Love Together, Parent Together (L2P2): A Feasibility Study of an Ultra-brief Couples Conflict Program for Parents of Young Children
Phase: NA
Conditions: Family Conflict, Internet-Based Intervention
Sponsor: York University

 
 
 
 
Love Together, Parent Together (L2P2): A protocol for a feasibility study of an ultra-brief 
couples’ relationship writing program for parents of young children 
 
Heather Prime1*, Amy Muise1, Veronica Benyamin1, Lehana Thabane2, Mark Wade3 
1Department of Psychology, York University, 4700 Keele St, Toronto, ON M3J 1P3 
2Health Research Methods, Evidence & Impact, McMaster University, 1280 Main St W, 
Hamilton, ON L8S 4L8 
3Applied Psychology & Human Development, University of Toronto, 252 Bloor St. West, 
Toronto, ON M5S1V6 
 
*Corresponding author: email: hprime@yorku.ca  
 
 
Clinicaltrials.gov Registration: TBD  
 
Other Study ID Numbers: e2021-266 
 
Funding: Prime Family Lab at York University (generic funds) 
 
Date (version number): November 2, 2021 (1) 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
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 examines 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-randomised 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-
minute sessions over the course of four 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 analysis of writing samples. The secondary outcomes will include couples’ 
measures (i.e., relationship quality, perceived partner responsiveness, self-reported partner 
responsiveness, conflict-related distress), and additional family outcomes (i.e., parent-child 
relations, parental/child mental health, and parenting practices). Criteria for success are outlined 
and failure to meet criteria will result in adaptations to 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 a main RCT, which will investigate the effectiveness of the 
intervention on primary outcome measures and mediating pathways.   
 
Keywords: Couples’ relationships; Family Systems; Writing Intervention; Single-Arm Feasibility 
Study. 
 
 

 
 
 
 
Couples’ relationships during COVID-19: Implications for young families 
The COVID-19 pandemic has introduced heightened levels of stress for many couples that 
increase the risk of harmful dyadic processes such as decreased responsive support, hostility, and 
withdrawal (1). Some couples’ relationships may be particularly vulnerable due to pre-pandemic 
stressors―namely, couples with young children. Indeed, the transition to parenthood is a 
challenging time, and negative changes to couples’ satisfaction often persist beyond the first year 
postpartum (2). For instance, using a large, diverse, community sample of mothers, one study 
found that more than 20% of mothers reported high and worsening relationship conflict over the 
early childhood period (3). In the current pandemic, this developmental stage of parenthood is 
further threatened by distinct strains experienced by many parents. Pandemic-related stressors, 
including financial, family, and pandemic-specific factors have been linked to parental mental 
health, particularly among mothers (4), with parents reporting higher levels of depression and 
anxiety (5), and more frequent use of alcohol as a coping strategy compared to non-parents (6). 
Given the importance of individual mental health to the well-being of couples, this represents a 
time of acute stress to interparental relationships, which may have lasting effects. 
Interparental relationships form the foundation of healthy family functioning, with strong 
evidence for spillover effects from the interparental relationship to other family systems (7, 8) 
and child adjustment (9). This may be especially true under conditions of risk (10), including 
stress emanating from the pandemic (11). As such, threats to the interparental relationship during 
this time represent a family-wide risk factor. It is therefore important to provide access to 
evidence-based interventions aimed to prevent the deterioration of interparental relationships 
during and after the pandemic, with implications for the entire family. The aim of the current 
study is to assess the feasibility and acceptability of an interparental intervention designed to 
combat declines in relationship quality amid this global crisis. 
Potential utility of a brief intervention 
Prior to the pandemic, there were calls for increased translational research to inform large 
scale couples’ interventions (12). In the current context, with widespread threat due to far-
reaching effects of pandemic stress, this need is even more salient. Introducing novel, brief 
interventions to address couples’ relationships has the potential to mitigate accessibility 
challenges related to reach and retainment (13). One brief intervention, deemed the “Marriage 
Hack”, targets maladaptive conflict patterns by encouraging couples to reappraise their 
disagreements from a neutral, third-party perspective (14). This low-resource intervention, which 
involves three 7-minute writing sessions (for a total of a 21-minute intervention), has been 
shown to buffer against normative declines in marital quality over time by reducing conflict-
related distress. Such an intervention has the potential for widespread scale-up among couples at 
risk for relationship deterioration. In addition to its brief nature, it also has the advantage of 
being a fully online intervention, and will therefore reduce access barriers inherent to the 
pandemic and to couples with young children.  
The need for a feasibility study 
The overarching goal of this research program is to evaluate the effectiveness of an adapted 
version of the Marriage Hack intervention with couples of young children using a randomized 
controlled trial (RCT), and to examine the impact of the intervention on the interparental 
relationship as well as other family relationships. We propose to adapt this intervention in three 
ways. First, the original study was conducted with a relatively low-risk sample in terms of risk 
for couple-related distress. The current study is considered a secondary prevention program in 
that we are targeting couples at risk for relationship difficulties based on developmental stage 

 
 
 
 
(couples with young children) and context (a global crisis). Second, to optimize reach and 
retainment, we will adapt the intervention from its original 12-month course to instead run over a 
6-week timeframe. The number of writing sessions will remain the same (i.e., three sessions) but 
will be expedited to one session every two weeks. Finally, the goal of providing this program to 
couples with young children is to ultimately study the cascading effects on multiple family 
subsystems and child adjustment. Outcomes beyond the couple relationship were not examined 
in the original Marriage Hack RCT.  
Best practice for establishing effectiveness through an RCT requires a step-wise approach: (1) 
a feasibility study to address specific elements of the RCT (e.g., intervention characteristics); (2) 
a pilot RCT to address barriers and inform parameters of the main RCT; and (3) a main RCT to 
assess effectiveness (15). The current protocol describes a non-randomised, single-arm feasibility 
study (step 1 above), with the aim to assess feasibility, identify and rectify problems, and 
increase the success of a future evaluative RCT.  
Objectives 
The primary objective of the current study is to assess the feasibility and other 
methodological components of the Love Together, Parent Together (L2P2) intervention to 
inform the parameters of a future pilot (step 2 above) and main RCT (step 3 above). L2P2 is a 
brief conflict reappraisal program for couples with young children designed to support whole 
family functioning. Primary objectives of the current feasibility study are as follows: 
(1) Recruitment: Establish partnership with three recruitment sources and provide examine 
recruitment rates to determine if additional recruitment sources are needed.  
(2) Sample: Assess whether our recruitment approach and eligibility criteria are appropriate 
for the intended sample (i.e., participants with mild to moderate levels of couple distress as in 
a secondary preventive intervention). Relatedly, we are interested in the heterogeneity of the 
sample obtained through this recruitment approach based on sample demographics including 
income/education level, racial/ethnic identification, immigration status and history, and 
sexual orientation/gender identity. 
(3) Program: Assess program retention, adherence, and uptake rates―that is, the extent to 
which participants complete the assessment schedule in full, engage in the three writing 
(intervention) sessions, and report use of conflict-reappraisal strategies in between sessions.  
(4) Measurement: Conduct a preliminary validation of a primary outcome measure of couple 
“we-ness” (16) based on a content analysis of writing samples collected during the 
intervention. This new measure will be used in conjunction with pre-existing self-report 
measures of perceived partner responsiveness and responsiveness towards one’s partner for a 
multi-method/multi-informant assessment approach in subsequent pilot/main RCTs.  
(6) Acceptability: Examine the acceptability of the adapted intervention. We will examine 
whether the acceptability of the intervention varies as a function of key sociodemographic 
variables such as gender, race/ethnicity, and immigration status. 
The secondary objective is to explore preliminary effects on couples’ measures (i.e., 
relationship quality, perceived partner responsiveness, self-reported partner responsiveness, 
conflict-related distress), and other family outcomes (i.e., parent-child relations, parent/child 
mental health, and parenting practices) to see if the expected change is evident following 
participation in the intervention.  
Methods 
The current protocol is written in accordance with A guide to the reporting of protocols of 
pilot and feasibility trials (17), Guidelines for reporting non-randomised pilot and feasibility 

 
 
 
 
studies (18) and the CONSORT extension to pilot and feasibility trials (19), with adaptations for 
the current non-randomised design. In addition, we have adhered to the SPIRIT guidelines for 
reporting protocols (completed checklist can be found in additional file 1). The current    
protocol was registered on clinicaltrials.gov (#XXX; Other Study ID Numbers: e2021-266), 
where amendments to the protocol will also be documented. 
Study design 
The current study is a non-randomised feasibility study, using a single-arm, pre-test/post-test 
design. Couples will be recruited via three recruitment platforms via email listservs. The first 20 
couples who meet eligibility criteria and consent to the research process (self-directed, online) 
will be included in the study. Baseline assessments will include surveys collecting information 
on participant sociodemographic characteristics, COVID-19 related stress, self-report measures 
of couples’ distress, relationship quality, parenting practices, responsiveness directed towards 
partner, and perceived partner responsiveness, as well as the mental health of self and one target 
child. The intervention will take place over four weeks with three 7-minute writing intervention 
sessions. At the beginning of each intervention session, participants will complete a brief survey 
of conflict frequency, as well as use of conflict reappraisal strategies since the last session. A 
post-intervention survey will include all measures from baseline (except COVID-19 related 
stress and demographics), in addition to an acceptability survey.   
Participants 
Eligibility criteria are as follows: (i) both participants endorse being in a relationship; (ii) 
partners reside in the same home; (ii) one or more children under the age of 6 living at home; 
(iii) both participants are over age 18 years; and (iv) both members of a couple agree to 
participate. Exclusion criteria included: (i) no current plans or history of separation or divorce as 
this is meant to be a secondary preventative intervention for couples experiencing mild-to-
moderate but not severe relationship difficulties. 
Recruitment sources include: (1) Moms at Work, a community, education and advocacy 
group supporting women in their careers; (2) Unemployed Help Centre of Windsor Inc., a 
nonprofit organization assisting the un/underemployed and disadvantaged person during the 
transition period in the reemployment process; and (3) EarlyOn Child and Family Centres, who 
offer free, high-quality programs for young families. These recruitment sources were selected to 
get a range of participants in terms of potential risk factors for relationship problems.  
Listserv members from each recruitment source will receive an invitation to participate in 
research with a direct contact link to the L2P2 study platform via Qualtrics. Participants will go 
through an eligibility screen, followed by review of a letter of information and informed consent. 
Once participants have consented, they will be asked for their contact information and that of 
their partner (if they are the first member of the couple to sign up). The second member of the 
couple will be contacted directly by the study team via email with an invitation to enroll. Once 
both members of a couple have enrolled, they will be given couple and participant IDs, and a 
survey schedule will be set-up and executed. For a schematic diagram of the time schedule of 
enrolment, intervention, and assessments, see Figure 1.  
Intervention 
Given that this is a single-arm design, only an intervention group will be described. The 
intervention sessions will consist of two stages. First, participants will be asked to provide a 
“summary of a time when you and your romantic partner did not agree in the last two weeks...” 
focusing on “you and your partner’s actions (what you said and did), not about what you were 
thinking or feeling.” Second, participants will be asked to engage in a writing task wherein they 

 
 
 
 
will be instructed to reappraise the conflict they previously reported based on the following 
prompts (14): 
“Think about this disagreement with your partner from the perspective of a third party 
who wants the best for all involved. This is a person who sees things from a neutral point 
of view. How might this person think about the disagreement? How might this person 
find the good that could come from it?” 
“Some people find it helpful to take this third-party perspective when they are with their 
romantic partner. However, almost everybody finds it hard to take this third-party 
perspective at all times. In your relationship with your partner, what might make it hard 
to take this third-party perspective, especially when you’re having a disagreement with 
your partner?” 
“Even though it is hard to take a third-party perspective, people can do it. Over the next 
two weeks, please try your best to take this third-party perspective when you are with 
your romantic partner, especially during disagreements. How might you be able to take 
this perspective in your interactions with your partner over the next two weeks? How 
might taking this perspective help you make the best of disagreements in your 
relationship?” 
Participants will receive email reminders one week after each intervention session to prompt 
use of the reappraisal task. Email reminders first remind them of the prompts they wrote about 
during the writing session. Participants are then encouraged to use the conflict reappraisal 
strategy, as follows:  
“As you go through your daily life, please keep in mind the benefits of adopting a third-
party perspective in your romantic relationship. Sometime today (now, if the timing 
works), please take a few moments to think about ways you can take this point of view 
about conflicts in your romantic relationship.” 
There are no criteria for discontinuing or modifying allocated interventions. Participants will 
be informed that they can withdraw from participation in the study at any time and that they do 
not need to complete all questions in surveys or writing sessions. Participants who withdraw 
prematurely will be compared to completers on baseline demographic and relationship 
characteristics.  
Several steps will be taken to improve adherence to intervention protocols. The current 
feasibility study will be conducted online to reduce barriers to participation. The survey and 
intervention sessions will be made available for mobile and/or computer users to enhance access 
and promote adherence. Remuneration of participants will occur as the study progresses (i.e., 
after each session) via email in the form of a choice of gift card. Specifically, each participant 
will receive $5.00 for the baseline survey, $10.00 for each of the three intervention sessions, and 
$5.00 for the post-intervention survey ($40.00 per participant for full participation). Reminders 
of study timelines and survey/intervention session expiry dates will be provided by email. 
Outcomes and Analysis 
Table 1 presents all study objectives with associated outcomes, and criteria for success of 
feasibility, hypothesis for secondary outcomes, and methods of analyses, when applicable. 
Feasibility outcomes will be reported descriptively using descriptive statistics, means (standard 
deviations) and frequencies/percentages. Analyses for pre-post change and validation of an 
objective primary outcome measure are described in Table 1. If success indicators are not met, 
we will make changes to study design accordingly (e.g., expand recruitment sources, adjust 
eligibility criteria, adapt intervention schedule and/or compensation). Analyses will include all 

 
 
 
 
participants who complete baseline assessments, using Bayes estimation, which is more robust 
with small sample sizes.  
Sample size: 
We chose the sample size of 20 couples (with expected attrition), with the goal of having 
data for 15 couples (N = 30). This will allow us to examine rates of recruitment over several 
weeks, appropriateness of eligibility criteria and reasons for exclusion, diversity of sample, 
retention, adherence, and uptake, as well as preliminary analyses examining pre-post change and 
the validity of a new primary outcome measure. 
The current protocol does not include stopping or discontinuing guidelines.  
Data Management 
No data entry is required as participants provide responses directly into Qualtrics. Study 
protocols have been developed by the Principal Investigator (PI: first author) which outline clear 
steps for enrolling study participants and scheduling surveys and compensation schedules. Data 
quality checks will be conducted at regular check points throughout data collection by the PI. 
Steps will be taken to ensure linking of participants within couples and over time and 
independent completion of surveys. Embedded data will be used across surveys to ensure 
consistency in reporting on specific children. Range checks will be conducted on all data to 
ensure valid values.  
Ethics and dissemination 
Ethics approval has been granted by York University (Certificate #: e2021-266). Changes to 
the protocol will be reported in the publication of study findings. Informed consent will be 
completed online (see additional file 2).  
All information provided by participants will be kept private and confidential. An electronic 
file linking participant contact information with their couple identification numbers will be only 
accessible by the PI (first author) and research coordinator. Qualtrics servers will contain email 
addresses linked to each participant's data to allow for communication with participants (i.e., 
sending out reminders and surveys). Any data shared with the research team will contain only the 
participant codes, and will be securely transferred using an encrypted email or secure server. 
All study data will be temporarily stored on Qualtrics before anonymized records are sent to 
York University secure servers (OneDrive). Qualtrics is protected by high-end firewall systems. 
Qualtrics uses Transport Layer Security (TLS) encryption (also known as HTTPS) for all 
transmitted data. Anonymized data will be made available to the senior investigators (first, second, 
and senior authors), and their research assistants and students (current and future) under the direct 
supervision of the research team. 
We will destroy any personally-identifiable data at the end of the study. We will keep non-
identifiable data to comply with open science and data sharing practices, as well as to allow for 
future analysis of data. 
Dissemination plans include traditional outlets (e.g., peer-review journals and conferences), 
and sharing with the general public through social media and community talks (in conjunction 
with recruitment partners). American Psychological Association ‘Publication Practices and 
Responsible Authorship’ guidelines will be used to determine authorship.  
Discussion 
The main objectives of the current feasibility study are to examine the feasibility, 
acceptability, and practicality of an adapted intervention designed for couples with young 
children. Considerations relate to processes, resources, and scientific factors such as recruitment 
rates, appropriateness of eligibility criteria and sample diversity, retention, adherence, and 

 
 
 
 
uptake, primary outcome measure development, and preliminary examination of change in 
outcome measures. We will also conduct a participant survey to assess acceptability of the 
intervention program, stratified by subgroups. 
Findings will inform the parameters and research protocol of a future pilot RCT, the aim of 
which will be to assess the feasibility of examining the effectiveness of the intervention program 
in a subsequent main RCT. Specifically, we expect the results of this feasibility study to inform 
whether a future pilot RCT will be planned and what changes may need to occur, if any, prior to 
executing the pilot RCT. 
With appropriate adaptations, the “wise intervention” presented by Finkel and colleagues 
(2013) has the potential to meet a pressing need for a widescale program to prevent the sequelae 
of the COVID-19 pandemic on interparental relationships, family functioning, and child 
adjustment. The current feasibility study is a critical first step to ensuring successful 
implementation of future pilot and main RCTs that will investigate the effectiveness of using this 
intervention with a new population (couples with young children) and in the context of an 
ongoing pandemic, and its aftermath. 
Declarations 
Ethics approval and consent to participate 
Ethics approval has been granted by the Office of Research Ethics at York University 
(Certificate #: e2021-266).  
Consent for publication 
Not Applicable 
Availability of data and materials 
Not Applicable 
Competing interests 
The authors declare that they have no competing interests. 
Funding 
The current feasibility study is funded by York University, Faculty of Health, with generic funds 
provided to the Principal Investigator (H. Prime). Funders have no role in the project, including 
in study design, collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of data, writing of the 
report, and/or decision to submit the report for publication. 
Authors' contributions 
HP: Study conceptualization and design, oversight of the development of the study protocol, 
survey development, recruitment, and data collection, initial draft of the manuscript.  
AM: Study conceptualization and design, substantive revision of the manuscript.  
VB: Development of the study protocol, survey development, and substantive contributions to 
the drafting of the manuscript.  
LT: Study conceptualization and design, substantive revision of the manuscript. 
MW: Study conceptualization and design, substantive revision of the manuscript. 
All authors have approved the submitted version of the manuscript and have agreed to be 
personally accountable for their contributions.  
Acknowledgements 
Thank you to Drs. Dillon Browne, Karen Fergus, and Eli Finkel, for their consultation on study 
design. In addition, thank you to Gillian Shoychet for critically reviewing the study protocol and 
survey development, and to Alexandra Markwell for her coordination of the project.  
Authors' information (optional) 
Not applicable. 

 
 
 
 
Tables  
Table 1 
Primary 
Objectives 
To Determine: 
Outcome 
Criteria for 'success' of 
feasibility/hypothesis 
Method of analysis 
Recruitment 
 
Number of participants 
Accessed (I.e., initiate 
registration) per week, stratified 
by recruitment source  
 
10 couples per week over 
the course of 4 weeks who 
access our registration site 
 
 
Descriptive statistics 
 
Number of participants 
Enrolled per week, stratified by 
recruitment source 
 
5 couples per week over the 
course of 4 weeks who 
enroll in the study 
 
Eligibility 
criteria 
% interested participants that 
meet Inclusion Criteria (with 
reasons for exclusion) 
< 50% of participants are 
excluded for any one 
criterion. 
 
 
 
Sample 
diversity  
 
% participants income <= 
regional median, <= high school 
degree 
> 30% of our sample has 1+ 
indicator. 
 
Sample 
diversity 
(race/ethnicity/ 
immigration) 
% participants racialized, 
immigrant 
> 30% of our sample has 1+ 
indicator. 
 
Sample 
diversity 
(sexual 
orientation/ 
gender) 
% participants non-
heterosexual, gender non-
conforming 
> 30% of our sample has 1+ 
indicator. 
 
Mild-moderate 
risk for 
relationship 
distress 
% participants scoring ‘clinical’ 
(>13) on the Dyadic 
Adjustment Scale (20) 
% participants scoring ‘high’ 
(>29) on the COVID-19 Family 
Stressor Scale (21) 
< 50% of eligible 
participants. 
 
Participant 
retention 
% participants who remain in 
study until end of post-
intervention assessment 
> 90% of participants 
Participant 
adherence 
% participants who complete 
2/3 intervention sessions 
> 90% of participants 
Participant 
uptake 
% participants reporting some 
use of conflict reappraisal 
outside of sessions 
> 80% of participants 
Acceptability 
% of participants reporting at 
least ‘good’ on 80 % or more 
indicators on an 
Implementation Acceptability 
Scale assessing attitude, burden, 
perceived effectiveness, and 
ethicality (22). 
> 80% of participants, 
(stratified by gender, 
immigrant status, and 
racialized groups) 

 
 
 
 
Primary 
outcome 
measure 
development 
Objective assessment of we-
ness (16) based on content 
analysis of writing samples. 
Will include an analysis of first-
person plural pronouns (we, us, 
our, ours), reference to partners’ 
internal states (beliefs, desires, 
intentions), and positive 
affective language (23) 
Inter-rater reliability 
(Cronbach’s alpha > .80) 
Internal consistency 
(Cronbach’s alpha > .70) 
Significant group 
differences between male 
and female participants 
based on t-tests (p < .05) 
Significant correlations (p < 
.05) with indices of 
convergent validity (i.e., 
self-reported responsiveness, 
partner reported perceived 
partner responsiveness).  
Secondary 
objective 
To Explore:  
 
Pre-Post 
Change in 
Outcome 
Measures  
Couples’ Relationship Quality: 
Perceived Relationship Quality 
Scale (24) 
Intervention will improve 
outcomes from baseline to 
post-intervention surveys 
 
3-level multilevel models, 
similar to regression analysis 
but accounting for clustering 
within data structure 
Conflict-Related Negativity: 
two items following fact-based 
summary: “I was angry at my 
partner for his/her behavior 
during this conflict,” “My 
partner's behavior during this 
conflict was highly upsetting to 
me” (14). 
Perceived Partner 
Responsiveness/Responsiveness 
Directed Towards Partner: 
Two eight-item scales will 
assess participants’ perceptions 
of their partners 
responsiveness/insensitivity and 
their own 
responsiveness/insensitivity 
towards their partner, 
respectively (25)   
Parent-Child Relations, 
Parenting Practices Scale from 
the Ontario Child Health Study 
(26) 
Parent Mental Health, K10 
Psychological Distress Scale 
(27) 
 
Child Emotional and 
Behavioural Problems, 
Pediatric Symptom Checklist 
(Baby, Preschool, and Standard 
versions) (28) 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
Figures 
Figure 1 
Schedule of enrolment, intervention, and assessments. 
 
Study Period 
 
Enrolment 
Post-Enrolment 
TIMEPOINT 
-t1 
t1 
Week 0 
t2 
Week 1 
t3 
Week 3 
t4 
Week 5 
t5 
Week 6 
ENROLMENT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Eligibility screen 
X 
 
 
 
 
 
Informed consent  
X 
 
 
 
 
 
Contact Information 
X 
 
 
 
 
 
Allocation 
 
 
 
 
 
 
INTERVENTIONS: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
[Intervention A] 
 
 
X 
X 
X 
 
ASSESSMENTS: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Demographics, 
COVID-19 Stress, 
Relationship Distress 
 
X 
 
 
 
 
Couples’ relationship 
quality, perceived 
partner 
responsiveness, 
responsiveness to 
partner, parent 
mental health, child 
mental health, 
parent-child relations 
 
X 
 
 
 
X 
Conflict-Related 
Negativity 
 
 
X 
X 
X 
 
Use of Conflict 
Reappraisal Strategy 
 
 
 
X 
X 
 
Acceptability 
 
 
 
 
 
X 
 
 

 
 
 
 
References 
1. Pietromonaco PR, Overall NC. Applying relationship science to evaluate how the COVID-
19 pandemic may impact couples’ relationships. American Psychologist. 2020;76(3):438-
450. 
2. Kluwer ES. From partnership to parenthood: A review of marital change across the 
transition to parenthood. Journal of Family Theory & Review. 2010;2(2):105-25. 
3. Madigan S, Plamondon A, Jenkins JM. Marital conflict trajectories and associations with 
children's disruptive behavior. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2017;79(2):437-50. 
4. 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. Social Science & Medicine. 
2021;275:113801. 
5. COVID-19 national survey dashboard https://www.camh.ca/en/health-info/mental-health-
and-covid-19/covid-19-national-survey2020  
6. 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. Alcoholism: 
Clinical and Experimental Research. 2020;44(10):2073-83. 
7. Krishnakumar A, Buehler C. Interparental conflict and parenting behaviors: A meta‐analytic 
review. Family relations. 2000;49(1):25-44. 
8. Kitzmann KM. Effects of marital conflict on subsequent triadic family interactions and 
parenting. Developmental psychology. 2000;36(1):3-13. 
9. Buehler C, Anthony C, Krishnakumar A, Stone G, Gerard J, Pemberton S. Interparental 
conflict and youth problem behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Child and family studies. 
1997;6(2):233-47. 
10. Masarik AS, Conger RD. Stress and child development: A review of the Family Stress 
Model. Current Opinion in Psychology. 2017;13:85-90. 
11. Prime H, Wade M, Browne DT. Risk and resilience in family well-being during the COVID-
19 pandemic. American Psychologist. 2020;75(5):631-43. 
12. Pietromonaco PR, Collins NL. Interpersonal mechanisms linking close relationships to 
health. American Psychologist. 2017;72(6):531-42. 
13. Kanter JB, Schramm DG. Brief interventions for couples: an integrative review. Family 
Relations. 2018;67(2):211-26. 
14. Finkel EJ, Slotter EB, Luchies LB, Walton GM, Gross JJ. A brief intervention to promote 
conflict reappraisal preserves marital quality over time. Psychological Science. 
2013;24(8):1595-601. 
15. 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. 
16. Fergus K. Theoretical and methodological underpinnings of resilience in couples: Locating 
the ‘We’.  Couple Resilience: Springer; 2015. p. 23-42. 
17. Thabane L, Lancaster G. A guide to the reporting of protocols of pilot and feasibility trials. 
Springer; 2019;5(1). 
18. Lancaster G, Thabane L. Guidelines for reporting non-randomised pilot and feasibility 
studies. Pilot and Feasibility Studies. 2019;5(1). 
19. 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;:i5239. 

 
 
 
 
20. Sabourin S, Valois P, Lussier Y. Development and validation of a brief version of the dyadic 
adjustment scale with a nonparametric item analysis model. Psychological assessment. 
2005;17(1):15-27 
21. 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. Frontiers in 
Psychiatry. 2021;12. 
22. Sekhon M, Cartwright M, Francis JJ. Acceptability of healthcare interventions: an overview 
of reviews and development of a theoretical framework. BMC health services research. 
2017;17(1). 
23. Allgood SM, Seedall RB, Williams RB. Expressive writing and marital satisfaction: a 
writing sample analysis. Family Relations. 2020;69(2):380-91. 
24. Fletcher GJ, Simpson JA, Thomas G. The measurement of perceived relationship quality 
components: A confirmatory factor analytic approach. Personality and Social Psychology 
Bulletin. 2000;26(3):340-54. 
25. 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. Psychological Assessment. 2021;33(4):338-55. 
26. Boyle MH, Georgiades K, Duncan L, Comeau J, Wang L, Team OCHS. The 2014 Ontario 
child health study—methodology. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry. 2019;64(4):237-45. 
27. 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. 
Psychological medicine. 2002;32(6):959-76. 
28. 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).