Objective: Chronic physical illness affects not only patients but also their partners. Dyadic coping (DC)—the ways couples cope in dealing with a stressor such as chronic illness—has received increased attention over the last three decades. The aim of the current study was to summarize the state of research on DC in couples with chronic physical illnesses.Methods: We conducted a systematic review of qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods studies published between 1990 and 2020, assessing DC in couples affected by severe physical illnesses. We used DC and related search terms for the literature search in Psycinfo, Psyndex, and Medline. Five thousand three hundred thirty studies were identified in three electronic databases and 49 of these were included in the review (5,440 individuals reported on 2,820 dyads). We excluded studies on cancer, cardiovascular disease, and multiple sclerosis because of existing reviews in the respective fields. Half of the studies included were on diabetes. Other studies were on arthritis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), cystic fibrosis, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), Huntington's disease, lupus erythematosus, Parkinson's disease, renal diseases, stroke, and endometriosis. Two raters extracted data using a predefined protocol, including study quality. Results were collated in a narrative synthesis organized by illness and DC operationalization.Results: Overall, DC was associated with beneficial outcomes in physical health, well-being, and relationship satisfaction. Differential effects became apparent for certain chronic conditions potentially depending on certain disease characteristics, such as early-onset, sudden-onset, or life-threatening conditions.Conclusion: Facing challenges together as a couple seemed indispensable for adapting to a diverse range of demands related to chronic illnesses with some specific demands of particular chronic diseases. There is a need for the development of truly dyadic interventions with an eye on the specific challenges of the various chronic conditions.

Introduction: For couples, depression can position diagnosed partners to receive dyadic coping and mates to primarily provide support. We examine whether inequities in dyadic coping covary with depressive symptoms. Methods: Using data from 62 mixed-gender couples with one partner diagnosed with major depression (60% female), we computed differences between provided and received dyadic coping reported by both partners. With Response Surface Analyses we examined the associations with depressive symptoms. Results: In patients, lower equity of dyadic coping was associated with more depressive symptoms, regardless of whether the patient felt underbenefitted or overbenefitted. In partners, dyadic coping was negatively associated with depressive symptoms while equity of dyadic coping showed no significant associations. Patients and partners both reported providing more dyadic coping than they received. Discussion: Inequities in dyadic coping covary with depressive symptoms in patients, beyond main effects of dyadic coping, justifying the inclusion of couples in treatment for depression.

The relevance of dyadic coping (DC), a concept how couples cope with stressors together, has been established in different contexts (e.g., daily hassles, mental and physical health) and is related to different outcomes such as relationship satisfaction, relationship quality and stability, psychological well-being, and child behavior. The current systematic review aims at providing an integration of the field of research on couple’s DC with child-related stressors which are understood as demands that arise for couples due to becoming or being parents. DC and related search terms were used for the literature search in PsycINFO, Psyndex, and Medline. We included 55 publications (reporting empirical data on 6,779 couples in total) including quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods studies published between 1990 and 2020. We applied a narrative synthesis approach organizing the results around six identified areas of child-related stressors: pregnancy and transition to parenthood, parenting, child mental health, child disability, child chronic physical illness, and child death. Overall, results show the importance of DC for both individual and relationship functioning in the context of child-related stress. Surprisingly, effects of parental DC on child outcomes remained understudied, although the existing studies yield promising results for child adjustment. In conclusion, adapting a “we”-perspective, mutual understanding and support is of importance not only to overcome the stressor but also to grow together as a couple. As DC plays a significant role for couples to cope in a resilient way when facing child-related stressors it should be more promoted in couple- and family counseling and therapy.