Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39080820›Full record

ArticleFamily process2024

Couple relationship education content: What we have and what we are missing.

Sarah E Griffes, Nathan R Hardy, Ty J Gregson, Matthew W Brosi, Brandt Gardner

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Family process, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

5 authors.

Sarah E GriffesHuman Development and Family Studies, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA.ORCID 0009-0001-1458-0355
Nathan R HardyHuman Development and Family Sciences, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3199-6421
Ty J GregsonHuman Development and Family Sciences, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma, USA.
Matthew W BrosiHuman Development and Family Sciences, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma, USA.
Brandt GardnerHuman Development and Family Sciences, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Couple relationship education (CRE) has decades of research showing mixed results for participants. Various competing frameworks for CRE content have emerged in the development of the field, yet content has not been systematically investigated. Through an inductive content analysis of 15 different CRE programs, this study explored content themes and categories that are common across programs. Analysis found four themes throughout the programs: interactional skills, the self in the relationship, partner bonding, and relationship motivations. Categories for each theme were identified and are presented and discussed. Findings validate the primacy of teaching interactional skills within CRE including consistency in topics (e.g., communication training, conflict management). Other themes were also common (e.g., self in the relationship), though their categories were more diverse (e.g., self-care, expectations, personality). Several factors that have emerged as more significant in relationship theory and research were not well-represented in the content analysis (e.g., socioecological contexts, systemic patterns).

Indexed as

Interpersonal RelationsCommunicationCouples TherapyCurriculumFemaleHumansMaleMotivationObject Attachmentcontent analysiscouple relationship eductionfamily life education

Identifiers

PMID39080820
PMCPMC11659094

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.