OurRelationship.Com Effectiveness Study

Not Applicable

Completed

• Conditions: Marital Conflict; Relationship, Marital
• Interventions: Behavioral: OurRelationship Online Program

• Registration Number: NCT03332875
• Lead Sponsor: University of Miami

Brief Summary

The purpose this study is to determine the continued reach and effectiveness of the OurRelationship.com program once paid advertising and payment for participation ceases. The answer to this question is essential to determining the sustainability of web-based interventions for couples. Specifically, this study has four aims:

1. Examine continued level of initial interest in the study, as measured by number of initial visits to the website, time spent on the page, and number of couples signing up for the study.

2. Measure any changes in the characteristics of the individuals expressing interest in the study, including demographics (e.g., race, ethnicity, education), relationship functioning (e.g., relationship satisfaction, previous help-seeking), and individual functioning (e.g., depression, anxiety)

3. Determine completion rates and effectiveness of the program once payments for participation have been removed.

4. Determine whether having a single Skype/phone call with a coach (rather than the four calls that were used in the NIH trial) significantly degrades completion rates.

Detailed Description

Not available

Basic Information
|
Recruitment & Eligibility
|
Study & Design

Study Timeline

• Study Start: 2014-06-15
• Primary Completion: 2015-07-01
• Study Completion: 2015-07-01
• Study First Submitted: 2017-10-23
• Status Verified: 2017-11
• Study First Submitted QC: 2017-11-01
• Last Update Submitted: 2017-11-01
• Study First Posted: 2017-11-06
• Last Update Posted: 2017-11-06

Recruitment & Eligibility

• Status: COMPLETED
• Sex: All
• Target Recruitment: 712

Inclusion Criteria

• Currently in a heterosexual relationship
• Married, Engaged, or living with partner for 6 months or more
• Living in the United States
• Both partners score at least 0.5 standards below the community mean on relationship satisfaction

Read More

Exclusion Criteria

• Clinically significant intimate partner violence
• Younger than 18 or older than 64 years of age
• Reporting infidelity in last three months
• Reporting severe suicidal ideation in last three months

Read More

Study & Design

• Study Type: INTERVENTIONAL
• Study Design: PARALLEL

Arm && Interventions

Group	Intervention	Description
OurRelationship - 4 Coach Calls	OurRelationship Online Program	OurRelationship online program plus four calls with a coach.
OurRelationship - 1 Coach Call	OurRelationship Online Program	OurRelationship online program plus a single call with a coach.

Primary Outcome Measures

Name	Time	Method
Relationship satisfaction	Change between baseline and the end of the intervention (approx. 2 months later)	Relationship satisfaction as measured by the Couple Satisfaction Inventory, 16-item (Funk \& Rogge, 2007; http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.21.4.572). Higher scores on this scale indicate greater satisfaction. Total scores range from 0 to 81, with a score below 51.5 indicating clinical distress. Internal consistency (alpha = 0.98) and convergent validity are strong.

Secondary Outcome Measures

Name	Time	Method
Anxiety symptoms	Change between baseline and the end of the intervention (approx. 2 months later)	Anxiety symptoms, as measured by the Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale-7 (GAD-7; Spitzer, Kroenke, Williams, \& Lowe; DOI: 10.1001/archinte.166.10.1092). Scores on this measure range from 0 to 21, with higher scores indicating greater anxiety symptoms. Sensitivity (89%), specificity (82%), and criterion validity are excellent for this measure.
Depressive symptoms	Change between baseline and the end of the intervention (approx. 2 months later)	Depressive symptoms as measured by the 10-item Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D-10). Higher scores on this scale indicate greater depressive symptoms. The scale has been shown to have excellent sensitivity, specificity, and internal consistency (e.g., Irwin, Artin, \& Oxman, 1999; doi:10.1001/archinte.159.15.1701).