MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400765638 · doi:10.1016/j.cpnec.2024.100250

Couples-based health behavior change interventions: A relationship science perspective on the unique opportunities and challenges to improve dyadic health

2024· article· en· W4400765638 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueComprehensive Psychoneuroendocrinology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAttachment and Relationship Dynamics
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsPsychological interventionContext (archaeology)PsychologyInterpersonal communicationBehavior changeInterpersonal relationshipSocial psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Epidemiological studies indicate that better marital quality is associated with less morbidity and premature mortality. A number of interpersonal processes related to marital quality are also associated with health-relevant surrogate biomarkers across different physiological systems. Despite these replicated correlational findings, few interventions have harnessed interpersonal processes as potential interventions to enhance health. Building on Dr. Janice Kiecolt-Glaser's model of relationships and health, we propose that couples-based health behavior change interventions may represent an effective way to decrease dysregulation across autonomic, endocrine and immune systems and, ultimately, improve dyadic health. Given that the cohabiting partner is an essential part of the social context in which the behavior change is being pursued, it is important to consider the relational issues triggered by dyadic interventions. Using a relationship science perspective, this article reviews the literature on couples' concordance in health behaviors and health outcomes, the potential pathways underlying this concordance, theories of the couple as a self-sustaining social system, dyadic adaptation of individual self-regulation strategies, effective and ineffective social support and social control in couple relationships, the integration of relationship-building and health behavior change strategies, and the consideration of key moderators related to the nature of the relationship and the context surrounding the relationship. These findings highlight the importance of adopting a relationship science perspective when designing and testing dyadic interventions to improve health outcomes. The data reviewed provide insights on how to optimize couples-based health behavior change interventions to reduce physiological dysregulation and improve dyadic health.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.957
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.360
GPT teacher head0.489
Teacher spread0.129 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it