ArticleJournal of marital and family therapy2026
Portraying Mixed-Agenda Couples: Insights From Large-Scale Data Sets.
Article in Journal of marital and family therapy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study investigates "mixed-agenda" couples characterized by significant discrepancies in commitment and therapy goals, using both clinical and non-clinical data sets. While theoretical frameworks suggest these couples present unique challenges for treatment planning and therapy outcomes, empirical data on their prevalence have remained limited. We analyzed data from the National Couples' Health and Time Study (NCHAT) and the Marriage and Family Therapy Practice Research Network (MFT-PRN) to identify groups of couples that might practically be classified as mixed-agenda couples. Findings reveal that mixed-agenda dynamics are prevalent, occurring in approximately 10% of the non-clinical sample and nearly 40% of the clinical sample. This exceeds prior clinical estimates and confirms that a substantial portion of couples seeking therapy do so with conflicting motivations. These results validate the mixed-agenda construct beyond anecdotal evidence, suggesting a need for tailored clinical interventions that address dyadic ambivalence to improve therapeutic efficacy and relationship stability.
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.