Dyadic Coping in the Context of Child-Related Stressors: A Systematic Review

Dyadic coping refers to how two closely connected people (a dyad) interact and mutually support each other when dealing with a stressful situation that impacts them both.

It is a dynamic, transactional process that involves coping behaviors, thought processes, communication styles, and other mechanisms that unfold within a dyadic framework.

Supportive dyadic coping:

• One partner directly helps the other partner cope with a stressor through emotional or practical support.
• For example, providing advice, empathy, reassurance, taking on chores, etc. to ease the stressed partner’s burden.
• This has the secondary benefit of also reducing the support provider’s stress since their partner’s wellbeing affects their own.

Common dyadic coping:

• Both partners are under stress and cope together in a joint effort.
• Could involve things like problem-solving together, seeking out information together, emotional sharing, or relaxing together,
• Helps them cope with shared stressors like relationship conflicts, financial problems, illness of a child, etc.

Delegated dyadic coping:

Roth, M., Weitkamp, K., Landolt, S. A., & Bodenmann, G. (2024). Couples’ dyadic coping in the context of child-related stressors: A systematic review across three decades. Couple and Family Psychology: Research and Practice, 13(3), 202–223. https://doi.org/10.1037/cfp0000237

Rationale

Dyadic coping (DC), how couples cope together with stress, plays an important role in helping couples manage child-related stressors and is associated with better individual, relationship, and child outcomes.

In the context of child-related stressors, dyadic coping refers to how parents work together to manage challenges related to pregnancy, childrearing, child health issues, and other parenting demands.

This systematic review aimed to synthesize and integrate research on dyadic coping (DC) in couples facing child-related stressors over the past three decades. The rationale for conducting this review stems from several key factors:

1. Child-related stressors are among the most common and impactful sources of stress for couples (Nelson et al., 2014; Papp et al., 2009). Understanding how couples cope together in this context is crucial for supporting family functioning and well-being.
2. While previous reviews have examined DC in other contexts like chronic illness (Weitkamp et al., 2021), no systematic synthesis had been conducted specifically on DC and child-related stressors.
3. The systemic transactional model (STM) of DC (Bodenmann, 1995) posits that how couples cope together impacts both individual and relational outcomes. This review aimed to examine the applicability of this model to child-related stressors.
4. Family systems theory (Minuchin, 1985) emphasizes the interdependence of family subsystems. Examining DC in the parental subsystem provides insight into how it may impact child and family outcomes.
5. Recent research has highlighted the potential for DC interventions to improve outcomes for couples and families (Bodenmann & Shantinath, 2004). Synthesizing findings on DC and child-related stress could inform the development of targeted interventions.
6. As family structures and parenting norms evolve, it is important to assess the current state of knowledge on how diverse couples cope with child-related challenges.

By integrating quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods studies on this topic, the review aimed to provide a comprehensive overview of the field and identify key gaps for future research.

This synthesis contributes new knowledge on DC that goes beyond previous reviews focused on other stressors or contexts.

Method

The authors conducted a systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines (Page et al., 2021). The review was not registered and no protocol was prepared for publication.

Search strategy and terms:

The literature search was conducted on March 24, 2021 using three electronic databases: PsycINFO, Psyndex, and Medline. The following search terms were used: “dyadic coping,” “communal coping,” “couple coping,” “collaborative coping,” or “relationship-focused coping.” No additional search terms were specified for child-related stressors to capture a wide range of relevant topics.

Studies were included if they met the following criteria:

1. Focused on DC in parents/future parents in romantic relationships
2. Couples were facing child-related stressors
3. Published between 1990 and 2020
4. Quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-method studies reporting empirical data
5. Published in English or German
6. Peer-reviewed articles, book chapters, or dissertations

Studies were excluded if they:

1. Focused on non-romantic dyadic relationships (e.g., caregiver-patient)
2. Only examined individual coping or spousal support without DC
3. Did not report empirical data

The initial search identified 5,600 sources. After removing duplicates, 4,583 studies remained for screening. Titles and abstracts were screened, resulting in 1,082 full-text articles assessed for eligibility. The final review included 55 publications based on 47 distinct data sets.

Narrative synthesis approach:

Due to the heterogeneity of included studies, a narrative synthesis approach was used rather than meta-analysis. The authors followed three stages of narrative synthesis: 1) developing a preliminary synthesis, 2) exploring relationships within and between studies, and 3) assessing the robustness of findings through quality assessment.

Quality assessment was conducted using adapted versions of the NIH Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies, the NIH Study Quality Assessment Tools for Controlled Intervention Studies, and the Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP) checklist for qualitative studies. Studies were rated as “good” if they met at least 80% of the quality criteria.

Results

Overall, results highlighted the importance of DC for both individual and relationship functioning across different types of child-related stressors. Adapting a “we-perspective” and engaging in common DC emerged as particularly beneficial approaches.

The review identified six main areas of child-related stressors examined in relation to DC:

Pregnancy and transition to parenthood (17 studies)

• DC generally declined over the transition to parenthood
• Better DC was associated with higher quality of life and marital adjustment
• Mixed findings on associations between DC and depressive symptoms
• Equity in DC was important, with both under- and over-benefiting associated with more depressive symptoms

Parenting (8 studies)

• DC was positively associated with relationship functioning and coparenting
• Higher levels of positive DC were linked to better child adjustment (less internalizing/externalizing problems, more prosocial behavior)
• Interventions to enhance DC showed promise for improving outcomes

Child mental health (12 studies)

• Parents of children with mental health issues reported higher stress and less favorable DC
• Supportive DC was associated with higher relationship satisfaction and psychological well-being
• Mixed findings on whether DC mediated between parenting stress and relationship outcomes

Child disability (4 studies)

• Parents of children with disabilities reported higher stress but also higher levels of positive DC
• Problem-focused and emotion-focused DC by partner mediated between stress and marital satisfaction

Child chronic physical illness (8 studies)

• Different patterns of DC were identified, from avoidance to active negotiation
• Higher supportive and common DC were associated with lower parental depression/anxiety
• DC was linked to better marital adjustment and sexual adjustment

Child death (6 studies)

• Couples often reported the loss as a shared experience that brought them closer
• DC helped couples process grief both individually and together
• Stress communication and common DC were associated with better couple adjustment after child loss

Insight

This systematic review provides several key insights into the role of dyadic coping (DC) in helping couples manage child-related stressors:

1. DC is consistently associated with better individual, relationship, and child outcomes across various types of child-related stress. This supports the broader applicability of the systemic transactional model of DC to the parenting context.
2. Adopting a “we-perspective” and engaging in common DC appears especially beneficial. This aligns with previous research on DC in other contexts (e.g., chronic illness) and underscores the importance of couples viewing child-related challenges as shared experiences.
3. The review highlights a lack of research on DC in the context of everyday parenting stressors. While major stressors like child illness have been well-studied, more work is needed to understand how couples cope with minor but chronic parenting demands.
4. Few studies have examined the effects of parental DC on child outcomes, despite theoretical links between family subsystems. Initial findings suggesting benefits of parental DC for child adjustment warrant further investigation.
5. Most research has focused on heterosexual couples in Western countries, limiting generalizability. There is a need for more diverse samples to understand cultural variations in DC processes.
6. Interventions to enhance DC show promise for improving outcomes for parents and children. This suggests potential for integrating DC skills training into parenting and family support programs.

These findings extend previous DC research by demonstrating its relevance specifically for child-related stressors. They also highlight important gaps, such as the need to examine DC across different stages of child development and in diverse family structures.

Future research could benefit from:

• Longitudinal studies tracking DC and outcomes from pregnancy through various child developmental stages
• Examining DC in same-sex parents, single parents, and culturally diverse families
• Investigating bidirectional influences between parental DC and child coping/adjustment
• Developing and testing tailored DC interventions for specific child-related stressors

Strengths

The study had several methodological strengths:

1. Comprehensive search strategy using multiple databases and including gray literature
2. Rigorous screening process with double-checking at each stage
3. Inclusion of quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods studies for a holistic synthesis
4. Use of established quality assessment tools to evaluate included studies
5. Narrative synthesis approach allowing integration of diverse study designs and outcomes
6. Clear organization of findings by type of child-related stressor
7. Consideration of both positive and negative forms of DC
8. Examination of DC in relation to individual, couple, and child outcomes
9. Adherence to PRISMA guidelines for systematic reviews
10. Inclusion of studies spanning three decades to capture trends over time

Limitations

1. Limited cultural diversity, with most studies from Western countries
2. Lack of research on same-sex couples or diverse family structures
3. Heterogeneity of DC measures and outcomes across studies, precluding meta-analysis
4. Potential publication bias favoring significant findings
5. Reliance on self-report measures in many included studies
6. Varying definitions and operationalizations of DC across studies
7. Limited longitudinal research, especially spanning different child developmental stages
8. Possible language bias due to inclusion of only English and German publications
9. Lack of studies on certain types of child-related stressors (e.g., school transitions, adolescent issues)
10. Limited examination of potential moderators or contextual factors influencing DC processes

These limitations highlight the need for more diverse and longitudinal research on DC in the context of child-related stress. Future studies should aim to include underrepresented populations and examine DC across the full spectrum of parenting experiences.

Clinical Implications

The findings of this review have several important implications for research, practice, and policy:

1. Clinical practice: Couple and family therapists should consider assessing and targeting DC skills when working with parents facing child-related stressors. Enhancing positive forms of DC and reducing negative DC could improve both relationship and child outcomes.
2. Parenting interventions: Integrating DC skills training into existing parenting programs could enhance their effectiveness. This may be particularly beneficial for couples transitioning to parenthood or facing major child-related challenges.
3. Child mental health: Given the links between parental DC and child adjustment, improving parents’ DC skills could be a valuable complement to child-focused interventions for mental health issues.
4. Pediatric healthcare: Healthcare providers working with families of children with chronic illnesses or disabilities should be aware of the importance of parental DC and consider referring couples for relationship support as needed.
5. Grief counseling: For couples experiencing child loss, interventions that promote a shared grief experience and enhance common DC may be particularly helpful.
6. Prevention programs: Universal prevention programs targeting couple relationships could benefit from incorporating DC skills training, given its potential protective effects for both parents and children.
7. Policy: Recognizing the importance of DC for family functioning could inform policies supporting relationship education and family-centered care approaches.

References

Primary reference

Roth, M., Weitkamp, K., Landolt, S. A., & Bodenmann, G. (2024). Couples’ dyadic coping in the context of child-related stressors: A systematic review across three decades. Couple and Family Psychology: Research and Practice, 13(3), 202–223. https://doi.org/10.1037/cfp0000237

Other references

Roth, M., Weitkamp, K., Landolt, S. A., & Bodenmann, G. (2024). Couples’ dyadic coping in the context of child-related stressors: A systematic review across three decades. Couple and Family Psychology: Research and Practice, 13(3), 202–223. https://doi.org/10.1037/cfp0000237

Bodenmann, G. (1995). A systemic-transactional conceptualization of stress and coping in couples. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 54(1), 34-49.

Bodenmann, G., & Shantinath, S. D. (2004). The Couples Coping Enhancement Training (CCET): A new approach to prevention of marital distress based upon stress and coping. Family Relations, 53(5), 477-484.

Minuchin, P. (1985). Families and individual development: Provocations from the field of family therapy. Child Development, 56(2), 289-302.

Nelson, S. K., Kushlev, K., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2014). The pains and pleasures of parenting: When, why, and how is parenthood associated with more or less well-being? Psychological Bulletin, 140(3), 846-895.

Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., … & Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71.

Papp, L. M., Cummings, E. M., & Goeke-Morey, M. C. (2009). For richer, for poorer: Money as a topic of marital conflict in the home. Family Relations, 58(1), 91-103.

Weitkamp, K., Feger, F., Landolt, S. A., Roth, M., & Bodenmann, G. (2021). Dyadic coping in couples facing chronic physical illness: A systematic review. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 722740.

Keep Learning

Socratic questions for a college class to discuss this paper:

1. How might the findings on dyadic coping in child-related stress differ in non-Western cultures or non-traditional family structures?
2. What are the potential ethical considerations in promoting specific forms of dyadic coping across diverse cultural contexts?
3. How might the role of dyadic coping change as children progress through different developmental stages?
4. In what ways could enhancing parental dyadic coping skills impact children’s own developing coping abilities?
5. How might socioeconomic factors influence couples’ ability to engage in positive forms of dyadic coping when facing child-related stressors?
6. What are the potential risks or drawbacks of emphasizing a “we-perspective” in coping with child-related stress?
7. How might findings on dyadic coping inform policies related to parental leave, childcare support, or family-centered healthcare?
8. In what ways could technology be leveraged to support couples’ dyadic coping efforts in managing child-related stress?
9. How might the concept of dyadic coping need to be adapted or reconceptualized for single parents or other non-traditional family structures?
10. What are the implications of these findings for how we approach couple relationship education and premarital counseling?