SynthesisFrontiers in psychology2019
Dyadic Coping in Couples: A Conceptual Integration and a Review of the Empirical Literature.
Synthesis in Frontiers in psychology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 115 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
115 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Couples and parenting dynamics during Covid-19 pandemic: A systematic review of the literature.PloS one · 2025Pooled it
- Patients' experiences across the trajectory of atrial fibrillation: A qualitative systematic review.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022Pooled it
- Dyadic Interdependence in Non-spousal Caregiving Dyads' Wellbeing: A Systematic Review.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Pooled it
- Dyadic Coping in Couples Facing Chronic Physical Illness: A Systematic Review.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Pooled it
- Disability as an Interpersonal Experience: A Systematic Review on Dyadic Challenges and Dyadic Coping When One Partner Has a Chronic Physical or Sensory Impairment.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Pooled it
- Minimal couple intervention to improve psychobiological stress resilience.British journal of health psychology · 2025Trial
- Randomized controlled trial of the Marriage Checkup: Stress outcomes.Journal of marital and family therapy · 2023Trial
- Emotional distress in neuro-ICU survivor-caregiver dyads: The recovering together randomized clinical trial.Health psychology : official journal of the Division of Health Psychology, American Psychological Association · 2022Trial
- Dyadic coping, relationship quality, and psychosocial adaption between couples facing prostate cancer: A longitudinal cross-lagged study.Asia-Pacific journal of oncology nursing · 2026Article
- Double Burdens and Double Resilience: Dynamic Interactions in Older Couples Living With Multimorbidity.Journal of advanced nursing · 2026Article
- Residential moves in the early years of marriage: Stressor or normative transition?Journal of family psychology : JFP : journal of the Division of Family Psychology of the American Psychological Association (Division 43) · 2026Article
- Demoralization and Illness-Related Communication Among Individuals With Cardiac Disease: A Dyadic Analysis.Family process · 2026Article
- Differences in Dyadic Coping Between Couples Facing Early-Stage Dementia Compared with Couples Facing a Visual Impairment and Healthy Couples.Journal of clinical psychology in medical settings · 2026Article
- 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 · 2026Article
- Caregiving Experiences, Supportive Care Needs and Coping Strategies Among Family Caregivers of Patients with Colorectal Cancer in Kazakhstan: A Qualitative Descriptive Study.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2026Article
- Resiliency factors relevant to NICU parents' emotional and relational health.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2026Article
- Coping with Partners' Alcohol Use Disorder and Relationship Adjustment: A Dyadic Analysis Among Treatment-Seeking Couples.Couple & family psychology · 2026Article
- Health perspectives after intensive care unit-discharge: Insights from patient and family interviews.International journal of nursing studies advances · 2026Article
- Dyadic coping and multiple sclerosis: A qualitative exploration of differences between couples high and low in relationship functioning.British journal of health psychology · 2026Article
- An actor-partner interdependence model for analyzing the association between dyadic coping and parenting concerns in young breast cancer couples in southwest China.Scientific reports · 2026Article
55 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The present review on dyadic coping (DC) aims at providing a critical integration of both the conceptual and empirical DC literature and overcoming the limitations of past reviews by (a) describing, comparing, and integrating all the DC models, (b) presenting and integrating findings from studies based on DC models, and (c) suggesting directions for further research. The DC models identified and compared include: The congruence model (Revenson, 1994), the relationship-focused model (Coyne and Smith, 1991; O'Brien and DeLongis, 1996), the communal coping model (Lyons et al., 1998), the systemic-transactional model (Bodenmann, 1995, 1997), the relational-cultural model (Kayser et al., 2007), and the developmental-contextual coping model (Berg and Upchurch, 2007). After discussing each DC model, we advance a conceptual integration of all models, which serves as the framework to organize the review of the empirical literature. This integration includes the following DC dimensions: (a) Stress Communication, (b) Positive DC by One Partner (supportive DC, empathic responding, delegated DC, active engagement), (c) Positive Conjoint DC (common, collaborative, communal, mutual responsiveness); (d) Negative DC by One Partner (protective buffering, overprotection, and hostility/ambivalence), and (e) Negative Conjoint DC (common negative DC, disengaged avoidance). Developmental, relational, and contextual variables are included as factors shaping DC. To be included in the empirical review, articles had to be published in or a peer-reviewed journal in English and/or German before 2017 and include an original empirical study guided by one of the DC models. The review included 139 studies and, with the exception of the congruence model whose findings were discussed separately, findings were presented for overall DC and each of the dimensions identified in the conceptual integration. Findings were grouped also according to whether the stressor related or not to a medical or mental health condition. Demographic and cultural factors affecting DC were discussed. Overall, the empirical review suggests that in Western couples, positive individual, and conjoint DC forms, taken together or separately, have individual and relational benefits for couples coping with stress in general and/or mental health or medical stressors. Research on DC can be expanded to include other populations and stressors and use improved designs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.