It Takes Two? An Exploration of Processes and Outcomes in a Two‐Session Couple Intervention

Abstract

Although relationship distress is common, couples often forego professional help due to concerns such as time constraints, financial costs, and stigma. The two-session relationship checkup is an alternative format of couple intervention developed to address these concerns. In this qualitative study, we interviewed 20 coupled participants and six clinicians to examine the checkup's processes and outcomes. The phenomenological themes that emerged revealed sequential processes by which this format works. Couple themes included client motivation, the therapeutic relationship, and therapeutic change in terms of perceptions and behaviors-particularly with regard to communication. Clinician data largely mirrored these themes. The results suggest the intervention addressed barriers to help-seeking and may be a viable selective option for at-risk couples.

Group Couples' Intervention to Improve Sexual Health Among Married Women in a Low‐Income Community in Mumbai, India

“…Individual sessions or some form of male-specific counseling may also have better prepared men to participate in the CI intervention. Fewer sessions may have also helped with retention without sacrificing the efficacy of the intervention, as noted in previous studies (Bradford, Mock, & Stewart, 2015;Pettifor et al, 2014). These strategies and others that may be relevant to specific cultures and communities need to be developed and implemented prior to initiation of couples' intervention.…”

Relationship Help‐Seeking in a Danish Population Sample

“…Relationship health checkups have been found to attract a broader range of couples who are at the early stages of marital distress and who would not otherwise seek treatment (Cordova et al, 2005;Cordova, 2014;Trillingsgaard, Fentz, Hawrilenko, & Cordova, 2016). Participation in a checkup format seems to also change the couples view on future therapy in positive ways (Bradford, Mock, & Stewart, 2016;Morrill et al, 2011). Third and finally, among interventions designed for couples with moderate to severe relationship distress, online formats may present with significantly lower barriers (i.e., lack of time/money, issues of stigma and privacy, transportation issues) than traditional forms for therapy (e.g., Braithwaite & Fincham, 2007;Doss et al, 2016).…”

Checking up on Couples—A Meta‐Analysis of the Effect of Assessment and Feedback on Marital Functioning and Individual Mental Health in Couples

“…In support of this notion, a recent qualitative study interviewing 10 couples who received a therapist‐guided RC found that eight out of ten couples perceived therapy in a “new light” meaning “much more positive” following the RC. Specifically, four husbands stated that their experiences in the RC helped them remove skepticism about treatment (see Bradford et al., , p. 8). In a few studies, the RC has also been followed by other couple interventions such as relationship education or enrichment programs combining an assessment and feedback with different forms of skills training (see Busby et al., ; Halford et al., ; Worthington et al., ).…”

“…Thus, studies included in the meta‐analysis only received a minimal dose of counseling in addition to the RC. Qualitative studies (e.g., Bradford et al., ; Burgoyne, Reibstein, Edmunds, & Routh, ) or case studies concerning RC interventions (e.g., Mowll et al., ) were not included. Only manuscripts published in English‐language peer‐reviewed journals were considered eligible for the present study.…”

“…In recent years, an assessment and feedback of a couples' relationship (see Halford et al., , ), here referred to as a relationship checkup (RC), seems to be a growing field of practice (Bradford, Mock, & Stewart, ) both in the premarital counseling process (e.g., Larson, Vatter, Galbraith, Holman, & Stahmann, ) and as a possible selective (i.e., for couples being at risk of relationship deterioration over time) or indicated intervention (i.e., for couples reporting elevated levels of relationship distress; e.g., Cordova et al., ; Halford et al., ). Among the major arguments for providing an RC is the assumption that the unique setting and format may lower barriers to help‐seeking, thereby attracting a broader range of couples who are at early stages of marital distress or would not otherwise seek treatment (see Cordova, Warren, & Gee, ; Fleming & Cordova, ; Morrill et al., ).…”