Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42661944›Full record

ArticleClinical neuropsychiatry2026

How Evolutionary Psychiatry Can Help us Prevent Overmedicalisation.

Annie Swanepoel, Henry O'Connell, Paul St John Smith

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical neuropsychiatry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Annie SwanepoelSET CAMHS, North East London Foundation Trust, UK.
Henry O'ConnellIHA Midlands and School of Medicine, University of Limerick, Ireland.
Paul St John SmithRetired Consultant Psychiatrist, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Overmedicalisation in the treatment of mental health problems occurs when normal emotional responses are inappropriately framed as disorders requiring primarily pharmacological intervention, or when social and environmental contributors to distress are overlooked in favour of a narrowly biological model. Critically, this risk is not confined to biological psychiatry: psychotherapeutic models are equally capable of framing ordinary human distress as requiring professional intervention. Evolutionary psychiatry (EP) broadens the scope of the standard biopsychosocial model to consider both individual level (ontogenetic) and species level (phylogenetic) development of emotional and psychological phenomena and associated behaviours. By understanding that many psychiatric symptoms, such as anxiety, low mood and hypervigilance, have phylogenetic roots as adaptive responses to ancestral environments, clinicians can better distinguish between normal variation and disabling or disorder-level pathology. EP also illuminates how mismatches between evolved psychological mechanisms and modern environments contribute to distress, suggesting non-pharmacological interventions may often be more effective. At the same time, the evolutionary criterion for distinguishing disorder from normal variation - while scientifically grounded - has limited utility in clinical practice, where cultural trends can push judgement towards either overmedicalisation or diagnostic nihilism. In this paper, we outline how an evolution-informed perspective can inform clinical reasoning, promote diagnostic discernment, and support a holistic, evobiopsychosocial approach to the prevention and treatment of psychiatric illness.

Indexed as

adaptive responsesbiopsychosocial modelevolutionary mismatchevolutionary psychiatryovermedicalisation

Identifiers

PMID42661944
PMCPMC13519270

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.