Dyadic coping and mental health in couples: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Globally, one out of three people suffer from a mental health issue during their lifetime. In romantic relationships, impaired mental health does not only affect the individual but also their partner and therefore needs to be coped with dyadically. In this systematic review, we summarize research examining dyadic coping (DC) in the context of mental health and individual and relational outcomes. We searched for peer-reviewed articles published between January 1990 and April 2023 on PsycInfo, Medline, and PSYNDEX on DC and mental health within romantic relationships. A total of 60 qualitative, quantitative, and intervention studies met the inclusion criteria, reporting on 16,394 individuals and 4,945 dyads. To synthesize the studies, we used a narrative synthesis approach. Overall, stress expression and positive DC yielded beneficial individual and relational outcomes, whereas, for negative DC, the opposite was true. Results differed between mental health clusters and context played an important role (e.g., symptom severity, life phase). Due to the great diversity of studies and variables, further research should focus on understudied mental health clusters (e.g., anxiety disorders). Clinicians are advised to view mental health issues as a dyadic rather than an individual phenomenon ("we-disease") and develop tailored couple-centered interventions.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.005 |
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 teacher head, 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".