AimsTo evaluate the effects of couple‐based dyadic interventions on breast cancer patients and their intimate partners and compare the effects between interventions with different durations (<3 months; =3 months; >3 months).DesignA systematic review and meta‐analysis.Data sourcesSix English databases, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science Core Collection, the Cochrane Library, Medline, PsycINFO, and three Chinese databases, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), WanFang, and Weipu (VIP), from database inception to 19 February 2022.Review MethodsThe quality of the included RCTs was evaluated using the Cochrane risk‐of‐bias tool and the data analysis was performed by using RevMan 5.4 and Stata 15. The outcomes were categorized into five aspects: dyadic relationship, overall quality of life (QOL), physical health, psychological health and social adjustment.ResultsNineteen RCTs were included. For patients' overall effects, couple‐based dyadic interventions can improve sexual frequency, psychological health (anxiety; depression; well‐being; body image) and social adjustment (family function‐cohesion; social function‐total). In the subgroup analysis, it can adjust patients' relationship satisfaction (>3 months), sexual frequency (>3 months), depression (<3 months and >3 months), well‐being (>3 months), and body image (3 months). For intimate partners, no statistically significant overall effects were found, and all results in the subgroup analyses showed no statistical significance.ConclusionsThe results revealed the different effects of couple‐based dyadic interventions on dyads. It also suggested that tailored intervention duration should be a focus in future studies to obtain the potential actor‐partner benefits.ImpactThis study revealed that the overall effects of the couple‐based dyadic interventions include enhancing patients' sexual frequency, psychological health and social adjustment. Clinical practitioners should consider the intimate partners' outcomes and conduct couple‐based dyadic interventions that contain more tailored elements to achieve better effects.No Patient or Public ContributionRegistration: The systematic review and meta‐analysis of RCTs has been registered in PROSPERO (Number: CRD 42021286679).

No abstract