A Brief Cognitive‐Behavioral Approach to Reducing Anxiety Sensitivity Decreases Pain‐Related Anxiety
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Anxiety sensitivity (AS; fear of anxiety-related sensations) is a known risk factor for anxiety disorders and recently has been linked to pain disorders. The present study was guided by the hypothesis that a program designed to reduce AS levels might also result in a decrease in anxiety related to pain sensations. Female undergraduates, selected as either high or low in AS according to screening scores on the Anxiety Sensitivity Index (ASI), were randomly assigned to participate in 3 1-hour, small group sessions of either cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT; psycho-education, cognitive restructuring, and interoceptive exposure) or a non-specific treatment (NST). Immediately prior to and following the intervention, participants completed the 20-item Pain Anxiety Symptoms Scale (PASS-20). Consistent with hypothesis, results revealed a 3-way interaction between AS group, intervention condition, and time on PASS-20 total scores. Only participants with high pre-morbid levels of AS assigned to the CBT condition showed a significant reduction in scores on the PASS-20 from pre- to post-treatment. Implications for improving CBT approaches for pain disorders are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".