Datasets:

marianna13
/

litarch

+{"file": "rc0597_NBK253324/APP6.nxml", "text": "\n\n", "pairs": [], "interleaved": []}
+{"file": "rc0597_NBK253324/CH5.nxml", "text": "Quantity of Research Available\nA total of 335 citations were identified in the literature search. Following screening of titles and abstracts, 306 citations were excluded and 29 potentially relevant reports from the electronic search were retrieved for full-text review. 8 potentially relevant publications were retrieved from the grey literature search, and 3 from hand searching. Of these potentially relevant articles, 20 publications were excluded for various reasons, while 20 publications describing 18 studies11Two studies were reported in two separate publications: a main publication to report primary outcomes9,14 and a secondary publication to report either predictors of outcome15 or outcomes for partners only.7 met the inclusion criteria and were included in this report. Appendix 1 describes the PRISMA flowchart of the study selection. Appendix 2 includes a list of publications that were not eligible for this review but might be of interest in regards to the treatment of relationship distress or related concerns through a couples-based approach.\nTwo studies were reported in two separate publications: a main publication to report primary outcomes9,14 and a secondary publication to report either predictors of outcome15 or outcomes for partners only.7\nSummary of Study Characteristics\nA detailed summary of individual study characteristics is provided in Appendix 3.\nStudy Design\nOverall, 20 publications were included. Eight publications described eight RCTs,4,6,8,10,11,16\u201318 while 12 publications describe nine pre-post observational studies7,9,14,15,19\u201325 and one cohort study.26 No clinical practice guidelines met the inclusion criteria.\nCountry of Origin\nThree of the included RCTs were conducted in Canada,4,11,17 two in Iran8,16 and one in each of Germany,10 the United States18 and both Canada and the United States.6 Three of the pre-post observational studies were conducted in Canada,22,23,25 two in the United States,7,9,14,15 and one in each of Australia,19 the United Kingdom,20 the Netherlands21 and both Germany and Austria.24 The one included cohort study was conducted in the United States.26\nPatient Population\nEach of the included studies included adults experiencing relationship distress, for varied reasons. Some studies included participants referring or self-referring for outpatient14\u201316,20,24 or inpatient21 couples therapy due to distress from any or an unspecified cause. Other studies included participants with distress from a specific cause, for example one partner suffers from obsessive compulsive disorder,7,9 post-traumatic stress disorder,6 alcoholism,26 borderline personality disorder,8 history of intrafamilial child abuse,11 insecure attachment,23,25 or an unresolved emotional injury.22 Others included couples where one partner is a pathological gambler,17 recently received a cancer diagnosis,5,19 is facing end-stage cancer,4 or recently disclosed an affair.10 The average ages of participants varied between studies, with a low of 33.1 years in a pre-post study including couples with one member with obsessive compulsive disorder7,9 to a high of 64 years in a pre-post study including couples referred for therapy following a cancer diagnosis.19 Most studies included participants with an average age in their 30\u2019s or 40\u2019s. Similarly, the average length of relationships among included participants varied from a low of seven years6 to a high of 27 years.5\nIntervention and Comparators\nThe approach to couples therapy varied widely between included studies. Of the eight included RCTs, two assessed Emotionally Focused Couples Therapy,4,11 and one each assessed Congruence Couples Therapy,17 Hope and Forgiveness Focused Therapy,16 Couple Dialectical Behavioural Therapy,8 Cognitive Behavioural Conjoint Therapy,6 Traditional Behavioural Couples Therapy,10 and Conjoint Intimacy Enhancing Therapy.5 Of the nine pre-post observational studies, two assessed Emotionally Focused Couples Therapy,23,25 and one each assessed Cognitive Behavioural Conjoint Therapy,7,9 Cognitive Existential Couples Therapy,19 Psychodynamic Psychotherapy,20 psychotherapy,21 a combination of behavioural therapy or problem-focused therapy14,15 and a variety of forms of couples therapy within the same study.24 The one cohort study assessed Behavioural Couples Therapy.26\nAppendix 4 includes brief description of each of the included therapy types.\nAmong the RCTs included in the review, five used a waiting list control ranging from 12 weeks6,10,17 to 24 weeks in duration.11 The length of the waiting list was not reported (NR) for one study.8 One RCT used a control group in which the participants received no intervention16 and another used a control group in which the participants received usual care through a psychosocial oncology and palliative care program.4 Among the pre-post observational studies, participants served as their own control. The one cohort study in which the participants were couples with a female alcoholic included a demographically matched control group selected from a population of non-alcoholic males and females.26\nOutcomes Measured\nMany outcomes were measured in the included studies, and summarized within this review, all related to relationship distress and psychosocial health.\nSeven of the eight included RCTs measured some aspect of relationship satisfaction using either the Dyadic Adjustment Scale,4\u20136,11,17 Perceived Relationship Quality Components Inventory,8 or the Partnership Questionnaire.10 Other relationship centred outcomes measured within the RCTs include:\n\nmarital partner function (Systemic therapy Inventory of Change)17caregiver burden (Relationship-focused Coping Scale)4relationship intimacy (Personal Assessment of Intimacy in Relationships)5communication (Communications Pattern Questionnaire)5infidelity (unvalidated instrument)10self- and partner disclosure of thoughts, information and feelings (unvalidated instrument)5 andresponsiveness (unvalidated instrument).5\nmarital partner function (Systemic therapy Inventory of Change)17\ncaregiver burden (Relationship-focused Coping Scale)4\nrelationship intimacy (Personal Assessment of Intimacy in Relationships)5\ncommunication (Communications Pattern Questionnaire)5\ninfidelity (unvalidated instrument)10\nself- and partner disclosure of thoughts, information and feelings (unvalidated instrument)5 and\nresponsiveness (unvalidated instrument).5\nPsychosocial outcomes measured within RCTs included:\n\nmental stress (Brief Symptom Inventory)17interpersonal cognitive distortions (Interpersonal Cognitive Distortions Scale)16trauma symptoms (Trauma Symptom Inventory)11depression (Beck Depression Inventory)4,6,10hopelessness (Beck Hopelessness Scale)4anxiety (State Trait Anxiety Inventory)6event-related distress (Impact of Event Scale)5,10 andpsychological distress (Mental Health Inventory).5\nmental stress (Brief Symptom Inventory)17\ninterpersonal cognitive distortions (Interpersonal Cognitive Distortions Scale)16\ntrauma symptoms (Trauma Symptom Inventory)11\ndepression (Beck Depression Inventory)4,6,10\nhopelessness (Beck Hopelessness Scale)4\nanxiety (State Trait Anxiety Inventory)6\nevent-related distress (Impact of Event Scale)5,10 and\npsychological distress (Mental Health Inventory).5\nSix of the pre-post studies measured relationship satisfaction using either the Dyadic Adjustment Scale,7,9,22,23,25 Martial Satisfaction Inventory24 or the Quality of Marriage Index.14,15 Other aspects of relationship quality and function that were assessed include:\n\nattachment anxiety (Experiences in Close Relationships, Attachment Injury Measure)23,25trust (Relationship Trust Scale, Trust Scale)5,22,25communication (Communication Patterns Questionnaire)7,9marital function (Family Relationship Index, Golombok Rust Inventory of Marital State)19,20relatedness (Personal Relatedness Profile)20problem-solving (Interactional Problem Solving Questionnaire)21forgiveness (Enright Forgiveness Inventory, Forgiveness Measure, Interpersonal Relationship Resolution Scale)22,25resolution of unfinished business (Unfinished Business Empathy and Acceptance, and Feelings and Needs, scales)22 andcouple specific problems (Target Complaints Discomfort and Change Scale).22\nattachment anxiety (Experiences in Close Relationships, Attachment Injury Measure)23,25\ntrust (Relationship Trust Scale, Trust Scale)5,22,25\ncommunication (Communication Patterns Questionnaire)7,9\nmarital function (Family Relationship Index, Golombok Rust Inventory of Marital State)19,20\nrelatedness (Personal Relatedness Profile)20\nproblem-solving (Interactional Problem Solving Questionnaire)21\nforgiveness (Enright Forgiveness Inventory, Forgiveness Measure, Interpersonal Relationship Resolution Scale)22,25\nresolution of unfinished business (Unfinished Business Empathy and Acceptance, and Feelings and Needs, scales)22 and\ncouple specific problems (Target Complaints Discomfort and Change Scale).22\nPsychosocial outcomes that were measured within the eight pre-post observational studies include:\n\ndepression (Beck Depression Inventory, Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression, Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale)7,9,24psychological distress (Mental Health Inventory, Symptom Check List, Global Symptom Index)19,21,22emotional control (Courtlauld Emotional Control Scale)23event-related distress (Impact of Event Scale)19coping (Brief Cope, Benefit Finding Scale)19 andpsychological state (Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation).20\ndepression (Beck Depression Inventory, Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression, Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale)7,9,24\npsychological distress (Mental Health Inventory, Symptom Check List, Global Symptom Index)19,21,22\nemotional control (Courtlauld Emotional Control Scale)23\nevent-related distress (Impact of Event Scale)19\ncoping (Brief Cope, Benefit Finding Scale)19 and\npsychological state (Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation).20\nThe one included cohort study assessed aggression and violence (Conflict Tactics Scale) as an outcome relevant to this review.26\nSummary of Critical Appraisal\nA detailed summary of the critical appraisal of individual studies is provided in Appendix 5.\nRandomized Controlled Trials (RCTs)\nThe RCTs included in this review were of mixed quality. Some RCTs included design features such as blinding data analysts4 and adverse event tracking,4,6 and their reports included explicit descriptions of study methods to allow a comprehensive study appraisal. Others were poorly reported, and perhaps poorly conducted, for example omitting descriptions of important study processes such as randomization,5,6,8,10,11,16,17 allocation concealment,5,6,8,10,11,16,17 and intervention compliance.8,16 Most of the included RCTs provided an explicit description of study objectives, hypotheses, eligibility criteria, outcomes and interventions, which allows for a thorough appraisal study quality relating to these elements. With most studies omitting details of randomization and allocation concealment, an assessment of the success of the randomization process to reduce or remove the influence of known and unknown confounders cannot be made. Similarly, only two of the RCTs included a power calculation and justification for the sample size,4,6 as evidence for the ability of the study to detect a clinically meaningful difference in measured outcomes. These two RCTs likewise included an analysis of clinical significance for primary outcomes, as did one further RCT that did not include a sample size calculation within the report.10 For the remaining five RCTs that did not include a power calculation, nor an analysis of clinical significance, it remains unclear as to whether these studies were sufficiently powered to detect meaningful differences. Of note, two of these five studies were small pilot studies that were not intended for hypothesis testing.5,17 Two RCT reports included an explicit description of adverse events and a monitoring process,4,6 while the remaining RCT reports do not discuss safety. In these cases it is unclear whether adverse events were not monitored, not reported, or did not occur.\nAll but one report provided an explicit description of the sampling process,8 which raises the potential for selection bias within this RCT. All but two reports included a description of the therapist(s) and training related to providing the study intervention,8,16 raising the potential for variation within intervention delivery within these studies and therefore the ability to associate the intervention with observed outcomes. Intervention compliance was adequate in four of the RCTs,4,6,11,17 not reported in two,8,16 and low in two.5,10 Low intervention compliance reduces internal validity of study results, as the ability to measure relevant outcomes associated with the intervention decreases. An intent to treat analysis was completed in three RCTs5,6,10. For the remaining studies, non-compliant patients were excluded from the analysis raising the potential for overestimating treatment results.\nWhile validated outcome questionnaires were used to assess outcomes across all included RCTs, the potential for social desirability bias cannot be ruled out with these self-report measures. Further, due to the nature of the intervention, blinding of patients or therapists is not possible; although in one study personnel who entered and checked data were blind to group assignment.4 The lack of blinding of patients and therapists across all included studies, in addition to the use of self-report measures, increases the potential for bias in outcome assessment, in particular since participants are aware that they received the intervention and the desired direction of effect.\nObservational Studies\nAs with the RCTs, most of the included observational studies were of mixed quality. Two common study design features within this group are the non-randomized, uncontrolled nature of the nine included pre-post studies,7,9,14,15,19\u201325 and the non-randomized nature of the one included cohort study.26 The lack of randomization increases the potential for selection bias, while the uncontrolled nature of the pre-post studies makes it impossible to distinguish intervention effects from other effects such as regression to the mean, natural progression, or social desirability. As with the RCTs, validated outcome measures were used across all observational studies, but due to the subjective nature of these self-report instruments, especially within a non-blinded, non-randomized, uncontrolled design, the potential for measurement error is increased. Finally, due to the nature of the intervention, neither blinding of patients nor therapists was possible. The lack of blinding, in addition to the use of self-report measures, increases the potential for bias in outcome assessment, in particular since participants are aware they received the intervention and the desired direction of effect.\nAs with the RCTs, most observational studies included an explicit description of study objectives, hypotheses, eligibility criteria, outcomes, and interventions, allowing for a comprehensive appraisal of study quality. Further, an explicit description of the therapist(s) and their related training across all studies provides assurance the intervention was delivered consistently and as intended.\nNone of the included studies, however, provided a power calculation nor justification for the number of included couples, although three studies were identified as pilot studies,7,9,19,20 where hypothesis testing was not the main goal. Despite not providing justification for the sample size, four of the included observational studies included an analysis of clinical significance of the primary outcome, suggesting these studies were adequately powered to detect a meaningful difference.14,15,20,23,24 As with the RCT reports, none of the observational studies included information about adverse event tracking raising the potential that these important outcomes were not tracked, as opposed to not reported. External validity is further limited in five of the pre-post studies due to poor reporting of sampling procedures, in particular whether people who agreed to participate were different in any meaningful way from those who did not participate.7,9,19\u201321,24\nIntervention compliance was adequate within seven of the ten included observational studies,7,9,19,20,22,23,25,26 but low within two.14,15,24 Compliance was not reported within one study report.21 For each of the observational studies, non-compliant patients were excluded from the analysis, which raises the likelihood of overestimating treatment results especially for those studies with low compliance.14,15,24 In one pre-post study compliance was low within both study sites, but compliance rates differed significantly between study sites.14,15 In addition, for this particular study, the publication notes considerable differences in participant characteristics across study sites in terms of ethnicity, religion, education and income, in addition to differences in intervention delivery in terms of focus, scope, and treatment duration.14,15 Given results for this study were combined across study sites, these between site differences increase the potential for bias in outcome measurement since measurement effects will be impacted differently by both compliance and the intervention across included participants.\nSummary of Findings\nThe main findings of included studies are summarized in detail in Appendix 6.\nRelationship Satisfaction\nResults were mixed among the seven RCTs that measured some aspect of relationship satisfaction.4\u20136,8,10,11,17 In two studies, a statistically significant improvement was reported between pre- and post-treatment between the intervention and wait list control groups for pathological gamblers (P < 0.01),17 couples self-referring for treatment due to a history of intrafamilial child abuse in the female (P < 0.05 for both couples and females only)11 and for PTSD patients (change in Dyadic Adjustment Scale 12.22, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 5.72 to 18.72, P = NR) but not their partners (change in Dyadic Adjustment Scale 3.23, 95% CI: \u22122.35 to 8.81, P = NR).6 Two further RCTs reported statistically significant differences between treatment and control groups immediately post-treatment for people diagnosed with end-stage cancer (P < 0.0001)4 and 1 month post treatment among couples referred for therapy for borderline personality disorder in the male (P \u2264 0.01 for all but the trust subscale of the Perceived Relationship Quality scale).8 Three RCTs included an analysis of clinical significance and each reported a greater proportion of couples within the treatment group observing a clinically meaningful improvement as compared to couples in the control group.4,6,11 Additionally, two studies measured the duration of effect by re-assessing relationship satisfaction 3-months post-treatment.4,6 In both cases improvements in relationship satisfaction were maintained at the follow-up assessment.\nTwo RCTs reported non-statistically significant changes in relationship satisfaction following couples therapy as compared to a wait list10 or usual care5 control group. In one RCT including couples self-referring for therapy due to a recently disclosed affair,10 the difference in effect size pre-post intervention between the treatment group and a wait list control was not statistically significant for either the deceived (P = 0.225) or unfaithful (P = 0.141) partners. The other RCT included couples in therapy due to a recent diagnosis of prostate cancer and no statistically significant change was reported for either men diagnosed with prostate cancer or their partners.5\nRelationship satisfaction was also measured in six of the pre-post studies where consistent improvements were documented.7,9,14,15,22\u201325 Differences in relationship satisfaction pre- and post- treatment were documented for couples in therapy due to insecure attachment (P < 0.001)23 for OCD patients (P < 0.01) and their partners (P < 0.05),7,9 for couples in therapy due to unresolved emotional injury for both the injured partner (P < 0.001) and the injurer (P < 0.001),22 and for both males (P < 0.001) and females (P < 0.001) self-referring for therapy.14,15 In this last study, improvements were greater for those with greater levels of pre-counselling distress.14,15 One study demonstrated mixed results with statistically significant improvements pre- and post-intervention for couples self-referring for therapy for some subscales of the Marital Satisfaction Inventory (P < 0.001 for each of global distress, affective communication, problem-solving communication, time together) but not others (P = not significant [NS] for each of sexual dissatisfaction, role orientation, family history of distress, dissatisfaction with children, conflict over child rearing).24 Results were mixed in terms of the long term nature of improvements in relationship satisfaction. In the study including OCD patients and their partners, improvements were maintained 6 months post-treatment for OCD patients (P < 0.01) but not for their partners (P = NS). At 12 months, changes were nearly significant among OCD patients (P = 0.053) but again not significant for their partners.7,9 Among couples with an unresolved emotional injury, post-treatment improvements were not maintained over the 3 month follow up (P = NR),22 but for a cohort of couples self-referring for therapy due to attachment injury, post-treatment improvements were maintained 3-years post-treatment (P < 0.005).25\nOther Relationship Outcomes\nA range of other relationship-related outcomes were assessed across the seven RCTs included in this review, each assessed in one RCT:\n\nMarital partner function: Among couples with a pathological gambling member, a statistically significant difference in improvement in systemic function was observed between treatment and control groups post-intervention (P = 0.023) that was not maintained after 8-weeks of follow up (P = 0.054).17Caregiver burden: A statistically greater improvement in relationship-focused coping was observed among people in therapy due to a recent diagnosis of end-stage cancer as compared to a usual care control group (P = 0.02), but no difference was observed between groups in terms of demand (P = 0.88) or difficulty (P = 0.09) of caregiver burden.4Relationship intimacy, communication, self- and partner disclosure, responsiveness: One RCT including couples faced with a recent diagnosis of prostate cancer examined several aspects of relationship function, including intimacy, communication, self- and partner-disclosure and responsiveness. No significant differences were observed between the treatment and usual care control group on either of these measures.5\nMarital partner function: Among couples with a pathological gambling member, a statistically significant difference in improvement in systemic function was observed between treatment and control groups post-intervention (P = 0.023) that was not maintained after 8-weeks of follow up (P = 0.054).17\nCaregiver burden: A statistically greater improvement in relationship-focused coping was observed among people in therapy due to a recent diagnosis of end-stage cancer as compared to a usual care control group (P = 0.02), but no difference was observed between groups in terms of demand (P = 0.88) or difficulty (P = 0.09) of caregiver burden.4\nRelationship intimacy, communication, self- and partner disclosure, responsiveness: One RCT including couples faced with a recent diagnosis of prostate cancer examined several aspects of relationship function, including intimacy, communication, self- and partner-disclosure and responsiveness. No significant differences were observed between the treatment and usual care control group on either of these measures.5\nAmong the observational studies, a similar range of relationship-related outcomes were assessed. For example, the one cohort study included in this review assessed aggression and violence using the Conflict Tactics Scale.26 In this study, significantly less verbal aggression, overall violence and severe violence was observed within the intervention group that included couples in counselling for alcoholism in the female as compared to a matched control group. These significant differences applied for both male-to-female and female-to-male violence.\nTrust was assessed in three pre-post studies.22,23,25 In one study including couples self-referring for therapy for an unresolved emotional injury, an improvement in trust was observed immediately following treatment for the injured partner (P < 0.05) but not for the injuring partner (P = NS).22 The improvement for the injured partner was not maintained at a 3-month follow up.22 In a long term follow up study, assessment of trust at 3-years post-treatment suggested that couples who observed an improvement in their attachment injury during treatment had greater trust after 3 years as compared to those who did not resolve their attachment injury.25 In this study injured partners reported a lower level of trust than did their offending partner at the 3-year follow up.25 Finally, a study including couples in therapy due to insecure attachment reported that trust is not a significant predictor of relationship satisfaction, nor the rate of change of relationship satisfaction while in therapy.23\nTwo pre-post studies assessed attachment anxiety.23,25 One study including couples in therapy for insecure attachment observed that attachment anxiety is a significant predictor of improvement in relationship satisfaction, such that individuals with a higher level of attachment anxiety were more likely to observe an increase in marital satisfaction post-therapy.23 In this same study, it was reported that attachment avoidance does not predict relationship satisfaction.23 In the same long-term follow up study described above, improvements in attachment injury were maintained 3-years after treatment for those who had resolved their attachment injury and people with unresolved attachment injuries reported higher levels of avoidant attachment.25\nMarital function was assessed as an outcome in two pre-post studies and neither reported a significant improvement following therapy.19,20\nTwo studies assessed forgiveness. In one study among couples self-referring for therapy for an unresolved emotional injury, forgiveness improved significantly for the injured partner only immediately post-treatment (P < 0.001), but the improvement was not maintained through the 3 month follow up period.22 No changes in forgiveness were observed among the injuring partner. In a long-term follow up study, injured partners who had resolved their attachment injuries with therapy reported more forgiveness than injured partners who did not resolve their injury at a 3-year follow up.25 In this study, forgiveness was only assessed in the injured partner.\nOther relationship outcomes were assessed in one pre-post study each:\n\nCommunication patterns: In one study including couples self-referring to couples therapy due to a member with obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD), significant improvements were observed among OCD patients immediately post-treatment for both constructive communication (P < 0.05) and demand/withdrawal communication patterns (P < 0.05). For demand/withdrawal communication only, the improvements were maintained at both 6 months (P < 0.05) and 12 months (P < 0.01) post-treatment. No significant improvement was observed in terms of avoidance/withholding communication. For the partners of OCD patients, constructive communication was significantly improved immediately post-treatment as well as after 6 and 12 months post treatment (P < 0.001 for all). Avoidant communication patterns improved significantly following treatment (P < 0.05), and the improvements remained through 6 months post-treatment (P < 0.05) but after 12 months, there was no change from baseline (P = NS). Demand/withdrawal communication patterns did not significantly improve among partners with treatment.7,9Relatedness: One study that employed a time-limited approach to therapy reported a significant improvement post-therapy on both scales of depressive and paranoid schizoid relatedness.20Problem solving capacity: In one study including couples referred for inpatient couples therapy, problem solving capacity increased with treatment for people with a functional model of others and improvements were maintained at 6 and 18 months post-treatment (P = 0.01). For people with a dysfunctional model of others, problem solving capacity also increased during treatment but at a lower level, and improvements were not maintained at 6 and 18 months post-treatment (P = 0.14).21Resolution of feelings and needs: In the study including couples self-referring for therapy for an unresolved emotional injury, the resolution of feeling and needs improved for both the injured (P < 0.001) and the injuring partner (P < 0.05), as did feelings of acceptance and empathy (P < 0.001 for the injured partner; P < 0.05 for the injuring partner).22Couple identified complaints: In the study described above, couples identified specific complaints at the beginning of the study to address in therapy. These were likewise improved post-treatment from the perspective of both the injured and injuring partner on scales that measure both discomfort (P < 0.001) and change (P < 0.001) related to the complaint.22\nCommunication patterns: In one study including couples self-referring to couples therapy due to a member with obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD), significant improvements were observed among OCD patients immediately post-treatment for both constructive communication (P < 0.05) and demand/withdrawal communication patterns (P < 0.05). For demand/withdrawal communication only, the improvements were maintained at both 6 months (P < 0.05) and 12 months (P < 0.01) post-treatment. No significant improvement was observed in terms of avoidance/withholding communication. For the partners of OCD patients, constructive communication was significantly improved immediately post-treatment as well as after 6 and 12 months post treatment (P < 0.001 for all). Avoidant communication patterns improved significantly following treatment (P < 0.05), and the improvements remained through 6 months post-treatment (P < 0.05) but after 12 months, there was no change from baseline (P = NS). Demand/withdrawal communication patterns did not significantly improve among partners with treatment.7,9\nRelatedness: One study that employed a time-limited approach to therapy reported a significant improvement post-therapy on both scales of depressive and paranoid schizoid relatedness.20\nProblem solving capacity: In one study including couples referred for inpatient couples therapy, problem solving capacity increased with treatment for people with a functional model of others and improvements were maintained at 6 and 18 months post-treatment (P = 0.01). For people with a dysfunctional model of others, problem solving capacity also increased during treatment but at a lower level, and improvements were not maintained at 6 and 18 months post-treatment (P = 0.14).21\nResolution of feelings and needs: In the study including couples self-referring for therapy for an unresolved emotional injury, the resolution of feeling and needs improved for both the injured (P < 0.001) and the injuring partner (P < 0.05), as did feelings of acceptance and empathy (P < 0.001 for the injured partner; P < 0.05 for the injuring partner).22\nCouple identified complaints: In the study described above, couples identified specific complaints at the beginning of the study to address in therapy. These were likewise improved post-treatment from the perspective of both the injured and injuring partner on scales that measure both discomfort (P < 0.001) and change (P < 0.001) related to the complaint.22\nPsychosocial Health Outcomes\nDepression was the most common psychosocial outcome measured within the RCTs included in this review, being measured in three studies with mixed results.4,6,10 In one study including couples faced with an end-stage cancer diagnosis, no difference between the intervention and the usual care control group was observed post-treatment (P = 0.46).4 Similarly, in a study including couples coping with PTSD no difference was found in depressive symptoms after treatment between the treatment and a waiting list control group.6 In another study including couples in counselling for a recently disclosed affair, improvements in depressive symptoms were observed in the deceived partners (P = 0.037) but not the unfaithful partners (P = 0.082).10\nDepressive symptoms were assessed in two pre-post studies,7,9,24 and in contrast to the RCTs consistent improvements were documented. In one pre-post study including couples self-referring for therapy significant improvements in depressive symptoms were observed immediately after therapy.24 Similarly, in another pre-post study including couples with one partner with OCD, a significant improvement in depressive symptoms was observed pre- and post-intervention that was maintained through follow ups at 6 and 12 months (P for all comparisons < 0.001 as per the Beck Depression Inventory, and P = 0.02 for all comparisons as per the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression).7,9\nEvent-related distress was assessed in two RCTs5,10 and one pre-post study.19 In one RCT including couples in counselling for a recently disclosed affair, significant improvements were observed in terms of the intrusion subscale of the Impact of Events scale for both the deceived and unfaithful partners (P = NR), and for the unfaithful partner only in terms of hyperarousal (P = NR).10 In a second RCT, no significant change was found between a treatment and usual care group in terms of event-related distress for couples faced with a recent cancer diagnosis.5 In one pre-post study including couples referred for therapy following a recent cancer diagnosis, a significant improvement was found between pre-and post-treatment for the avoidance (P = 0.021) and hyperarousal (P = 0.019) subscales of the Impact of Events Scale, but not the Intrusion subscale (P = NS).19\nPsychological distress was assessed in three pre-post studies, with mixed results.19,21,22 In one study including couples referred for inpatient couples therapy, among people with functional and dysfunctional models of others psychopathology improved with treatment.21 The increase was different between these groups at post-treatment only (P = 0.04) but not during treatment (P = 0.38). In another study including couples faced with a cancer diagnosis, no change in psychological distress was observed pre- and post-treatment.19 In a further study including couples in therapy for an unresolved emotional injury, significant improvement in terms of psychological distress was observed for the injured partners immediately post-treatment (P < 0.001), a change that was not maintained at a 3-month follow up. No change was observed among the injuring partners.22\nOther psychological outcomes were assessed in one RCT each:\n\nHopelessness: In one study including couples faced with an end-stage cancer diagnosis, no difference between the intervention and the usual care control group was observed post-treatment in terms of feelings of hopelessness (P = 0.24).4Trauma-related symptoms: In a study including couples in therapy for the female with a history of intrafamilial child abuse, no difference was observed between a treatment and waiting list control groups in terms of trauma-related symptoms.11In a study including couples with a pathological gambling partner, significant differences in improvement in mental distress were observed between people in a treatment and wait list control group immediately post-treatment (P = 0.001) and after an 8 week follow up (P = 0.035).17Interpersonal cognitive distortions: In one study including couples referred to pre-divorce counselling, interpersonal cognitive distortions were assessed for couples enrolled in a hope- and forgiveness-focused therapy group, a hope-focused therapy group, a forgiveness-focused therapy group, and a group who received no treatment. Improvements were observed among the combined therapy group as compared to the control group (P = 0.05), but not between the hope-focused group (P = 0.85) or the forgiveness focused group as compared to the control group (P = 0.74).16Anxiety: In a study including couples coping with PTSD, anxiety as measured by the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory decreased significantly among the intervention group (\u221210.60, 95% CI: \u221219.04 to \u22122.16, P = NR), but not the control group (0.84, 95% CI: \u22124.40 to 6.08, P = NR).6Anger: In the above study, anger expression decreased significantly among the treatment group (\u22128.02, 95% CI:\u221212.63 to \u22123.42) but not the wait list control group (\u22121.16, 95% CI: \u22124.55 to 2.23).6Psychological distress: In a study including couples faced with a recent cancer diagnosis, no significant difference in terms of psychological distress was found between couples in a treatment versus a usual care group.5\nHopelessness: In one study including couples faced with an end-stage cancer diagnosis, no difference between the intervention and the usual care control group was observed post-treatment in terms of feelings of hopelessness (P = 0.24).4\nTrauma-related symptoms: In a study including couples in therapy for the female with a history of intrafamilial child abuse, no difference was observed between a treatment and waiting list control groups in terms of trauma-related symptoms.11\nIn a study including couples with a pathological gambling partner, significant differences in improvement in mental distress were observed between people in a treatment and wait list control group immediately post-treatment (P = 0.001) and after an 8 week follow up (P = 0.035).17\nInterpersonal cognitive distortions: In one study including couples referred to pre-divorce counselling, interpersonal cognitive distortions were assessed for couples enrolled in a hope- and forgiveness-focused therapy group, a hope-focused therapy group, a forgiveness-focused therapy group, and a group who received no treatment. Improvements were observed among the combined therapy group as compared to the control group (P = 0.05), but not between the hope-focused group (P = 0.85) or the forgiveness focused group as compared to the control group (P = 0.74).16\nAnxiety: In a study including couples coping with PTSD, anxiety as measured by the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory decreased significantly among the intervention group (\u221210.60, 95% CI: \u221219.04 to \u22122.16, P = NR), but not the control group (0.84, 95% CI: \u22124.40 to 6.08, P = NR).6\nAnger: In the above study, anger expression decreased significantly among the treatment group (\u22128.02, 95% CI:\u221212.63 to \u22123.42) but not the wait list control group (\u22121.16, 95% CI: \u22124.55 to 2.23).6\nPsychological distress: In a study including couples faced with a recent cancer diagnosis, no significant difference in terms of psychological distress was found between couples in a treatment versus a usual care group.5\nFinally, outcomes assessed in one pre-post study each included:\n\nEmotional control: In a study including couples referred to or self-referring for couples therapy due to insecure attachment, it was found that emotional control is not a significant predictor of relationship satisfaction, nor the rate of change of relationship satisfaction over the course of therapy.23Coping: In the same study described above, no significant difference was found in terms of coping (P = NR).19Psychological function: One study that employed a time-limited approach to therapy measured overall psychological function and reported a non-significant decrease in the proportion of both males (P = 0.066) and females (P = 0.103) in terms of psychological function.20\nEmotional control: In a study including couples referred to or self-referring for couples therapy due to insecure attachment, it was found that emotional control is not a significant predictor of relationship satisfaction, nor the rate of change of relationship satisfaction over the course of therapy.23\nCoping: In the same study described above, no significant difference was found in terms of coping (P = NR).19\nPsychological function: One study that employed a time-limited approach to therapy measured overall psychological function and reported a non-significant decrease in the proportion of both males (P = 0.066) and females (P = 0.103) in terms of psychological function.20\nLimitations\nThe evidence to support the clinical effectiveness of couples therapy for adults experiencing relationship distress is limited primarily by the quality of published research in addition to the limited number of studies for any particular therapy/condition combination. Twelve different interventions were included as \u201ccouples-based therapy\u201d in this review, each with a unique theoretical foundation, and each delivered for different lengths of time. Further, thirteen unique conditions were studied ranging from self-identified relationship distress, to distress that was secondary to OCD, alcoholism, emotional injury, cancer, or a recently disclosed affair, among other situations. The broad range of therapeutic approaches and the broad range of conditions studied means only one study was reviewed for any given therapy/indication combination. While this body of research is sufficient to guide a discussion about the clinical effectiveness of couples therapy in a broad sense, it is insufficient to answer more focused questions for example which form of couples therapy might be the most effective for a given condition.\nThe ability for some of the included studies to detect a meaningful difference in outcomes of interest is further limited by the length of the treatment provided. Therapy outcomes are believed to vary by the length of therapy, with improved outcomes being observed after prolonged treatment.20 Clinical practice guidelines developed in the United Kingdom for depression, for example, suggest 15\u201320 sessions of therapy over 5\u20136 months to observe meaningful outcomes.27 The treatment length within some of the included studies is far from this threshold, which increases the likelihood these studies were unable to appropriately identify meaningful treatment outcomes.\nThe evidence regarding the effectiveness of couples therapy is also limited by the nature of published research in this field over the past 5 years. Most of the studies included in this review are pre-post observational studies, which are inherently limited by their uncontrolled and non-randomized design. Eight RCTs were included in this review; however, the general lack of reporting of sampling, randomization and allocation concealment procedures among these studies means that important sources of bias cannot be ruled out. Further, the use of self-report measures coupled with an inability to blind patients and therapists, as is inherent to this subject area, raises the potential for social desirability and measurement bias. Finally, the generalizability of results is threatened due to narrow eligibility criteria in some studies. Six studies explicitly include only heterosexual couples,10,11,14,21,23,26 and three include only married couples.8,16,21 Only one study explicitly describes including homosexual couples.5 Given the current diversity in relationship arrangements, and specific challenges within each, the limited eligibility criteria applied within many of the reviewed studies suggests results might not be applicable to homosexual couples or common-law couples.\nOnly two included studies described a process for tracking adverse events following couples therapy.4,6 It is unclear whether adverse events were not assessed within the remainder of included studies, not reported or did not occur. In one study that described tracking adverse events, one incident of severe intimate aggression was reported,6 and in the other study no adverse events were reported.4 While the adverse event rate is low within these two studies, overall this review is limited in its ability to describe the safety profile of couples therapy, in particular for at risk populations.", "pairs": [], "interleaved": []}
+{"file": "rc0597_NBK253324/CH3.nxml", "text": "The published clinical effectiveness literature is limited due to potential for measurement and selection bias, in part due to the inability to blind patients and therapists but also due to the broad range of approaches to couples therapy, length of treatment and reasons for couples presenting to therapy. Despite these important limitations, overall results suggest that couples therapy could have a positive impact on relationship satisfaction for couples in distress. The literature is inconclusive regarding the effects of couples therapy on other relationship-related outcomes and psychological health outcomes in this population.\nNo evidence-based guidelines were found that met the eligibility criteria for this review.", "pairs": [], "interleaved": []}
+{"file": "rc0597_NBK253324/CH2.nxml", "text": "\nWhat is the clinical effectiveness of couples therapy for adults experiencing relationship distress?What are the evidence-based guidelines regarding couples or marital therapy?\nWhat is the clinical effectiveness of couples therapy for adults experiencing relationship distress?\nWhat are the evidence-based guidelines regarding couples or marital therapy?", "pairs": [], "interleaved": []}
+{"file": "rc0597_NBK253324/CH6.nxml", "text": "This review provides a summary of 20 publications describing 18 studies published in the last five years regarding the effectiveness of couples therapy for adults experiencing relationship distress due to any cause. No evidence-based guidelines, systematic reviews, or health technology assessments on the topic were found. The evidence is limited by the quality of published research, which is in part due to the nature of couples therapy and precludes blinding of patients and therapists and also due to the observational nature of many of the studies and the reliance on self-report data.\nThere is debate within the psychological literature regarding the appropriate use of study designs to assess the safety and effectiveness of psychological interventions, including couples therapy. There is some support for the use of the RCT as the most rigorous design, which is hampered by the argument that the highly controlled design is not a good fit for the complex and individualized manner in which therapy is practiced.28 To be inclusive, all study designs are included within this review, although the results from RCTs and observational studies are presented separately.\nWhile important sources of selection and measurement bias are likely within this body of research, in particular among the pre-post studies included in this review, overall results suggest that couples therapy could have a positive impact on relationship satisfaction. All of the observational studies that measured relationship satisfaction reported improvements in this outcome, as did five of the seven RCTs, including the two most well-designed RCTs.4,6 A couple\u2019s initial state of relationship satisfaction and/or attachment anxiety could impact treatment outcomes. Couples who are more distressed going into therapy might observe larger gains,14,15 as might couples with a higher level of attachment anxiety,23 perhaps because these couples have greater gains to make as compared to couples who enter therapy in a less distressed state. Other relationship-related outcomes were only assessed in one study or in a few studies with mixed results, limiting the ability to draw meaningful conclusions. Similarly, the literature is inconclusive in regards to the effectiveness of couples therapy to impact psychological outcomes.\nWhile research has begun to accumulate regarding the effectiveness of couples therapy, Lebow et al.2 describe this field as a \u201ccottage industry\u201d (p. 146) due to limited government funding and lack of recognition of couple distress as a disorder within the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV). Accordingly, most research regarding couples therapy for relationship distress has been small scale with limited potential for generalizability. Given the substantial physical and psychological impact of relationship distress on individuals, couples, families and society, and the positive trend for the effectiveness of couples therapy for relationship distress, there is a need for more definitive larger-scale rigorously designed studies. Future studies could also focus on a review of the comparative effectiveness of the range of available couples therapy interventions, to begin to answer the question of what forms of couples therapy are effective under what circumstances.", "pairs": [], "interleaved": []}
+{"file": "rc0597_NBK253324/APP4.nxml", "text": "Behavioural Couples Therapy3\nBehavioural couple therapy (BCT) is based on the assumption that relationship distress and related conflict results from an unfair relationship bargain, whereby partners fail to negotiate a fair exchange of preferred responses. There is a resulting sense of injustice, which leads to conflict. The aim of BCT is therefore to help partners develop communication and problem-solving skills to negotiate a mutually perceived fair relationship.\nBehavioural therapy, with cognitive and emotion-focused goals14\nThis therapy is primarily behavioral with integration of cognitive and emotion-focused goals. It includes guided discussions of ongoing conflicts and reviewing the couple's patterns.\nCognitive Behavioural Conjoint Therapy6\nCognitive-behavioral conjoint therapy is a manualized intervention for PTSD designed to simultaneously reduce PTSD and associated symptoms and enhance relationship satisfaction. Therapy includes both in-and out-of session exercises including psychoeducation, couple specific goal setting, focusing on positive experiences, enhanced dyadic communication, and attention to activities that lead to behavioral and experiential avoidance and concurrently double as shared rewarding activities for the couple. The therapist guides the couple to investigate how trauma has influenced thoughts related to trust, control, emotional closeness, and physical intimacy and to challenge any appraisals that influence individual and relationship functioning.\nCognitive Existential Couples Therapy19\nCognitive Existential Couple Therapy was adapted from Cognitive Existential Group Therapy and aims to address key existential and functional themes including the death anxiety, fear of recurrence and living with uncertainty, coping with cancer treatments and their side effects, the impact of the diagnosis and treatment on the couple\u2019s relationship, including sexual impact, relating with medical and other professional staff, family concerns, body image and self-image concerns, and lifestyle effects and future goals.\nCongruence Couples Therapy\nCongruence Couples Therapy is an integrative, humanistic model developed for working with pathological gamblers and their spouses. It is based on the principle of congruence, and aims to work towards alignment of four dimensions of functioning: intrapsychic, interpersonal, intergenerational and universal-spiritual. This framework guides the intervention to increase attending, awareness, acknowledgment, and alignment with the pathological gambler and their spouse.17\nConjoint Intimacy Enhancing Therapy5\nConjoint Intimacy Enhancing Therapy focuses on improving couples\u2019 ability to comfortably share their thoughts and feelings regarding cancer, promote mutual understanding and support regarding their own and one another\u2019s cancer experience, facilitate constructive discussion of cancer concerns, and to enhance and maintain emotional intimacy. Techniques were drawn from cognitive-behavioral and behavioral marital therapy, the Prevention and Relationship Enhancement Program and from Gottman and colleagues\u2019 communication skills intervention and were adapted to the context of dealing with prostate cancer.\nCouple-Based Cognitive-Behavior Therapy9\nA staged approach is followed to teach the couple how to manage the patient\u2019s anxiety during exposure, in particular through practicing partner-assisted exposure and response prevention, including the use of emotional expressiveness techniques to enhance productive communication during exposures. The couple is guided through the development of learning strategies to facilitate decision making about reducing symptom accommodation and implementing alternative non-OCD-focused behaviors.\nCouple Dialectical Behavioural Therapy8\nCouple Dialectical Behavioural Therapy emphasizes the role of deregulated emotions in the breakdown of communication and the escalation of conflict. It focuses on creating a variety of ways to validate inherently valid things that partners express in particular by matching the form and function of communication. One of the main goals is to reduce negative patterns and develop constructive patterns of communication and interaction.\nEmotionally Focused Couples Therapy\nEmotionally Focused Couples Therapy is based on the assumption that relationship distress and related conflict results from insecure attachment, which leads to insecurity among one or both partners that their attachment needs will not be met. The aim is therefore to help partners understand this insecurity and develop ways to modify interaction patterns and emotional responses to promote development of a secure emotional bond.3,22\nHope and Forgiveness Focused Therapy16\nHope therapy is designed to change irrational beliefs and offer a more optimistic view of change, under the assumption that hope can ensure positive change. Hope-related therapy is a short, semi-structured form of treatment. The goals are to strengthen relationships and reduce the rate of divorce by focusing on goals, past achievements, positive and healthy coalitions through solution based and cognitive-behavioural techniques.16\nForgiveness therapy focuses on relieving feelings of resentment and anger. It focuses on several factors, including: awareness/discovery and unveiling of anger; decision and commitment to forgiveness, acting and compensation, and discovery and relief from emotions. It targets the cause of conflict and aims to ameliorate accumulated anger that might otherwise cause severe problems between spouses.\nProblem focused therapy14\nThis therapy has a problem-focused orientation with a central emphasis on focused communication training around the identified problem. Communication training can play a central role, incorporated with guided discussions of ongoing conflicts and reviewing the couple's patterns.\nPsychodynamic Psychotherapy20\nPsychodynamic Psychotherapy is an insight oriented form of couples therapy, designed to help couples explore how difficulties have arisen in their relationship and what interferes with changing them. It promotes looking at what lies behind current difficulties and paying attention both to conscious and unconscious factors.\nPsychotherapy21\nPsychotherapy included both group and individual couples therapy. Group couples therapy was eclectic, incorporating elements from behavioral therapy, system therapy, dynamic approaches, and nonverbal disciplines including psychomotor therapy, art and activity therapy.\nTraditional Behavioural Couples Therapy10\nTraditional Behavioural Couples Therapy follows a staged approach to form new rules and boundaries in terms of the relationship, promote the practice of individual emotion regulation skills, teach couples to use appropriate emotional expressiveness skills for both speaker and listener, and inform couples about anxiety and depressive symptoms.", "pairs": [], "interleaved": []}
+{"file": "rc0597_NBK253324/CH1.nxml", "text": "The last iteration of the Canadian census (2008) that included questions regarding marriage and divorce reports that approximately 40% of marriages in that year will end in divorce before the 30th wedding anniversary.1 While only a proxy, the high divorce rate in Canada suggests a similarly high prevalence of relationship distress, a situation where one or both partners are dissatisfied with their intimate relationship and that is characterized by conflict.2 Relationship distress can result in higher levels of psychological and physical health concerns in both partners, in addition to health and social role impairments among children, other family members, co-workers and friends.2,3\nRecent studies have helped to identify that the association between relationship distress and negative health outcomes is cyclical.2 Not only does relationship distress lead to negative psychological health outcomes such as depression, anxiety and substance abuse, it can also result from situations where couples must respond to and cope with these concerns. Other contributors to relationship distress are varied2 and can include such experiences as the diagnosis of a terminal illness,4 living with chronic disease,5 living with mental health disorders,6\u20139 infidelity,10 unresolved childhood trauma,11 among others.\nCouples therapy is widely practiced as a means to improve relationship distress, and is often an expected course of treatment when couples are faced with conflict.2 The main premise of is that guiding couples through their conflict as a collaborative team is more beneficial than working with only one member alone. While couples therapy is widely practiced, the effectiveness of couples therapy as an intervention to improve relationship distress is unclear. The purpose of this review is to summarize published research and evidence-based guidelines regarding the effectiveness of couples therapy for adults experiencing relationship distress from any cause.", "pairs": [], "interleaved": []}
+{"file": "rc0597_NBK253324/APP1.nxml", "text": "\n\n", "pairs": [], "interleaved": []}