A review of the research during 2010–2019 on evidence‐based treatments for couple relationship distress

The current article presents a review of the published research from 2010 to 2019 on the treatment of couple relationship distress; 37 studies met all criteria for inclusion. Behavioral Couple Therapy, Cognitive Behavioral Couple Therapy, Emotionally Focused Therapy, and Integrative Behavioral Coupl...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of marital and family therapy 2022-01, Vol.48 (1), p.283-306
Main Authors: Doss, Brian D., Roddy, McKenzie K., Wiebe, Stephanie A., Johnson, Susan M.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Behavior
Behavior Therapy
Change agents
Clinical outcomes
Cognitive Behavioral Therapy
Cognitive-behavioral factors
Control Groups
Couples
Couples Therapy
Effect Size
Emotionally focused
Evidence
Evidence based research
Humans
Intensive care
Intensive treatment
Intervention
Marriage
Mental disorders
Mental health
Problem Solving
Progress Monitoring
Psychological distress
Randomized Controlled Trials
Research Assistants
Resistance (Psychology)
Treatment Outcome
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:The current article presents a review of the published research from 2010 to 2019 on the treatment of couple relationship distress; 37 studies met all criteria for inclusion. Behavioral Couple Therapy, Cognitive Behavioral Couple Therapy, Emotionally Focused Therapy, and Integrative Behavioral Couple Therapy meet criteria as “well‐established” approaches, Insight‐Oriented Couple Therapy is a “possibly efficacious” approach, and several other others are “experimental” treatments for treating couple relationship distress (Southam‐Gerow & Prinstein, 2014). Furthermore, several less‐intensive interventions—the Marriage Check‐up, OurRelationship, and Hold Me Tight programs—have generated substantial support for their ability to improve relationships and are classified as “well‐established” or “probably efficacious” interventions. We recommend that future research focus on expanding the reach of evidence‐based interventions across a range of settings and populations, deepening our understanding of the mechanisms of change and underlying factors in the change process across approaches, and improving treatment success through treatment matching and progress monitoring.
ISSN:0194-472X
1752-0606
DOI:10.1111/jmft.12552