Comparative efficacy of the relationship checkup for same-gender couples.

IF 4.6 Q2 MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS
ACS Applied Bio Materials Pub Date : 2024-06-01 Epub Date: 2024-04-04 DOI:10.1037/fam0001208
Katherine A Lenger, Erica A Mitchell, Patricia N E Roberson, Olive Schubert, Tatiana Gray, James V Cordova, Kristina C Gordon
{"title":"Comparative efficacy of the relationship checkup for same-gender couples.","authors":"Katherine A Lenger, Erica A Mitchell, Patricia N E Roberson, Olive Schubert, Tatiana Gray, James V Cordova, Kristina C Gordon","doi":"10.1037/fam0001208","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Same-gender couples face unique sexual minority stressors that significantly impact individual and relationship health. This impact may be even greater among same-gender couples living in regions where there are pervasive social and legal biases that affect the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and/or questioning, intersex, asexual, two-spirit (LGBTQIA2S+) community (e.g., south central Appalachia). Brief relationship interventions, like the relationship checkup, are effective at improving relationship health and can be widely disseminated due to the brief and flexible nature of the program. Yet, this program was developed for different-gender couples and, as a result, may lack specific intervention for the unique stressors of same-gender couples. While many skills delivered in relationship interventions, including the relationship checkup, are applicable to all couples, untailored interventions for same-gender couples may result in less impactful outcomes. The present study examined whether the relationship checkup, in its original, unadapted format, is as effective for same-gender couples as it is for different-gender couples. Using a subsample from the larger relationship checkup study (<i>N</i> = 656 couples), the present sample included 64 committed couples (same-gender = 32; different-gender = 32). We used propensity score matching to match different-gender participants to the same-gender participants based on racial minority status, poverty status, marital status, and parenting status. Results revealed that same-gender couples presented similarly to different-gender couples on baseline relationship functioning and changed similarly on all relationship functioning outcomes through 1-month postintervention. Same-gender couples also reported similar degrees of satisfaction with and perceived helpfulness of the relationship checkup. The relationship checkup appears to be equally effective and acceptable for same-gender and different-gender couples. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0001208","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/4/4 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Same-gender couples face unique sexual minority stressors that significantly impact individual and relationship health. This impact may be even greater among same-gender couples living in regions where there are pervasive social and legal biases that affect the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and/or questioning, intersex, asexual, two-spirit (LGBTQIA2S+) community (e.g., south central Appalachia). Brief relationship interventions, like the relationship checkup, are effective at improving relationship health and can be widely disseminated due to the brief and flexible nature of the program. Yet, this program was developed for different-gender couples and, as a result, may lack specific intervention for the unique stressors of same-gender couples. While many skills delivered in relationship interventions, including the relationship checkup, are applicable to all couples, untailored interventions for same-gender couples may result in less impactful outcomes. The present study examined whether the relationship checkup, in its original, unadapted format, is as effective for same-gender couples as it is for different-gender couples. Using a subsample from the larger relationship checkup study (N = 656 couples), the present sample included 64 committed couples (same-gender = 32; different-gender = 32). We used propensity score matching to match different-gender participants to the same-gender participants based on racial minority status, poverty status, marital status, and parenting status. Results revealed that same-gender couples presented similarly to different-gender couples on baseline relationship functioning and changed similarly on all relationship functioning outcomes through 1-month postintervention. Same-gender couples also reported similar degrees of satisfaction with and perceived helpfulness of the relationship checkup. The relationship checkup appears to be equally effective and acceptable for same-gender and different-gender couples. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

同性夫妻关系检查的比较效果。
同性伴侣面临着独特的性少数群体压力,这些压力严重影响着个人和夫妻关系的健康。对于生活在普遍存在影响女同性恋、男同性恋、双性恋、变性者、同性恋者和/或质疑者、双性者、无性恋者、双灵者(LGBTQIA2S+)群体的社会和法律偏见地区(如阿巴拉契亚中南部)的同性伴侣来说,这种影响可能更大。简短的人际关系干预,如人际关系体检,能有效改善人际关系健康,并且由于其简短灵活的特点,可以广泛传播。然而,该计划是为不同性别的夫妻开发的,因此可能缺乏针对同性夫妻独特压力的具体干预措施。虽然关系干预中提供的许多技能(包括关系检查)都适用于所有夫妻,但不针对同性夫妻的干预措施可能会导致影响较小的结果。本研究考察了未经调整的原始形式的关系检查对同性夫妇是否与对异性夫妇一样有效。本研究使用了更大规模的关系检查研究(N = 656 对夫妇)中的一个子样本,其中包括 64 对已承诺的夫妇(同性 = 32 对;异性 = 32 对)。我们根据少数民族身份、贫困状况、婚姻状况和养育子女状况,使用倾向得分匹配法将异性参与者与同性参与者进行匹配。结果显示,同性夫妇与异性夫妇在关系功能基线上的表现相似,在干预后 1 个月的所有关系功能结果上的变化也相似。同性夫妇对关系检查的满意度和认为其有帮助的程度也相似。对于同性和异性夫妇来说,关系检查似乎同样有效,同样可以接受。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA,保留所有权利)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
ACS Applied Bio Materials
ACS Applied Bio Materials Chemistry-Chemistry (all)
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
2.10%
发文量
464
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信