Aaron P Turner1, Mark P Jensen2, Melissa A Day3, Rhonda M Williams4. 1. Rehabilitation Care Service, VA Puget Sound Health Care System. 2. Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Washington. 3. School of Psychology, The University of Queensland. 4. VA Puget Sound Health Care System, and Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Washington.
Abstract
PURPOSE/ OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to examine the BIS-BAS model of chronic pain. This model posits that 2 neurophysiological systems-the behavioral inhibition system (BIS) sensitized to and activated by punishment cues and the behavioral activation system (BAS) sensitized to and activated by reward cues-make independent and concurrent contributions to 2 domains of pain-related function: pain interference and positive function despite pain. The study additionally hypothesized that BIS and BAS sensitivity would have different associations with these 2 different aspects of pain-related function. BIS activation would be more strongly correlated with pain interference and BAS would be more strongly correlated with positive function despite pain. Research Method/Design: This was a cohort study consisting of the baseline assessments of 328 veterans enrolled in a large clinical trial examining 3 psychosocial interventions for chronic pain. RESULTS: In multivariable regression adjusting for demographic factors and pain intensity, BIS was associated with greater pain interference and less positive function despite pain. BAS was associated with greater positive function despite pain but to a lesser degree than BIS. CONCLUSIONS: As hypothesized, BIS and BAS both contributed to pain-related function; however, BIS displayed stronger associations with both pain interference and positive function despite pain. Thus, the hypothesis that BIS-BAS relationships would differ based on the nature of the functional outcome (BIS resulting in poorer function because of pain and BAS better function despite pain) was only partially supported. Findings of the current study suggest the role of BIS in chronic pain may be more pervasive across functional outcomes. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).
PURPOSE/ OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to examine the BIS-BAS model of chronic pain. This model posits that 2 neurophysiological systems-the behavioral inhibition system (BIS) sensitized to and activated by punishment cues and the behavioral activation system (BAS) sensitized to and activated by reward cues-make independent and concurrent contributions to 2 domains of pain-related function: pain interference and positive function despite pain. The study additionally hypothesized that BIS and BAS sensitivity would have different associations with these 2 different aspects of pain-related function. BIS activation would be more strongly correlated with pain interference and BAS would be more strongly correlated with positive function despite pain. Research Method/Design: This was a cohort study consisting of the baseline assessments of 328 veterans enrolled in a large clinical trial examining 3 psychosocial interventions for chronic pain. RESULTS: In multivariable regression adjusting for demographic factors and pain intensity, BIS was associated with greater pain interference and less positive function despite pain. BAS was associated with greater positive function despite pain but to a lesser degree than BIS. CONCLUSIONS: As hypothesized, BIS and BAS both contributed to pain-related function; however, BIS displayed stronger associations with both pain interference and positive function despite pain. Thus, the hypothesis that BIS-BAS relationships would differ based on the nature of the functional outcome (BIS resulting in poorer function because of pain and BAS better function despite pain) was only partially supported. Findings of the current study suggest the role of BIS in chronic pain may be more pervasive across functional outcomes. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).
Authors: Robert H Dworkin; Dennis C Turk; John T Farrar; Jennifer A Haythornthwaite; Mark P Jensen; Nathaniel P Katz; Robert D Kerns; Gerold Stucki; Robert R Allen; Nicholas Bellamy; Daniel B Carr; Julie Chandler; Penney Cowan; Raymond Dionne; Bradley S Galer; Sharon Hertz; Alejandro R Jadad; Lynn D Kramer; Donald C Manning; Susan Martin; Cynthia G McCormick; Michael P McDermott; Patrick McGrath; Steve Quessy; Bob A Rappaport; Wendye Robbins; James P Robinson; Margaret Rothman; Mike A Royal; Lee Simon; Joseph W Stauffer; Wendy Stein; Jane Tollett; Joachim Wernicke; James Witter Journal: Pain Date: 2005-01 Impact factor: 6.961
Authors: Rhonda M Williams; Dawn M Ehde; Melissa Day; Aaron P Turner; Shahin Hakimian; Kevin Gertz; Marcia Ciol; Alisha McCall; Carrie Kincaid; Mark W Pettet; David Patterson; Pradeep Suri; Mark P Jensen Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2020-01-09 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: David Cella; William Riley; Arthur Stone; Nan Rothrock; Bryce Reeve; Susan Yount; Dagmar Amtmann; Rita Bode; Daniel Buysse; Seung Choi; Karon Cook; Robert Devellis; Darren DeWalt; James F Fries; Richard Gershon; Elizabeth A Hahn; Jin-Shei Lai; Paul Pilkonis; Dennis Revicki; Matthias Rose; Kevin Weinfurt; Ron Hays Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2010-08-04 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Christopher M Callahan; Frederick W Unverzagt; Siu L Hui; Anthony J Perkins; Hugh C Hendrie Journal: Med Care Date: 2002-09 Impact factor: 2.983