prioritized due to their profound and quantifiable impact on overall brain health and well-being.⁵ For instance, exercise is known to stimulate neurogenesis and increase hippocampal volume.⁷ Furthermore, providing Social Support and environmental enrichment is recognized as a direct means of modulating neuroplasticity, enhancing stress resilience, and ensuring optimal brain development, particularly during critical periods.⁷

Table 3 provides a comprehensive overview of how interventions are aligned with the four NBPS pillars:

NBPS Pillar Targeted	Intervention Strategy	Clinical Goal	Example Techniques
Neurological	Direct Neuro-Modulation	Direct self-regulation of brain function and altering specific neural pathways.	Neurofeedback (EEG), Neuroimaging-Guided CBT, Targeted Neuromodulation 5
Biological	Systemic Optimization	Optimize neurochemistry, immune function, and structural integrity (Neuroimmunology).	Targeted Pharmacotherapy, Nutrition, Sleep Hygiene, Exercise (for hippocampal volume) 5
Psychological	Cognitive & Emotional Reframing	Identify and change negative patterns; induce therapeutic neuroplastic changes.	Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy (CBT), Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT) 5
Social	Environmental & Relational Support	Promote prosocial behavior, enhance stress resilience, and provide essential environmental enrichment.	Social Support Groups, Family Therapy, Addressing Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) 7

Integration with Advanced Technology and Predictive Analytics

The complexity of coordinating four distinct pillars necessitates integrating advanced technologies. Wearable biosensors enable real-time, objective tracking of physiological state parameters, such as heart rate variability, sleep patterns, and electrodermal activity.⁵ This influx of data provides crucial insights into the precise biological and neural responses of a patient to psychological stressors and environmental conditions.

To manage and synthesize these diverse data streams—including clinical notes, neuroimaging results, genetic information, and wearables data—Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML) are becoming essential tools.⁵ AI/ML algorithms can analyze vast, integrated datasets to identify complex causal patterns that are invisible to human analysis and predict treatment outcomes. This computational approach is paramount to developing truly individualized, precision treatment strategies that are the ultimate goal of the NBPS framework.⁵

Conclusion

The Neurobiopsychosocial (NBPS) model represents a critical and evidence-based advancement over its predecessor, the Biopsychosocial model. By explicitly isolating and defining the Neurological domain, the NBPS framework provides the necessary mechanistic foundation—grounded in neuroplasticity and neural pathways—to explain how psychological stress, social environment, and biological pathology converge within the individual.⁵

This scientific shift is validated by mounting evidence demonstrating that social factors and psychological interventions cause measurable structural and functional alterations in the brain, including epigenetic changes, dendritic remodeling, and activation of empathy networks.⁷ The model moves beyond abstract holism to establish a structured, four-factor system that guides integrated assessment and intervention for complex conditions such as TBI, chronic pain, and autoimmune disorders.⁵

The successful adoption of NBPS, however, depends less on conceptual agreement and more on systemic reform. It requires institutional commitment to transdisciplinary care models, exemplified by Integrated Practice Units (IPUs), to overcome the practical hurdles of coordinating diverse specialists.⁶ Future research must focus on formally integrating the NBPS conceptual framework into advanced quantitative methods, such as neuroimaging research for pain ⁴, and fully leveraging AI and ML to synthesize the massive, integrated datasets generated by this comprehensive approach, ultimately ensuring truly personalized and predictive patient care.⁵ The NBPS model is positioned to become the definitive standard for precision health, providing an accountable and integrated architecture for understanding human health and illness.

Sources

1. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/human-neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00094/full

2. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK552028/

3. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3093682/

4. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/neurology/articles/10.3389/fneur.2021.700833/full

5. https://www.biolifehealthcenter.com/post/the-neurobiopsychosocial-model-a-paradigm-shift-in-understanding-health-and-illness

6. https://www.biolifehealthcenter.com/post/the-neurobiopsychosocial-model-an-interview-with-dr-david-l-priede?utm_source=linkedin&utm_medium=blog.post-promoter&utm_campaign=f0e096d9-3490-4974-a671-5031ad6cb91e&trk=public_post_reshare-text

7. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3491815/

8. https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3425/13/12/1610

9. https://www.mdpi.com/2514-183X/9/3/37

10. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11588386/

11. https://www.biolifehealthcenter.com/neurobiopsychosocial-nbps-model-david-priede

12. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10228218/

13. https://www.biolifehealthcenter.com/post/navigating-workplace-stress-with-dbt

Works cited

1. A biopsychosocial model based on negative feedback and control - Frontiers, accessed November 26, 2025, https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/human-neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00094/full

2. Biopsychosocial Conditions of Health and Disease - The ..., accessed November 26, 2025, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK552028/

3. Integral Healthcare: The Benefits and Challenges of Integrating Complementary and Alternative Medicine with a Conventional Healthcare Practice - PubMed Central, accessed November 26, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3093682/

4. Recommendations for the Development of Socioeconomically-Situated and Clinically-Relevant Neuroimaging Models of Pain - Frontiers, accessed November 26, 2025, https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/neurology/articles/10.3389/fneur.2021.700833/full

5. The Neurobiopsychosocial Model: A Paradigm Shift in Understanding Health and Illness, accessed November 26, 2025, https://www.biolifehealthcenter.com/post/the-neurobiopsychosocial-model-a-paradigm-shift-in-understanding-health-and-illness

6. Neural-biopsychosocial (NBPS) Model: An Interview with Dr. David L. Priede, PhD, accessed November 26, 2025, https://www.biolifehealthcenter.com/post/the-neurobiopsychosocial-model-an-interview-with-dr-david-l-priede?utm_source=linkedin&utm_medium=blog.post-promoter&utm_campaign=f0e096d9-3490-4974-a671-5031ad6cb91e&trk=public_post_reshare-text

7. Social influences on neuroplasticity: Stress and interventions to ..., accessed November 26, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3491815/

8. Exploring the Role of Neuroplasticity in Development, Aging, and Neurodegeneration, accessed November 26, 2025, https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3425/13/12/1610

9. Mind–Body Integration in Brain Health - MDPI, accessed November 26, 2025, https://www.mdpi.com/2514-183X/9/3/37

10. The Role of Speech-Language Pathology in an Interdisciplinary ..., accessed November 26, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11588386/

11. Neural-biopsychosocial (NBPS) Model | Dr. David Priede PhD | BioLife Health Center, accessed November 26, 2025, https://www.biolifehealthcenter.com/neurobiopsychosocial-nbps-model-david-priede

12. The Brain Medicine Clinic: two cases highlighting the advantages of integrative care - NIH, accessed November 26, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10228218/

13. Navigating Workplace Stress with Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT) - Biolife Health, accessed November 26, 2025, https://www.biolifehealthcenter.com/post/navigating-workplace-stress-with-dbt

---

About Larrie Hamilton

A dedicated Medical Scientist renowned for combining extensive research expertise with a strong commitment to clear communication. His work involves investigating innovative methods to improve human health, leading clinical studies, and translating complex scientific findings into insightful reports and publications.