Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28150410›Full record

SynthesisBritish journal of health psychology2017

Health behaviour change interventions for couples: A systematic review.

Emily Arden-Close, Nuala McGrath

Registry-linked trialOpen access · hybridAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in British journal of health psychology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07461857 (Minority-focused Environmental Health Education and Tracking), which is not on this map. Cited by 61 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
61citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact, top 100% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT07461857 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

Minority-focused Environmental Health Education and Tracking (MEET) Pilot Study

TypeinterventionalSponsorMillion Marker Wellness, Inc.Ran2025 to 2026Enrolled151ConditionsEnvironmental ExposureArmsEducation curriculum
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

61 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Do Mindful Partners Make a Difference? A Meta-Analytic Test of the Actor-Partner Interdependence Model in Romantic Couples.Clinical psychology : a publication of the Division of Clinical Psychology of the American Psychological Association · 2026
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Using places of worship to recruit and retain couples for the 'Diabetes Together' intervention.African journal of primary health care & family medicine · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Compendium of dyadic behavior change techniques v2.0: results from a Delphi study.Annals of behavioral medicine : a publication of the Society of Behavioral Medicine · 2025
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

1 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Emily Arden-CloseDepartment of Psychology, Faculty of Science and Technology, Research Centre for Behaviour Change, Bournemouth University, Poole, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5954-2598
Nuala McGrathDepartment of Primary Care and Population Sciences, University of Southampton, UK.
Bournemouth University · GBUniversity of Southampton · GB

Funding

Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust WT083495MA
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesPartners are a significant influence on individuals' health, and concordance in health behaviours increases over time in couples. Several theories suggest that couple-focused interventions for health behaviour change may therefore be more effective than individual interventions.

designA systematic review of health behaviour change interventions for couples was conducted.

methodsSystematic search methods identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized interventions of health behaviour change for couples with at least one member at risk of a chronic physical illness, published from 1990-2014.

resultsWe identified 14 studies, targeting the following health behaviours: cancer prevention (6), obesity (1), diet (2), smoking in pregnancy (2), physical activity (1) and multiple health behaviours (2). In four out of seven trials couple-focused interventions were more effective than usual care. Of four RCTs comparing a couple-focused intervention to an individual intervention, two found that the couple-focused intervention was more effective.

conclusionsThe studies were heterogeneous, and included participants at risk of a variety of illnesses. In many cases the intervention was compared to usual care for an individual or an individual-focused intervention, which meant the impact of the couplebased content could not be isolated. Three arm studies could determine whether any added benefits of couple-focused interventions are due to adding the partner or specific content of couple-focused interventions. Statement of contribution What is already known on this subject? Health behaviours and health behaviour change are more often concordant across couples than between individuals in the general population. Couple-focused interventions for chronic conditions are more effective than individual interventions or usual care (Martire, Schulz, Helgeson, Small, & Saghafi, ). What does this study add? Identified studies targeted a variety of health behaviours, with few studies in any one area. Further assessment of the effectiveness of couple-focused versus individual interventions for those at risk is needed. Three-arm study designs are needed to determine benefits of targeting couples versus couple-focused intervention content.

Indexed as

Health BehaviorChronic DiseaseDietExerciseFamily CharacteristicsFeeding BehaviorHumansObesityPatient ComplianceSmokingSpousescoupleshealth behaviour changeinterventionsreview

Identifiers

PMID28150410
PMCPMC5408388
OpenAlexW1566050161

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.