Improved couple satisfaction and communication with marriage and relationship programs: are there gender differences?—a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The aspects of marriage and relationship and their effect on couples’ satisfaction are essential and critical aspects to be explored in this globalized and contemporary world. Since there are no reported meta-analysis and systematic reviews conducted in the last two decades in this area, we aimed to investigate the effect of marriage and relationship programs (MRP) on couples’ relationship satisfaction (CRS) and couples’ relationship communication (CRC) and also to determine the gender differences if any. Method In this systematic review and meta-analysis, the randomized clinical trials (RCTs) published between 2000 and July 26, 2019, were retrieved from several online electronic databases such as Medline, Embase, ProQuest, and Cochrane Library. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were developed using the PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome) framework of PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses). The mean differences (MDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. The reported summary statistics were calculated as random effects models based on the heterogeneity between the studies model. Funnel plots and the Egger regression test was used to confirm the presence of any publication bias. Results Of the total 12 intervention studies included, five (5) are education/communication skills programs, three (3) enrichment programs, and four (4) therapy programs. The impact of these programs was investigated on CRS and CRC. Therapy programs had a larger effect than other programs (pooled MD: 0.53 (95% CI = 0.35 to 0.71, I 2 = 71.5% p = 0.0001) and had a larger effect size on wives (pooled MD: 0.53 (95% CI 0.25 to 0.80, I 2 = 74.1% p = 0.0001) than husbands RS (pooled MD: 0.26 (95% CI 0.25 to 0.76, I 2 = 72.4% p = 0.0001). In RC (relationship communication) area, the Enhancement programs showed the small to large effect on CRC (pooled MD: 1.31 (95% CI = 0.13 to 2.50, I 2 = 94.7% p = 0.0001)) and educational programs showed small to medium effect (pooled MD: 0.32 (95% CI = 0.13 to 0.50, I 2 = 74.5% p = 0.0001) on women and no effect on men. Conclusion Due to the high effect of the therapy programs on CRS and enhancement program on CRC in the current meta-analysis, the priority of their utilizations in interventions, especially by psychologists and mental health professionals, should be emphasized. Therefore, mental health planning in communities to develop MRP and care for couples’ health should be given special attention to men’s health. Due to the high heterogeneity of the results and with scanty literature in this specific domain, we are uncertain about their actual effect. However, well-designed RCTs with a larger sample size would be beneficial in closely examining the effect of MRPs on CRS and CRC.
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 | 0.016 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.035 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".