Living and Loving Dangerously

individual

|
INTERPERSONAL : SCIENCES             

humanistic ------------------------------- mechanistic

SOCIOLOGY : POLITICAL   

|

group

identity - choices   Memory - Cognition DEMENTIA - Early onset Inability to consent   inhibition-disinhibition  mental capacity	My liberty, my choices "What! I'm married to you? Oh!" Treatment - medication  'Secure (safe)' environment 'Holistic assessment'?
Marital/Initimate Relationships Social (our) identity Existing relational behaviours Interrelational needs Interpersonal grief Social identity/expectations Yes, but we're married ... had 40 years together ... Family bias, prejudices.. A 'new' step-parent ... Access to support:  relational - mutual vulnerability	Informed consent Assumed consent Rape, Sexual abuse, crime Capacity to give consent Consistency in decisions Lasting power of attorney - finance; health External safeguards Human rights Access to supervision - clinical & management

Prompts:

Previously post: Living and Caring Dangerously

Danny Leigh. Critic's choice - Films on release: Queen at Sea. Life&Arts, FTWeekend, 19/20 September, 2026, p.18.

https://depijp.rialtofilm.nl/en/films/queen-at-sea

So many difficult conversations. All on their own unique continuum in terms of sense-making for all concerned. 

A 'new' diagnosis at age 60; versus one at 44. Families seeking to control disclosure of the diagnosis from the patient. Clinical and family debate about this.

Finding a person locked-in the house, while their partner 'nips' to the shops. A person having their freedom to go out, on their regular walk  -despite acknowledged risks. (When they are known by people on their route - community care in action. Receiving a call from a neighbour; or the neighbour who knows where you park and can intercept you, on arrival or departure to express concerns. Or, even as you venture out for a walk with their neighbour of many a year. Categorise them as you will: [nosey, caring, concerned, public spirited, neighbourly, or (healthily) curious]?

Other discussions of grief at the loss of a person they have loved - in every way. A grief that presents new dark dimensions to what has gone before. Complicated by a state of early onset of memory loss. An ongoing disintegration of personhood and identity. An inability to consistently express thoughts, wishes, and choices. An inability to give informed consent. A loss taunted by retained physical desirability. What does love, sex, compassion mean now? What is the sum now, of love expressed over 'x' years? Hearts hollowed out, of what can be so important to a couple. Not vital to all. But for others, a source of conjoined affirmation, joy, warmth, companionship, a celebration of life and being human.

How to share that grief even amid close friends and family, who cannot cope themselves and withdraw? What of the preparedness of professions to manage such situations? What structures are in-place for team meetings, clinical supervision and inclusion in training, especially safeguarding?

From the bibliography (lower sidebar):

Hodges, B.E. (1989) The Health Career Model, IN, Hinchcliffe, S.M. (et al.) 1989 Nursing Practice and Health Care, 1st Edition only, London, Edward Arnold.

Adams, T. (1987) Dementia is a family affair. Community Outlook, Feb, 7-8.

Merritt MK, Procter N. Conceptualising the functional role of mental health consultation-liaison nurse in multi-morbidity, using Peplau's nursing theory. Contemp Nurse. 2010 Feb-Mar;34(2):158-66. doi: 10.5172/conu.2010.34.2.158. PMID: 20509800.

Murphy, K., Welford C. (2012) Agenda for the future: enhancing autonomy for older people in residential care.International Journal of Older People Nursing. 7, 75–80.

Kernohan, W. G., & Jones, P. (2023). Hodges’ Health Care Model as a Framework for Quality. Paper presented at Interprofessional work: developing oral care and the health workforce for the future, Brescia, Italy.
https://pure.ulster.ac.uk/en/publications/hodges-health-care-model-as-a-framework-for-quality

Jones, P. (2025). A Conceptual Mapping Exercise of Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards in Residential & Community Care Using Hodges' Model and Threshold Concepts. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 31: e70085. https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.70085

Jones, P. (2025), A Generic Model and Conceptual Framework to Prime Curiosity Across Health and Social Care Disciplines to Facilitate Lifelong Learning. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 31: e70252. https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.70252

Previously: 'capacity' : 'consent' : 'law' : 'safeguarding'

"Hey Jonesy: Where's the book?"

This prompt from yesterday is far from new. There are outlines for papers on W2tQ.

Seriously though, what would a book outline look like - now?

The introduction is probably already written, it just needs to be pulled-together. But, in truth it (desperately) needs a new perspective. The question of how to update the explanation - short of running a workshop? The model's original purposes 1-4 are a statement of fact. The intro figures that invariably show how the axes 'create' the model's care, or knowledge domains? What if...? Could we also present the inverse? That would be a new slant. Does the model still 'work'? 

Details aside, here is a quick outline:

Part 1

Introduction and Background 

1.1 Brian E. Hodges and Post-Registration Nurse Education

1.2 Peter Jones - Primed to mind-map

1.3 Web presence: Initial website 1998-2015 - Blog 'Welcome to the QUAD' 2006 ...

1.4 Brian's original lecture notes

1.5 Looking back and forward: Models of care for the 21^st Century

1.6 Confessions: So, where is the new site / platform? 

Part 2

 The Four (Five) Care Domains 

2.1 Science

2.2 Interpersonal (& Intrapersonal)

2.3 Sociology

2.4 Political

2.5 Spiritual

Part 3

Hodges' model in Practice - Applications

3.1 Self care

3.2 Clinical

3.3 Social Care - Community 

3.4 Management

3.5 Informatics

3.6 Policy 

3.7 Education

3.8 Workforce: Local - Global 

Part 4

The Legacies (still) in Our Midst

4.1 Person-centredness

4.2 Integrated Care

4.3 Holistic Care

4.4 Parity of Esteem

4.5 The Theory-Practice Gap

4.6 Change - Transformation: When? Disease to Prevention

Part 5

It's Tomorrow Now

5.1 Health Promotion

5.2 Public (Mental) Health & Protection

5.3 Citizenship

5.4 Global Health

5.5 Planetary Health

Part 6

Research

6.1 Hodges' model as a Research Tool

6.2 Climate change

6.3 Planetary Health

6.4 Beyond the Bio-Psycho-Social Model: The Political Domain

6.5 The Literacies 

6.6 InterDisciplinary, Multi- and Transdisciplinary

6.7 Hodges' model as a Mathematical Object?

Part 7

Philosophy

 

7.1 Revisiting the Original Purposes

 

7.2 AI - The Elephant in Mind

 

7.3 Value & Values  

...?

Much to add, revise ... 'Education as Part X'. Political and Literacy too - a specific part - and with AI (in every part!)?

STOP!!

OK. It's a minefield. Even a proposal is a 'non-trivial' task.

Who's writing this? Not me! Not all of it, and for me; not AI either.

It would be marvellous to be one of several editors: one day? 

Clearly, a great project for students and early career researchers and current practitioners. 

An inoculation to help new cohorts deal with the realities, ravages and rewards of 'care' in its entirety*. 

P.S. With the start of a title right there? PJ

ii Thoughts re. Ecosia's AI Chat 'answer'

The previous post has been updated, to the prompt is added:

 'Please provide sources and references.

[If you are new here, and too Hodges' model please see the bibliography in the sidebar.] 

A 'human' reading (still) makes me wonder if the 'answer' is what I want to hear (as a user)? Is it worrying that the first provides a 'Conclusion' the latest does not. The table is helpful as I believe that Hodges' model has a role across research (and political!) -isms through methodologies and methods. The model can also encompass ('eat'!) aspects of scale, or level.

The reply still gives me quadraphonic joy (if read out-loud). Not only are the domains recognised, but the LLM/agent ai takes the intrapersonal / interpersonal in its stride (from the blog?). Subjects related to each of the domains are given in brackets. 

There is of course a bias (several) in the prompt, as the care domains were never intended to be comparable. It is positive that each domain is seen as having its own specific scope and function. Over twenty years notes were started on a paper on Hodges' model and its role/function in helping to define 'scope of practice'. Significantly, in the UK the rise of associate positions across disciplines has provoked much debate, vitriol (on X and union and lobbying) and soul searching in certain professional groups. Given the increasing importance of the global health and social care workforce this trend is reflected globally. A situation set to be extended with uncertainties and tensions exacerbated by artificial intelligence in practice.

Before 'explaining' the asymmetries (in points 1-4) it seems the domains are complementary (for all their differences), and provide a holistic underpinning for the model as a whole (my reading).

1. Scope and Focus 

Interesting, how the science and sociology domains are described as broad. Perhaps I am underestimating the depth/density of sociology, after all folk theory is found there? Unfortunately, we can also add a myriad of conspiracy theories? Sociology can also lay claim to quite a few constructions of its own. Including aesthetics as a bridge to architecture and design(?).

On 'X', Hodges' model has been described negatively as inviting / fostering generalism. So, this is a bad thing? Is it not strange then that your Advanced Nurse Practitioner, Consultant doctors (all specialities) and students cross-curricula can all use Hodges' model? The fact that my own responses were never engaged has helped train my thought. Here the relevance of the model to students and continued professional development is made through generalizable knowledge.

The response to the political domain is supportive, acknowledging resource allocation and the distinction between individual and collective (see for example):

S. Bettiol, P. Jones, H. A. Onyedikachi, and W. G. Kernohan, (2026) Bridging Gaps in Oral Health Frameworks: Mapping With Hodges' Health Career - Care Domains - Model, Journal of Public Health Dentistry. 1–14, https://doi.org/10.1111/jphd.70034.  

I've seen tweets today regards IQ reductions in younger people. This is one reason for support of the top-left mental domain being designated as 'Intrapersonal – Interpersonal'. Our interpersonal skills and awareness are surely dependent upon our achieving a given level of inner mental life? Encouraging to see how subjectivity and objectivity is assigned too. Although, I think I'm in an echo chamber!

2. Epistemological Differences

In arguing for a model of health and social care that goes beyond:

• medical model;
• bio-medical model;
• bio-psycho-social model.

Reading 1-2 from the perspective of the Intrapersonal – Interpersonal domain you see how limiting this is, if an individual in a mental health/illness/mental capacity context can only point to sciences and sociological domains. Indeed, they may be relying guardians and advocates as they are unable to does this and raise the political matter of their rights. Without the POLITICAL domain (or as a result of it - neglect, structural racism) there is no law enshrining independent advocacy...

3. Practical Application in Care

To care is to act. Think about triage and emergency response.

Now in the 21st century 'care' must include self-care, health and social care, and (delayed or not you decide?) planetary care.

This necessitates a change of mindset at an individual and collective level. Consider the literacies that (again) young people must master to be effective, productive and happy citizens tomorrow?

So the following is a gift (in my eyes): 

"This means the intrapersonal-interpersonal domain is not just another 'content area' but a lens through which all other domains are experienced and integrated."

4. Hierarchy of Integration

'While the domains are conceptually equal in Hodges’ model' ..

This is interesting in itself.

[There does seem a emphasis upon the Intrapersonal – Interpersonal domain in this answer?]

This is quite a step, as the idea of a nexus and integration are picked up; and pointing to what are the determinants of health:

'For example:

• A scientific understanding of depression (e.g., serotonin levels) must be interpreted through the intrapersonal experience of the individual.
• A sociological analysis of healthcare disparities must be understood through the political structures that enable or inhibit change.
• A political decision about resource allocation must be filtered through intrapersonal values and priorities.'

I'm pleased I did this, as long as I'm not being trapped in an epistemological cocoon: otherwise known as a circle. Apart from a few occasions, I have not used AI/LLMs, perhaps it is time to explore more? I'd like to preserve my naivety, especially were maths is concerned. I'm not sure of what baggage I may pick up and lack the knowledge to interpret?

Previous post:  https://hodges-model.blogspot.com/2026/06/h2cm-domains-symmetry.html

[Updated] AI Chat: Are the domains of Hodges' model comparable?

In drafting a future post: 'The Sciences: points, lines, angles and perspectives on domains', I thought I would ask Ecosia's AI Chat a related question, here is the (quick) prompt and reply:

PROMPT: 
In Hodges' model there are four care, or knowledge domains. The four domains are the sciences, sociology, political, and intrapersonal – interpersonal domain. In terms of potential content are these domains comparable, or is there an essential asymmetry? Please provide sources and references.

(I have saved the prompt for future reference and refinement.)

RESPONSE: [updated 21st June 2026]

Hodges’ model (also known as the Health Career Model or h2cm) is a conceptual framework that organizes knowledge and care into four quadrants, each representing a distinct domain of human experience and knowledge. These domains are:

1. Sciences (empirical, biological, and physical sciences)
2. Sociology (social structures, relationships, and community)
3. Political (power, policy, governance, and resource allocation)
4. Intrapersonal – Interpersonal (psychological, emotional, and relational aspects of the self and others)

Are the Four Domains Comparable or Asymmetrical?

The four domains in Hodges’ model are not strictly symmetrical in terms of their content, scope, or application. While they are presented as equal in structure (each occupying one quadrant of the model), their potential content, theoretical foundations, and practical implications can vary significantly. Here’s why:

1. Differences in Scope and Focus

• Sciences (Quadrant 1):
  This quadrant focuses on empirical, measurable, and biological aspects of health and care, such as anatomy, physiology, and pathophysiology. Its content is often highly specialized, technical, and evidence-based, rooted in natural sciences like biology and chemistry.

  • Example: The role of hormones in stress response or the pathophysiology of diabetes.

• Sociology (Quadrant 2):
  This quadrant addresses social structures, culture, and community dynamics. Its content is broader and more interpretive, drawing from sociology, anthropology, and social psychology.

  • Example: The impact of socioeconomic status on health outcomes or the role of family support in recovery.

• Political (Quadrant 3):
  This quadrant examines power, policy, governance, and resource distribution. Its content is highly contextual and often contested, influenced by political science, economics, and public policy.

  • Example: The effect of healthcare policies on access to services or the role of advocacy in shaping health priorities.

• Intrapersonal – Interpersonal (Quadrant 4):
  This quadrant focuses on individual psychology, emotions, and relationships. Its content is highly subjective and variable, drawing from psychology, psychotherapy, and ethics.

  • Example: A patient’s personal beliefs about illness or the dynamics of a therapeutic relationship.

2. Differences in Methodology

• Sciences and Political domains often rely on quantitative methods (e.g., experiments, statistical analysis, policy evaluations).
• Sociology and Intrapersonal domains frequently use qualitative methods (e.g., interviews, case studies, ethnography).
• This methodological diversity can create asymmetry in how knowledge is generated, validated, and applied.

3. Differences in Practical Application

• Sciences and Political domains  are often system-level and influence macro-level decisions (e.g., clinical guidelines, healthcare policies).
• Sociology and Intrapersonal domains are more individual- or community-level, focusing on personalized care, cultural competence, and therapeutic relationships.
• This can lead to asymmetry in impact, where some domains (e.g., Political) shape broad systems, while others (e.g., Intrapersonal) focus on direct human experience.

4. Theoretical Foundations

• The Sciences and Political domains are grounded in positivist and structuralist theories, emphasizing objectivity and external reality.
• The Sociology and Intrapersonal domains are influenced by interpretivist and constructivist theories, emphasizing subjectivity and lived experience.
• This theoretical diversity can create asymmetry in how knowledge is perceived and valued in different contexts.

Is There an Essential Asymmetry?

Yes, there is an essential asymmetry in the potential content of the four domains. While the model presents them as equal in structure, their content, methods, applications, and theoretical foundations are not interchangeable. The domains complement each other but serve different purposes in understanding and delivering care.

Sources and References

1. Conceptual Overview of Hodges’ Model:

   • Hodges’ Model: A Cognitive Periplus for - WikiEducator (PDF)
   • Hodges’ Model: Welcome to the QUAD
   • Hodges’ Health Care Model as a Framework for Quality

2. Theoretical Foundations:

   • Hodges’ Health Career Model and its role and potential application
   • Hodges’ model: the Sustainable Development Goals and public health

3. Discussions on Asymmetry and Complementarity:

   • The model’s holistic intent is emphasized in Hodges’ Health Care Model as a Framework for Quality, but its quadrants are not identical in content or application.
   • The differences in methodology and scope are discussed in Hodges’ Health Career Model and its role and potential application.

Summary Table: Asymmetry in Hodges’ Model Domains

Domain	Content Focus	Methodology	Theoretical Foundation	Level of Application
Sciences	Biological, empirical data	Quantitative	Positivist	Macro (systems, clinical)
Sociology	Social structures, community	Qualitative/Quantitative	Interpretivist, Structuralist	Meso (groups, communities)
Political	Power, policy, governance	Quantitative/Qualitative	Structuralist, Critical Theory	Macro (systems, policy)
Intrapersonal-Interpersonal	Psychology, emotions, relationships	Qualitative	Constructivist, Humanistic	Micro (individual, relational)

PROMPT: 
In Hodges' model there are four care, or knowledge domains. The four domains are the sciences, sociology, political, and intrapersonal – interpersonal domain. In terms of potential content are these domains comparable, or is there an essential asymmetry?

 

In Hodges’ model, the four care (or knowledge) domains are:

1. Sciences (biological, physiological)
2. Sociology (social, cultural, environmental)
3. Political (legal, policy, organizational)
4. Intrapersonal – Interpersonal (psychological, emotional, relational)

These domains are not strictly comparable in terms of content, scope, or function. Instead, they represent complementary perspectives that together form a holistic framework for understanding human health, well-being, and care. Here’s why there is an essential asymmetry between them:

1. Scope and Focus

• Sciences and Sociology are broad, well-established academic disciplines with extensive theoretical and empirical foundations. They provide generalizable knowledge about biological processes and social systems.
• Political is more narrowly focused on power structures, governance, and resource allocation. While critical for systemic change, it is less about individual experience and more about collective frameworks.
• Intrapersonal – Interpersonal is deeply personal and subjective, focusing on individual psychology, emotions, and relationships. It is less about universal laws and more about unique, context-dependent experiences.

This makes the intrapersonal-interpersonal domain inherently asymmetrical compared to the others, as it deals with subjectivity and variability rather than objective or structural phenomena.

2. Epistemological Differences

• Sciences, Sociology, and Political domains rely on external observation, measurement, and analysis. They are rooted in positivist or structuralist traditions, where knowledge is often generalized.
• Intrapersonal – Interpersonal is rooted in interpretivist and phenomenological traditions, where knowledge is co-created through subjective experience and dialogue. It resists universal generalization.

This creates a fundamental asymmetry in how knowledge is produced and validated across the domains.

3. Practical Application in Care

• The Sciences, Sociology, and Political domains provide frameworks for action (e.g., medical treatments, social policies, legal rights). They are instrumental in shaping systems and interventions.
• The Intrapersonal – Interpersonal domain is transformative—it shapes how individuals perceive, interpret, and respond to care. It is the domain where meaning is made and agency is exercised.

This means the intrapersonal-interpersonal domain is not just another “content area” but a lens through which all other domains are experienced and integrated.

4. Hierarchy of Integration

While the domains are conceptually equal in Hodges’ model, in practice, the intrapersonal-interpersonal domain often acts as the nexus where the other domains intersect. For example:

• A scientific understanding of depression (e.g., serotonin levels) must be interpreted through the intrapersonal experience of the individual.
• A sociological analysis of healthcare disparities must be understood through the political structures that enable or inhibit change.
• A political decision about resource allocation must be filtered through intrapersonal values and priorities.

This integrative role makes the intrapersonal-interpersonal domain asymmetrical in function, even if not in formal status.

Conclusion: Essential Asymmetry

The four domains are not comparable in content or function. Instead:

• The Sciences, Sociology, and Political domains provide structural and systemic knowledge.
• The Intrapersonal – Interpersonal domain provides subjective and relational knowledge, which is essential for meaning-making and agency.

The asymmetry arises from the epistemological and practical differences between objective/systemic knowledge and subjective/experiential knowledge. Hodges’ model emphasizes that all domains are necessary, but they operate in fundamentally different ways.

iii Book: 'Complexity in Health Care - A Paradigm Shift for Clinical Practice'

In reading this book and others on W2tQ, I must make the following points:

  * my need to remember the purely USA context (I have never worked there);
  * my healthcare, nursing, informatics experience is NHS-based;
  * this review (and others) is motivated by the project here - Hodges' model;
  * as a result, I will be quoting heavily, there is much to bring to your attention.

As noted in post (i) there is much to whet the appetite, a paradigm shift, 'comprehensive, collaborative, and integrated care' (p.11) certainly have become popular topics in the medical literature. Not only that but 'interpersonal and intersubjective treatment models' too (p.12).

The role of 'Case Managers' is highlighted, plus the Case Management Society of America, which is committed to:

•  Improved Consumer Health Outcomes
•  Professional Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
•  Cultural Competency and Humility
•  Advocacy for the Health Consumer
•  Integrity and Ethical Principles
•  Promoting Health Equity
•  Educating Case Managers Across the Care Continuum
•  Evidence-based Quality Care
•  Holistic, Compassionate Care
•  Fostering Communication and Collaboration
•  Advancing Research, Innovation, and Use of Technology
•  Fiscal Accountability [ https://cmsa.org/about/ ]

Whether the USA influences global trends in the structure and form of healthcare is another post, but there is a UK Case Management Society too: https://www.cmsuk.org. I can see a fit here [UK] with the development in recent decades on social prescribing. A different role, of course but part of a complex jig-saw.

As expected definitions are provided: 

'Roger Kathol has eloquently defined "health complexity" as "the interference with the achievement of expected or desired health and cost outcomes, due to the interaction of biological, psychological, social and health systems factors when patients are exposed to standard care delivered by their doctors" [1].' p.10. 

Roger G. Kathol, Rachel L. Andrew, Michelle Squire, Peter J. Dehnel (2018) The Integrated Case Management Manual: Value-Based Assistance to Complex Medical and Behavioral Health Patients. 2nd ed. Basel: Springer.

I can see where this definition comes from, but for me, it does not sit right. The problem when there is 'interference' is the assignment of responsibility and consequence that blame can follow. We've seen this, and in mental health too), with the recover model^. Some of the terms here may be completely innocuous politically speaking (which is the author's intent of course), but they can also be 'weighted'. Hence they can become concrete terms of judgement. Think about it: achievement, expected, desired, cost (and) outcomes, standard care, delivered (by doctors)? Or, am I over-thinking again.

In the margin I pencilled/drew:

individual

|

INTERPERSONAL : SCIENCES

humanistic ------------------------------- mechanistic

SOCIOLOGY : POLITICAL

|

group

Standard -	care
Other -	factors

As ever, the individual patient is our focus. The individual is supported (literally) by the social and political (infra-)structures that act as a scaffold, safety-net for most.

Time flies, I can't believe it was 2007 I posted 

Plush HQ foyer, shame about the mannequins!

I had this notion of life-size cardboard cutouts representing the average people who use a given health service provider (local, or not so local these days?). The data will be there in statistical annual reports. I'd noticed the displays - analogue and digital that greeted visitors at a local NHS Trust HQ. This would be the book's 'routine patients' who receive standard care. 

Chapter 3 introduces 'variables' which again is brief, but imporant as variables recur throughout the book. The 'Clinical Field' is first outlined, as in:

• Sources of clinically relevant factors;
• Dynamic factors;
• and: Variables representing contributions from practitioner(s).

Abstract variables are differentiated from those that are concrete. It's reassuring to read there is no true simplicity within the clinical field, and the author's goal is to 'unpack complexity so it remains as true to life as possible, not just manageable conceptually.' p.18.

Frankel et al. are primed to go beyond this. Maths, as in statistical procedures are one tool. Chapter 4 adds to this with a theoretical model to guide clinical understanding of patients with biopsychosocial complexities, the foundations of our paradigm shift. p.23.

If you have an understanding of Hodges' model you can picture my response to this. But, staying grounded, the whole book and paradigm shift represents a form of scientific "emergence". It is frustrating that literature searches fail to pick out Hodges' model. 

Frustrating too as reading of "awe", also on page 23, I have experienced this many times (over say 1977 - 2019 ...). So, I held on to my dummy (pacifier!?) and read on ...  

Chapter 4 Technical Considerations is one the longest and contributes all of Part III. Here you can read about science, measurement, statistics, empirical, operational definitions, intelligence, reliability. I often see a chapter, book section as a useful primer for students and the same applies here; with inter-judge realiability, validity, control, null hypothesis, statistical methods and much more. Reference to mathematics (axiomatic too) had me hoping for more. I picked out Structural Equation Modelling:

 'We would also like to suggest that following the steps involved in "structural equation modeling" (path analysis) is a good way of conceptualizing and reasoning about complex clinical variables altogether. For example, constructing a clinical model informally (intuitively, loosely from data) and thinking about (diagramming) how the variables involved may moderate and mediate each other can be a useful activity for clarifying the nature and requirements of a complicated clinica1 situation. 
 

 In simplest terms, an independent variable is the causal or influential variable that impacts and effects the dependent variable. A moderating variable is a dichotomy, and refers to two comparison groups (e.g., male/female; passed/fail; religious/nonreligious; tall/short; high versus low socioeconomic status) that display significantly different degrees of magnitude on a correlated relationship. For example, the relationship between a specific treatment for a medical disorder and treatment outcomes may be moderated by socioeconomic differences. The treatment outcome relationship may be stronger and more positive for individuals with elevated socioeconomic standing who therefore have better support systems and access to medical professionals, and fewer economic stressors.' p.36.

I think from this the authors might be sympathetic to giving 'life' to the POLITICAL domain and Hodges' model; after all it lives in people's daily experience - acknowledged or not. The book's structure works thus far: Chapter 5 Nature-Nurture (n.b. no escape!)  and the Epigenome. The structure - flow - works, as at just over four pages, it begs further reading (beyond the listed references). I still have my copy of:

Fritjof Capra and Pier Luigi Luisi (2014) The Systems View of Life - A Unifying Vision. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

 

With the epigenome being added to the 'patient complexity equation' in chapter 5, I wondered whether this was predictable, a promise, or a tease?

individual

|

INTERPERSONAL : SCIENCES

humanistic ------------------------------- mechanistic

SOCIOLOGY : POLITICAL

|

group

nature?	NATURE?
NURTURE?	nurture?

 

Previously: 'complex' : 'nature' : 'mental health' : 'person(-centred)'

More to follow ...

^Jones P. (2014) Using a conceptual framework to explore the dimensions of recovery and their relationship to service user choice and self-determination. International Journal of Person Centered Medicine. Vol 3, No 4, (2013) pp.305-311. 

Steven A. Frankel, Steven D. Thurber, James A. Bourgeois (2023) Complexity in Health Care: A Paradigm Shift for Clinical Practice. Cham. Switzerland: Springer. ISBN: 978303114948.

ii Book: 'Complexity in Health Care - A Paradigm Shift for Clinical Practice'

I didn't have time to finish reading Frankel et al. before WCCS26. This book has an index which was very useful, to efficiently check certain points. It is amazing the number of books without an index.

Chapter 1 is 'Guiding Principles' and links really well with the index. At two pages it is brief and yet also constitutes Part 1. 

Part II The Clinical Situation, continues an introductory thread. Chapter 2 The “Clinical Situation”: An Introduction to Its Structure and Complexity is what attracted me to the book. At five pages, there was more in this vein. I looked ahead and found that the chapters all seemed short. Checking the book's web page, 50 chapters in 270 pages, so just over 5 pages and well referenced too.

Initially, you might feel short-changed, of course, I didn't with a review copy. But don't worry. You are in patient- person-centred hands here. Sometimes content matters. The three authors work and are researchers in psychiatry. For me, the guiding principles and part II provide a handshake with the index. The person here then, is given a literary hug. Immediately, there is a link between the variables of care and the structure of a case (or caseness). 

'But importantly that "structure" is dynamic changing over time. We classify variables as "clinical" as they are brought into play for the purpose of treatment, i.e., the goal of healing.

The clinician is not just challenged to unravel this complicated situation but also to represent the patient accurately, including his or her "human" elements as represented by temperament and personal attitudes. What are the patient's essential needs. tolerances, preferences? Yet, there is even more to know about each patient. Does she have children? What is her financial status, her ethnicity? What are her attitudes about medical professionals. Does she believe in medicine, or even in science?

Beware! None of these factors are dispensable when trying to understand a patient. Just try to leave out a few and you are left with a gutted rendering of that person, not a living human being.' p.7. 

(and continued in fragmented form below ...)

individual

|

INTERPERSONAL : SCIENCES

humanistic ------------------------------- mechanistic

SOCIOLOGY : POLITICAL

|

group

'The result even when this level of detail, is available may still be an anemic version of the patient.    Traditionally a medical patient is subjected to an extensive workup that includes a mental status examination, in addition to a detailed past and present history, ...	... and an extensive "review of (organ) systems.
Now add the multiplicity of problems, psychiatric and systemic medical, from which the patient suffers. ...	Multiplicity may include systemic medical, psychiatric, social, financial, and lack of access to health providers.' p.7.

'From this description it seems logical that complex patients presenting with mixed medical-psychiatric disorders be managed with an ongoing collaborative approach delivered by a multispecialty team. Included may be a primary care physician, psychiatrist, and/or psychotherapists. One or more of the collaborating professionals may be a nurse practitioner and/or a physician's assistant.' p.7

I will return to the 'logical' in the final quoted paragraph above. The author's declare their intent from the outset, and by the literature-to-date they achieve this (may I please add? 'in spades!').

 

Over the years and as raised on W2tQ, several colleagues and contacts have asked "Where is the book on Hodges' model?" Not to sound weird, but this book asks that same question through some challenges to the usual 'medical' text. There are several lessons to take away here, even if only to keep a dream alive. While the physical size of a textbook, its practical appeal and stance makes it appear as something to pop in your top shirt/jacket pocket. A pocket guide: quite an impression just 10-20 pages in, and in this digital age.

 

As you would expect from mental health practitioners - psychiatrists - psychotherapists, interpersonal, subjective-objective and intersubjective factors are integral to how complexity is defined and measured. In Chapter 2, pp.11-12 there is mention and reference to the Value-Based Integrated Case Management Complexity Assessment Grid:

Specker, S., Andrew, R., Drexler, E., Koithan, E., Thurber, S., & Frankel, S. (2026). Development of the Self-Administered Health Complexity Screening Instrument. Professional case management, 31(2), 81–89. https://doi.org/10.1097/NCM.0000000000000845

I will check this instrument as I complete this review. As noted on April 9th this book was published in 2023, so I remain grateful to Daniela and colleagues at SpringerNature for the review copy (which also enjoyed WCCS!).

Previously: 'complex' : 'holistic bandwidth' : 'mental health' : 'person(-centred)'

More to follow ...

Steven A. Frankel, Steven D. Thurber, James A. Bourgeois (2023) Complexity in Health Care: A Paradigm Shift for Clinical Practice. Cham. Switzerland: Springer. ISBN: 978303114948.

This blog "Welcome to the QUAD" is 20 years old

Yesterday, this blog celebrated its 20th birthday. That first post seems an age away now -

Welcome to the Hodges Health Career - Care Domains Blog

https://hodges-model.blogspot.com/2006/04/

Back then, I was full-time and on a secondment with the NHS's National Programme for Information Technology:

Independent report: Making IT work: harnessing the power of health information technology to improve care in England. Published 7 September 2016

House of Commons Committee of Public Accounts - The National Programme for IT in the NHS: an update on the delivery of detailed care records systems - Forty-fifth Report of Session 2010–12

In that first post, several links take you to the former website which is now archived, as per the note in the sidebar. Similar links have been updated to the web.archive.org site, but some may have been missed. Other links may be plain broke.

The blog began as an acknowledgement of the former site's limitations, hence all the posts on Drupal the content management system.* The intention was to create a stop-gap. So much for that! I still have the 'new' site in my head.

Personally, there's been much change: as ever in life, a mix of sadness and great joy. Regards the former, a manager from 1985 into the 90s, colleague and friend David McKendrick died in 2009. And coinciding with personal bereavements, Brian Hodges in 2022. I do miss chats with both of them.

With periodic backups of the blog's content (and old website 1998-2015), there been one effort at a spring clean. Posts that are poor (what was I thinking?), or items that are clearly time-limited - event announcements have been deleted. Many more no doubt remain with images - banners - that will be removed at some point. With 3381 (inc.) posts published, it is quite an onerous, yet rewarding task.

During the two decades I would like to thank researchers who have discovered Hodges' model, recognised (either) its value, utility, relevance and cited the model in their studies/projects.

Thanks too to several co-authors whose patience and understanding in working with me, their recognition of the model and value in their work, and assistance to assure open access is invaluable to bring Hodges' model and this project to the attention of a global audience and community.

If I can help you with Hodges' model - acknowledgement not a requirement(!): please let me know.

The online presence has been about the model, not business, or commerce, so there's a lack of analytics. There's a project for someone, as I notice 'Blog Analysis' as an online research method. 

People occasionally email and provide encouragement regards the content.  In a way the blog is my thesis*. 

Amid the time-dependent content, there may be much here that can demonstrate:

• the holistic bandwidth of Hodges' model
• the scope of application of Hodges' model
• the transdisciplinary potential of Hodges' model 
• how to apply the model, or at least this practitioner's use
• the visual appreciative dimension through the model's presentation to reveal the relational nature of the situation / context at hand
• many remaining questions are also to be found.

Thank you for your visiting! Here's to another 20 years ;-) !?

*I still live in hope: it's called dreaming.

Is there such a thing as the holistic bandwidth of 'resilience'?

In preparing my presentation for World Conference on Complex Systems 2026 (WCCS26) next month^, I am reading:

Bridging the Macro and the Micro by Considering the Meso: Reflections on the Fractal Nature of Resilience

ABSTRACT. We pursued the following three interconnected points: (1) there are unexplored opportunities for resilience scholars from different disciplines to cross-inspire and inform, (2) a systems perspective may enhance understanding of human resilience in health and social settings, and (3) resilience is often considered to be fractal, i.e., a phenomenon with recognizable or recurring features at a variety of scales. Following a consideration of resilience from a systems perspective, we explain how resilience can, for analytic purposes, be constructed at four scales: micro, meso, macro, and cross-scale. Adding to the cross-scale perspective of the social-ecological field, we have suggested an analytical framework for resilience studies of the health field, which incorporates holism and complexity by embracing an ecological model of cognition, something supported by empirical studies of organizations in crisis situations at various spatial as well as temporal scales.  

Key Words: human resilience; organizational resilience; resilience; resilience engineering; societal resilience 

Since the turn of the millennium, it appears 'resilience' has exploded across the media, and literature. As a result, it has also been viewed negatively by mental health service advocates, and activists as they decry the run-down state of formal services. The 'recovery model', undoubtedly closely associated with personal resilience is not the only answer.

This paper is helpful, in several respects but specifically to illustrate the idea of how Hodges' model can frame holistic bandwidth, across its care / knowledge domains.

INDIVIDUAL

|

    INTERPERSONAL    :     SCIENCES               

HUMANISTIC --------------------------------------  MECHANISTIC      

SOCIOLOGY  :   POLITICAL 

|

GROUP

individual - emotional - mental resilience	resilience engineering
human & societal resilience	organizational resilience

 

I think the answer is yes. 

But, what do you think (h2cmng AT yahoo.co.uk)?

Bergström, J., & Dekker, S. W. A. (2014). Bridging the Macro and the Micro by Considering the Meso: Reflections on the Fractal Nature of Resilience. Ecology and Society, 19(4), art22.
https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06956-190422

 

See also:

Jones P. (2014) Using a conceptual framework to explore the dimensions of recovery and their relationship to service user choice and self-determination. International Journal of Person Centered Medicine. Vol 3, No 4, (2013) pp.305-311.  

 

Previously: 'complexity' : 'resilience' : 'holistic bandwidth' : 'fractal'

^Fingers x'd!

Thoughts ii re. 2026 Lancaster Philosophy of Psychiatry Work in Progress Workshop

For me, applying Hodges' model I tend to place philosophy and psychiatry (mind, thought, belief, truth, intention ...) within the humanistic part of the model. So, Ewa Grzeszczak and - Philosophy of psychiatry and the methodology of social ontology - stood out. This is helpful as Homeostatic Property Clusters (HPC) are a useful structure, spanning bio-mathematics. As suggested previously with 'equality', we can place the philosophical non-trivial question of kinds at the centre of Hodges' model and proceed (if possible?) from there.

The requirement for a holistic, integrative and pluralistic framework is there in literature. A statement supported by Alessandra Civani's talk: 'What kind of concept is ‘incongruence’? I located a paper:

Enactive psychiatry - A pragmatic and pluralistic approach to mental health and disease

- (and now have a copy c/o and thanks to Alessandra) and am grateful to being pointed to de Haan:

An Enactive Approach to Psychiatry

 I will (must) return to these papers. Earlier on Hodges' model, I'd opined (as on 'X') how the -

• medical
• biomedical
• bio-psycho-social models - are insufficient in the 21st century.

There was a thematic feel to the presentations with Anna Golova - Self-illness ambiguity without a self-illness distinction - following nicely. The styling on the slides was an added bonus. I located an informative (co-authored) paper by Golova:

‘Is it me or my illness?’: self-illness ambiguity as a useful conceptual lens for psychiatry'

Part of the power of Hodges' model derives not so much from its duality; as its dual axes. The two axes can encompass and handle the relatedness between/within reductionism, holist perspectives, the self and otherness, illness and health (well-being).

An hours break brought us to an event which was very well attended, clearly open to the public:

6-7pm Prof Miriam Solomon – Royal Institute of Philosophy talk ‘Stigma as an actant in the history of psychiatry’

In setting out the talk's structure I liked Prof. Solomon's reference to the common, implicit "grime" theory of the dynamic of stigma, and "punching down" as a strategy for managing stigma. 'Grime' made me think of sense of smell, the grime in my father's work van, a diesel. Now so many memories are evoked with the merest whiff. More positively, the patina of physical and mental life also came to mind. You would - might think stigma has been dealt with by now, but of course we are socio-politically far from it.

There is a related podcast from 2025, which also covers Prof. Solomon's early studies. A previous paper was also noted in the slides:

Solomon, M. (2025). The Elusiveness of Hermeneutic Injustice in Psychiatric Categorizations. Social Epistemology, 39(2), 166–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/02691728.2024.2400068

 

Discussion of the DSM inevitably followed (and in the above podcast). In questions the 'reality' of severe mental illness, and suggestion of the acute challenge of managing the negative symptoms of psychoses.

 

Prof. Solomon's conclusion was well worth waiting for, including:

Stigma as an "actant" (cf. Bruno Latour's concept of an agent: causal role without intention)... DSM - ICD...

 

If stigma disappeared tomorrow, the DSM would not have the same categories. 

 

Stigma (more specifically, its management) is shaping the conceptual space, with both scientific and moral consequences.

[Added 4th March...] On Friday - Sam Fellowes, took on, or has taken on - the non-trivial issue of - Modelling psychiatric diagnoses when self-diagnosing - how does this work? Complexity was acknowledged on the first slide, with self-diagnosis, and modelling, set against the Duhem-Quine thesis. 

This technical aspect is welcome and no doubt essential given the socio-technical nature of diagnosis, touching as it does the public (society), primary care, psychiatry, service user groups, policymakers, informatics, and HM Treasury, amongst several 'stakeholders'. With the impact of the internet and social media, much (if not all?) of the vocabulary of mental health professionals has been co-opted and re-framed(?) by patient / service-user groups? It does not, for example, appear that the agency behind the DSM will be able to claim it back. Autism and ADHD were also discussed and debated. I located a previous chapter by Sam (pay-wall):

Fellowes S. Self-Diagnosis in Psychiatry and the Distribution of Social Resources. Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement. 2023;94:55-76. doi:10.1017/S1358246123000218

 

This really is a thicket of thorns, it spreads as and wherever you go.

 

The welfare bill is such that there should have been government Ministers in attendance. I have responded on behalf of clients to PIP assessments. Agencies have invited me to interview for 'Disability Assessor' roles. Not only is this a complex web, but several logics obtain: a perverse temporal logic operates, binary logic and a fixed mindset can develop so that some (vulnerable!?) individuals can get stuck. Perhaps, a social imperative steps in and disrupts, life chances: their being a NEET ('a young person who is no longer in the education system and who is not working or being trained for work'. Ecosia) is better for someone else? 

 

To unpick, make sense of this, you need a foundational universal model.

 

There is a (co-authored) paper from Giulia Russo, who presented - Epistemic and political role of experience: https://philpapers.org/rec/RUSTPO-112 from which:

'As it is widely known, epistemic injustice was introduced by Fricker (2007) to unveil power relations that have negative consequences on people as epistemic agents. She distinguished in particular two different kinds of epistemic injustice: testimonial and hermeneutical. The first kind occurs when a person (usually in a disadvantaged and oppressed role within the epistemic relation) is damaged as a knower because, as the name suggests, their testimony is overlooked, dismissed or invalidated. The second kind of epistemic injustice occurs when a person is deprived of the epistemic resources to even explain or articulate their experience of distress, or of systemic oppression. In connection to this, the concepts of neurodivergence and neurodiversity come from the political and social arena, and are born explicitly to contrast dominant pathologizing narratives in psychiatry.'

In seeking some 'test' cases to try to model relationally, Hodges' model suggests at least four - without letting the care / knowledge domains wag-the-dog. Giulia's talk was very helpful, ranging across forms of epistemic injustice (addressed by others too), identity, neurodivergence, lived experience, self-, counter- and collective narratives with references. A great resource.

 

Frank Denning, reminded me of an important phenomena, in Using Stebbing’s Directional Analysis to Evaluate ‘Mentalizing’. Talking therapies, or more properly referral to talking therapies often presents several criteria that would-be subjects must 'pass'. An ability to mentalize, can represent one. This is understanable, for effectiveness, efficiency, efficacy ... it is to be found in the manual. But, in terms of power relations, gate keeping in various forms is a literal (virtual) key to service access. Hodges' model is no different (sigh!). At what age can people start to use Hodges' model? What mentalization is involved to cognitively engage in use of Hodges' model? 

 

I struggled to obtain a copy of Stebbing's original work from 1930, but see how closely tied the work is to physics. An Internet Archive copy is poor quality. The search will continue, as I suspect there are links to Bill Ross's text on Deleuzian cosmology. It is marvellous that work from 1930 resonates today. There is: 

Janssen-Lauret, F. (Accepted/In press). Directional Analysis in Susan Stebbing’s Philosophy of Physics. In S. Chapman (Ed.), Susan Stebbing on Logic and Analysis Springer Nature. 

https://pure.manchester.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/338653274/Directional_Analysis_in_Susan_Stebbing_s_Philosophy_of_Physics_Final_.pdf

Gloria Ayob - Flourishing as mental health - was encouraging. 'TASK 1:EQUATION' a slide was titled, including emotional disorder is meta-evaluative; there are negative and positive poles, plus isomorphism between unpleasantness-pleasantness and disorder-health. I think my stomach was protesting I should have paid more attention. There is a blog post by Gloria: https://blog.oup.com/2024/12/the-concept-of-emotional-disorder/

After lunch Richard Hassall - Hermeneutical Injustice and Damaged Intellectual Self-Trust in Psychiatric Service Users, a reminder of the time and effort that needs to be put into public and patient involvement and engagement in mental health service (when this is desired). References included J.L. Austin and J.S. Bruner. A paper:

Hassall R. Sense-making and hermeneutical injustice following a psychiatric diagnosis. J Eval Clin Pract. 2024 Aug;30(5):848-854. doi: 10.1111/jep.13971. Epub 2024 Feb 20. PMID: 38375925.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jep.13971 

Scoping reviews are more common it seems: Lara Calabrese - Exploring epistemic injustice in dementia care: a scoping review and a qualitative study, plus paper [with QR code on the slide]:

Calabrese L, Brigiano M, Quartarone M, Chirico I, Trolese S, Lambiase F, Forte L, Annini A, Bortolotti L, Chattat R. I'm still here and my opinion matters: a scoping review on the experience of epistemic injustice among people living with dementia. Curr Psychol. 2025 Dec 17;45(1):s12144-025-08519-y. doi: 10.1007/s12144-025-08519-y. PMID: 41445984; PMCID: PMC7618523.

 

The paper's title here brought to mind the radio programme "Does He Take Sugar?" Questions followed regards the studies methods. Since leaving I wondered if there has been an evaluation of Dementia Friendly Communities? Are there dots to usefully joined there?

 

The final talk was delivered (with gusto - pepped me up anyway) by Jacob Barlow - Epistemic borders: experts, communities, communication. Jacob's interest in pragmatism was apparent. I look forward to reading future work, and note Liverpool 2025: ‘Problems with Pragmatism in the Philosophy of Psychiatry’.

All in all, a stimulating and enjoyable event.