Trial reportJournal of marital and family therapy2023
A randomized controlled trial of a 5-year marriage checkup booster session for a subsample of responder couples.
Trial report in Journal of marital and family therapy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A randomized controlled trial of a 5-year marriage checkup booster session for a subsample of responder couples.Journal of marital and family therapy · 2023Trial
- Randomized controlled trial of the Marriage Checkup: Stress outcomes.Journal of marital and family therapy · 2023Trial
- A Community-Based Participatory Approach to Evaluating and Adapting an Innovative Family-Based Hypertension Self-Management Intervention for African American Primary Care Patients.Journal of racial and ethnic health disparities · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study examined maintenance and booster effects of a brief couple intervention, the Marriage Checkup (MC), across 5 years. A subsample of 63 couples who benefitted from two previous MCs (responder couples), were randomly assigned to a third MC or control. Before randomization (at 4-years-9-months), the responder sample had maintained small to medium effects on two measures of relationship functioning. After randomization, we found no significant between-group effects. Yet, within-group analyses revealed that while control couples showed flat trajectories in all outcomes after the 4-year-9-months baseline, couples receiving a third MC (at Year 5) reported small to medium improvements in three measures of relationship functioning and maintained follow-up effect in one measure. Findings indicate that couples who initially improved from the MC can maintain some of their improvements over long periods. The potential of boosting such improvements with recurrent MCs is a relevant target for further investigation in larger samples.
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.