As already noted in the previous section, the biosocial theory introduces two dimensions in issues of psychological disorders in individuals. The first dimension is the biological aspect that contributes to the condition in question. The second aspect consists of social factors that predispose one to the condition in question (Healy, 2016). In Levi’s case, the biosocial theory can provide a framework for the assessment, intervention as well as evaluation of his condition.
First, the theory can guide the assessment process by providing the assessment criteria. The assessment of the extent to which Levi is affected will depend on the assessment of the extent to which Levi is predisposed to the social as well as biological factors that lead to his condition. For instance, the assessment condition will begin with the level of advancement of the H.I.V condition that he is facing. This constitutes the biological criteria for the assessment of the situation. Secondly, the assessment of at-risk social factors that Levi is facing will equally be a significant criterion for the overall assessment of his condition. As such, the biosocial theory guides assessment by providing the assessment criteria.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Secondly, the theory can be effective in guiding intervention strategies for Levi’s case because intervention is based on the assessment. The aspects of the assessment process will inform the intervention s put in place. In Levi’s case, intervention should address the effect of the social factors identified under assessment, and the management of biological factors which is his H.I.V conditions (Qiao, Li & Stanton, 2015). This way, the biosocial theory guides the intervention strategy. Lastly, progress can equally be monitored and evaluated by evaluating the specific user in assessments. Levis case can be evaluated using social factors like the extent to which he responds to stigmatization. Moreover, his case can be evaluated by his biological state of health.
How the Theory Guides Social Work Practice Within an At-Risk Population
Social workers are often the first group of people that respond to the issues that affect at-risk populations within which they work. The population consists of a group of people that are likely to have additional needs such as communication, healthcare and maintaining independence among others in the aftermath of an incident (Healy, 2016). Social workers working in such settings often face instances where they have to make quick decisions on several aspects such as case referrals, mental health interventions, and risk mitigation among others. Given the unique needs of the at-risk population, the biosocial theory can be very instrumental in guiding the practice of social work among this population in different ways.
Firstly, the biosocial theory is instrumental in shaping the assessment of the risk factors associated with the specific at-risk population in which the social worker is engaged. This would involve the assessment of both biological as well as social factors that contribute to the vulnerability of the population (Healy, 2016). Effective mitigation measures that a social worker puts in place should be based on a conclusive risk assessment among that specific at-risk population. The biosocial theory largely directs the assessment process as well as the implementation process of the mitigation factors. For instance, H.I.V victims are at-risk population among which a social worker can work (Qiao, Li & Stanton, 2015). They are emotionally and biologically vulnerable to a wide range of biosocial factors. Therefore, assessment of their vulnerability must be based on identifying both social and biological risk factors. Social factors such as stigmatization are great contributors to the psychological vulnerability of such at-risk population. Therefore, the biosocial theory the practice of social work by providing a framework for evaluation and risk assessment as well as the implementation of mitigation measures among at-risk populations.
Person in Environment
The person in the environment is a social concept that seeks to understand the environment in which individual acts and behaves the way he or she does. While social environment and individual behavior are district factors, one’s environment has a great influence on the way one behaves or acts (Thompson, & West, 2014). Consequently, the concept of person in environment investigates how individual acts and behaves within the confines of a specific environment in which he or she lives.
Social work involves addressing a wide range of social issues connected to the social environment in which one leaves. In Levi’s case, for instance, the environment of stigmatization of H.I.V victims has largely influenced his behavior of drug abuse. As such the social environment forms a stimulus for the behavior (Healy, 2016). Practice wisdom requires a social worker to identify social aspects of the environment that act as a stimulus for a specific behavior and hence put in place measures that address such factors. For instance, the social worker could choose to carry out a widespread campaign against the stigmatization of HIV/AIDS patients among the social environment among which such patients live (Qiao, Li & Stanton, 2015). Therefore, the understanding of the person in an environment greatly influences how social workers put into practice their theoretical knowledge in social work in the context of specific and unique characteristics of any given environment.
Despite the immense contribution of the person in environment concept on overall practice wisdom of social workers, the approach equally presents some limitations to practice wisdom. For instance, it disregards the physiological and biological factors that influence behavior (Healy, 2016). The approach is mainly concerned with the social, environmental factors. In practice, however, different social, biological, economic, and physiological factors work together in dictating the behavior of an individual.
Examples That Support the Implementation of Biosocial Theory in Levi’s Case
Several examples have been documented to support the implementation of biosocial theory in Levi’s case. First, the effect of stigmatization on the psychological wellbeing has greatly been studied. Many patients who are stigmatized eventually develop psychological issues that greatly affect their overall wellbeing. Many HIV patients have been shown to succumb due to stress associated with stigmatization. The effect of stigmatization reveals the extent to which social factors are critical factors to consider in assessment, intervention as well as evaluation strategies. Secondly, antiretroviral drugs have greatly been documented as having the effect of slowing down the extent of HIV among the infected people (Qiao, Li & Stanton, 2015). As such, this presents a biological and physiological aspect of helping the people who are HIV positive. The two examples demonstrate the fact that HIV patients are affected by both social and biological issues.
Therefore a social worker working among HIV patients as is Levi’s case should make use of both social as well as biological factors that address the unique challenges that he is facing. This approach is highly compatible with the biosocial theory.
Conclusion
In summary, the biosocial theory can guide the process of assessment, intervention, and evaluation because it provides effective criteria for evaluation as well as points of implementation interventions. The theory further provides a framework for evaluating progress. The theory further guides social work within an at-risk population by providing a framework of evaluation that consequently informs the decisions and interventions that a social worker makes in the course of his duty. As such it shapes the practice of social work in the specific social context within which the at-risk population lives. Lastly, the concept of person in the environment is at the core of the biosocial theory and equally contributes to practice wisdom in social work.
Reference
Healy, K. (2016). Social Work Education and Regulation in Australia. Encyclopedia of Social Work, 3 (11), 456-468.
Thompson, L. J., & West, D. (2014). Professional Development in the Contemporary Educational Context: Encouraging Practice Wisdom. Social Work Education, 32 (1), 118-133.
Qiao, S., Li, X., & Stanton, B. (2015). Social Support and HIV-related Risk Behaviors: A Systematic Review of the Global Literature. AIDS and Behavior, 18 (2), 419-441.
