A review of the research during 2010–2019 on evidence‐based treatments for couple relationship distress
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".