Introduction to the special issue on the efficacy and effectiveness of couple and family interventions: Evidence base update 2010–2019

Abstract

This is the fourth Journal of Marital and Family Therapy (JMFT) special issue on the efficacy and effectiveness of couple and family therapy. Articles in this issue review studies published from 2010 to 2019 on couple and family interventions for prevalent mental and behavioral disorders and health conditions. The final article on mental health disparities tracks progress in the field and emphasizes the need for additional attention. In the current article, we provide a description of our methodological approach for the special issue and an overview of the state of the evidence for couple and family interventions across the conditions reviewed. We also offer recommendations to inspire researchers to further expand the empirical support for couple and family interventions to address pressing public health needs.

The effect of perceived parental attitude score on symptoms of bipolar disorder and schizophrenia

“…These are suggested to predict poor short-term outcomes related to the disorder [31]. A recent study by Wittenborn et al [32] noted that the poor relationships of people with BD with their parents and spouses were associated with non-remission, relapse, and recurrence of depressive and bipolar symptoms.…”

A randomized controlled trial of a 5‐year marriage checkup booster session for a subsample of responder couples

“…The MC has been successfully adapted to different populations including military couples (Cordova et al, 2017 ), perinatal couples (Darling et al, 2021 ), low‐income at‐risk couples (Gordon et al, 2019 ), Korean couples (Lee & Kwon, 2018 ), lesbian couples (Minten & Dykeman, 2019 ), transgender couples (pilot study by Minten & Dykeman, 2021 ), and couples who disagreed on relationship concerns (Reyes et al, 2020 ). Taken together, the MC is classified as a well‐established intervention meeting the criteria for the highest level of evidence outlined by Wittenborn and Holtrop ( 2021 ; adapted from Southam‐Gerow & Prinstein, 2014 ), as also concluded by Doss et al ( 2021 ).…”

Introduction to the special section—Bigger isn't always better: The benefits of small‐sample research designs

“…This trend toward valuing large‐sample research can be seen in both family studies as well as clinical research. Well‐designed studies with large samples have been beneficial to our field, allowing us to better model the complex dynamics involved in systemic therapy and build a strong case for the efficacy of the treatment we provide (Wittenborn & Holtrop, 2022). However, a preference for large‐sample study designs has obscured the benefit of alternative designs that can make meaningful and unique contributions to our understanding of systemic therapy with very small samples.…”