CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 18Attachment and Relationship DynamicsCounseling, Therapy, and Family DynamicsMarriage and Sexual Relationships

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 38 of the 38 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Improved couple satisfaction and communication with marriage and relationship programs: are there gender differences?-a systematic review and meta-analysis

Open access
Javadivala, Zeinab, Allahverdipour, Hamid, Asghari Jafarabadi, Mohammad, Azimi, Somaye, Gilani, Neda, Chattu, Vijay Kumar·2021·Systematic Reviews
DOI 10.1186/s13643-021-01719-0PMC PMC8215832
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Abstract Background The aspects of marriage and relationship and their effect on couples’ satisfaction are essential and critical aspects to be explored in this globalized and contemporary world. Since there are no reported meta-analysis and systematic reviews conducted in the last two decades in this area, we aimed to investigate the effect of marriage and relationship programs (MRP) on couples’ relationship satisfaction (CRS) and couples’ relationship communication (CRC) and also to determine the gender differences if any. Method In this systematic review and meta-analysis, the randomized clinical trials (RCTs) published between 2000 and July 26, 2019, were retrieved from several online electronic databases such as Medline, Embase, ProQuest, and Cochrane Library. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were developed using the PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome) framework of PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses). The mean differences (MDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. The reported summary statistics were calculated as random effects models based on the heterogeneity between the studies model. Funnel plots and the Egger regression test was used to confirm the presence of any publication bias. Results Of the total 12 intervention studies included, five (5) are education/communication skills programs, three (3) enrichment programs, and four (4) therapy programs. The impact of these programs was investigated on CRS and CRC. Therapy programs had a larger effect than other programs (pooled MD: 0.53 (95% CI = 0.35 to 0.71, I 2 = 71.5% p = 0.0001) and had a larger effect size on wives (pooled MD: 0.53 (95% CI 0.25 to 0.80, I 2 = 74.1% p = 0.0001) than husbands RS (pooled MD: 0.26 (95% CI 0.25 to 0.76, I 2 = 72.4% p = 0.0001). In RC (relationship communication) area, the Enhancement programs showed the small to large effect on CRC (pooled MD: 1.31 (95% CI = 0.13 to 2.50, I 2 = 94.7% p = 0.0001)) and educational programs showed small to medium effect (pooled MD: 0.32 (95% CI = 0.13 to 0.50, I 2 = 74.5% p = 0.0001) on women and no effect on men. Conclusion Due to the high effect of the therapy programs on CRS and enhancement program on CRC in the current meta-analysis, the priority of their utilizations in interventions, especially by psychologists and mental health professionals, should be emphasized. Therefore, mental health planning in communities to develop MRP and care for couples’ health should be given special attention to men’s health. Due to the high heterogeneity of the results and with scanty literature in this specific domain, we are uncertain about their actual effect. However, well-designed RCTs with a larger sample size would be beneficial in closely examining the effect of MRPs on CRS and CRC.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s13643-021-01719-0

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Couples therapy addresses relationship issues, helping partners navigate emotional challenges of infertility together and enhancing communication, conflict resolution, shared coping strategies, emotional resilience, and interpersonal relationships.

    “Couples therapy focuses on addressing relationship issues, helping partners to navigate the emotional challenges of infertility together [50] and in assessing therapy sessions together tends to enhance couples ability to effectively communicate, resolve conflicts, and importantly develop shared coping strategies to improve emotional resilience and interpersonal relationships [50].”

    From Psychosocial interventions for improving marital intimacy, sexual satisfaction, and quality of life of women and couples with infertility problems in low and middle-income countries: Systematic review protocol (2025) · cites this paper as [50]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Li Z. Effects of PREPARE/ENRICH Couple Relationship Education for Chinese College Students in Heterosexual Exclusive Dating Relationships. (PhD thesis). University of Minnesota. United States. 2015. ProQuest Information & Learning. ProQuest Number: 10186903. https://search.proquest.com/docview/1989783472?accountid=41307. Accessed 26 July 2019.
  2. Einhorn L. Relationship education for low income couples and individuals: new research directions (PhD thesis). University of Denver, United States. 2010. Electronic Theses and Dissertations. 178. https://digitalcommons.du.edu/etd/178 31. Accessed 26 July 2019.
  3. Shapo JR. Support-focused marital therapy vs. a waitlist control: an efficacy study (PhD thesis). George Mason University. United States 2003 , ProQuest Information & Learning. UMI Number: 3061545. https://search.proquest.com/docview/305240461?accountid=41307. Accessed 26 July 2019.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Metadata

Authors
Javadivala, Z., Allahverdipour, H., Asghari Jafarabadi, M., Azimi, S., Gilani, N., & Chattu, V. K.
Affiliations
  • Tabriz University of Medical Sciences (IR)
  • University of Toronto (CA)
Corresponding author
Javadivala, Zeinab
ORCID
Venue
Systematic Reviews
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2021-06-21
Volume
10
Issue
1
Pages
178-178
ISSN
2046-4053 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1186/s13643-021-01719-0
PMC
PMC8215832
OpenAlex
W3177031541
Cited by
18
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1
FWCI
0.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Systematic Reviews (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • TSpace (University of Toronto) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Attachment and Relationship Dynamics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Counseling, Therapy, and Family Dynamics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Marriage and Sexual Relationships
Keywords
partner satisfaction, relationship communication, gender differences, couple therapy, communication skills training, publication bias, effect size heterogeneity
MeSH terms
Communication, Female, Humans, Male, Marriage, Mental Health, Personal Satisfaction, Sex Characteristics, United States

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review