Love Together, Parent Together (L2P2): a protocol for a feasibility study of a conflict reappraisal writing intervention for interparental couples with young children

Heather Prime, Amy Muise, Veronica Benyamin, Lehana Thabane, Mark Wade, Heather Prime, Amy Muise, Veronica Benyamin, Lehana Thabane, Mark Wade

Abstract

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has introduced or amplified stress and challenge within couples' relationships. Among those who are particularly vulnerable to heightened conflict and lower relationship satisfaction during this time are interparental couples with young children, whose relationships may have already been tenuous prior to the pandemic. Stress within the interparental relationship may have ripple effects on all family subsystems and child adjustment. The Love Together Parent Together (L2P2) program is a brief, low-intensity writing intervention adapted for parents of young children that was designed to reduce conflict-related distress and prevent declines in relationship satisfaction. Based on an original writing intervention by Finkel and colleagues, L2P2 has adapted the intervention duration and study population to be appropriate to the current global context. This study will examine the key feasibility metrics related to this adapted program with the goal of identifying problems and informing parameters of future pilot and/or main RCTs.

Methods: The current study is a non-randomized feasibility study, using a single-arm, pre-test/post-test design to primarily assess the feasibility of an evaluative RCT, and to secondarily assess the potential effects on outcomes to be used in a future RCT. Couples will be recruited through three community-based agencies with the goal of obtaining a socio-demographically diverse sample. The first 20 couples to enroll will be included. Baseline and post-intervention surveys will be conducted, and a writing intervention will take place (three 7-min sessions over the course of 5 weeks). The primary outcomes will be feasibility metrics of recruitment rates, appropriateness of eligibility criteria, sample diversity, retention, uptake, adherence, and acceptability. In addition, we will develop an objective measure of couple "we-ness" based on an analysis of writing samples. The secondary outcomes will include couples' measures (i.e., relationship quality, perceived partner responsiveness, self-reported responsiveness, conflict-related distress), and additional family outcomes (i.e., parent-child relations, parental/child mental health). Criteria for success are outlined, and failure to meet the criteria will result in adaptations to the measurement schedule, intervention design, recruitment approach, and/or other elements of the program.

Discussion: This feasibility study will inform several components of the procedures used for a subsequent pilot RCT, in which we will examine the feasibility of the methodology used to evaluate the program (e.g., randomization, attrition to follow-up assessment/across groups, and sample size estimation, preliminary effectiveness), as well as the main RCT, which will investigate the effectiveness of the intervention on primary outcome measures and mediating pathways.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT05143437.

Keywords: Family systems; Interparental conflict; Single-arm feasibility study; Writing intervention.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

© 2022. The Author(s).

References

    1. Pietromonaco PR, Overall NC. Applying relationship science to evaluate how the COVID-19 pandemic may impact couples’ relationships. Am Psychol. 2020;76(3):438–450. doi: 10.1037/amp0000714.
    1. Kluwer ES. From partnership to parenthood: a review of marital change across the transition to parenthood. J Fam Theory Rev. 2010;2(2):105–125. doi: 10.1111/j.1756-2589.2010.00045.x.
    1. Madigan S, Plamondon A, Jenkins JM. Marital conflict trajectories and associations with children’s disruptive behavior. J Marriage Fam. 2017;79(2):437–450. doi: 10.1111/jomf.12356.
    1. Wade M, Prime H, Johnson D, May SS, Jenkins JM, Browne DT. The disparate impact of COVID-19 on the mental health of female and male caregivers. Soc Sci Med. 2021;275:113801. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.113801.
    1. COVID-19 national survey dashboard . Accessed 9 Nov 2021.
    1. Wardell JD, Kempe T, Rapinda KK, Single A, Bilevicius E, Frohlich JR, et al. Drinking to cope during COVID-19 pandemic: the role of external and internal factors in coping motive pathways to alcohol use, solitary drinking, and alcohol problems. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2020;44(10):2073–2083. doi: 10.1111/acer.14425.
    1. Krishnakumar A, Buehler C. Interparental conflict and parenting behaviors: a meta-analytic review. Fam Relat. 2000;49(1):25–44. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3729.2000.00025.x.
    1. Kitzmann KM. Effects of marital conflict on subsequent triadic family interactions and parenting. Dev Psychol. 2000;36(1):3–13. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.36.1.3.
    1. Buehler C, Anthony C, Krishnakumar A, Stone G, Gerard J, Pemberton S. Interparental conflict and youth problem behaviors: a meta-analysis. J Child Fam Stud. 1997;6(2):233–247. doi: 10.1023/A:1025006909538.
    1. Masarik AS, Conger RD. Stress and child development: a review of the family stress model. Curr Opin Psychol. 2017;13:85–90. doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.05.008.
    1. Prime H, Wade M, Browne DT. Risk and resilience in family well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic. Am Psychol. 2020;75(5):631–643. doi: 10.1037/amp0000660.
    1. Pietromonaco PR, Collins NL. Interpersonal mechanisms linking close relationships to health. Am Psychol. 2017;72(6):531–542. doi: 10.1037/amp0000129.
    1. Kanter JB, Schramm DG. Brief interventions for couples: an integrative review. Fam Relat. 2018;67(2):211–226. doi: 10.1111/fare.12298.
    1. Finkel EJ, Slotter EB, Luchies LB, Walton GM, Gross JJ. A brief intervention to promote conflict reappraisal preserves marital quality over time. Psychol Sci. 2013;24(8):1595–1601. doi: 10.1177/0956797612474938.
    1. Walton GM. The new science of wise psychological interventions. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2014;23(1):73–82. doi: 10.1177/0963721413512856.
    1. Liu S, Wang Z, Lu S, Shi J. Dyadic analysis of childhood emotional maltreatment and marital satisfaction during the transition to parenthood: the mediating effects of emotion regulation strategies and psychological distress. J Aggress Maltreat Trauma. 2019;28(10):1216–1231. doi: 10.1080/10926771.2018.1466381.
    1. Frye N, Ganong L, Jensen T, Coleman M. A dyadic analysis of emotion regulation as a moderator of associations between marital conflict and marital satisfaction among first-married and remarried couples. J Fam Issues. 2020;41(12):2328–2355. doi: 10.1177/0192513X20935504.
    1. Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, Michie S, Nazareth I, Petticrew M. Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance. Bmj. 2008;337:a1655. doi: 10.1136/bmj.a1655.
    1. Fergus K. Couple resilience. Springer; 2015. Theoretical and methodological underpinnings of resilience in couples: locating the ‘we’; pp. 23–42.
    1. Thabane L, Lancaster G. A guide to the reporting of protocols of pilot and feasibility trials. Springer; 2019.
    1. Lancaster G, Thabane L. Guidelines for reporting non-randomised pilot and feasibility studies. Pilot Feasib Stud. 2019;5(1).
    1. Eldridge SM, Chan CL, Campbell MJ, Bond CM, Hopewell S, Thabane L, et al. CONSORT 2010 statement: extension to randomised pilot and feasibility trials. BMJ. 2016;(8079):1-29. Article i5239.
    1. Sabourin S, Valois P, Lussier Y. Development and validation of a brief version of the dyadic adjustment scale with a nonparametric item analysis model. Psychol Assess. 2005;17(1):15–27. doi: 10.1037/1040-3590.17.1.15.
    1. Prime H, Wade M, May SS, Jenkins JM, Browne DT. The COVID-19 family stressor scale: validation and measurement invariance in female and male caregivers. Front Psychiatry. 2021;12. Article 669106.
    1. Sekhon M, Cartwright M, Francis JJ. Acceptability of healthcare interventions: an overview of reviews and development of a theoretical framework. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017;17(1). Article 88.
    1. Allgood SM, Seedall RB, Williams RB. Expressive writing and marital satisfaction: a writing sample analysis. Fam Relat. 2020;69(2):380–391. doi: 10.1111/fare.12416.
    1. Fletcher GJ, Simpson JA, Thomas G. The measurement of perceived relationship quality components: a confirmatory factor analytic approach. Personal Soc Psychol Bull. 2000;26(3):340–354. doi: 10.1177/0146167200265007.
    1. Crasta D, Rogge RD, Maniaci MR, Reis HT. Toward an optimized measure of perceived partner responsiveness: development and validation of the perceived responsiveness and insensitivity scale. Psychol Assess. 2021;33(4):338–355. doi: 10.1037/pas0000986.
    1. Boyle MH, Georgiades K, Duncan L, Comeau J, Wang L, Team OCHS The 2014 Ontario child health study—methodology. Can J Psychiatr. 2019;64(4):237–245. doi: 10.1177/0706743719833675.
    1. Kessler RC, Andrews G, Colpe LJ, Hiripi E, Mroczek D, Normand S, et al. Short screening scales to monitor population prevalences and trends in non-specific psychological distress. Psychol Med. 2002;32(6):959–976. doi: 10.1017/S0033291702006074.
    1. Murphy JM, Bergmann P, Chiang C, Sturner R, Howard B, Abel MR, et al. The PSC-17: subscale scores, reliability, and factor structure in a new national sample. Pediatrics. 2016;138(3). Article e20160038.
    1. Hox JJ, van de Schoot R, Matthijsse S. How few countries will do? Comparative survey analysis from a Bayesian perspective. Survey Res Methods. 2012;6(2):87–93.
    1. Harris M, Andrews K, Gonzalez A, Prime H, Atkinson L. Technology-assisted parenting interventions for families experiencing social disadvantage: a meta-analysis. Prev Sci. 2020;21(5):714–727. doi: 10.1007/s11121-020-01128-0.

Source: PubMed

3
Abonneren