Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

  • Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Couples and parenting dynamics during Covid-19 pandemic: A systematic review of the literature

  • Maria Leonor Sentieiro ,

    Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft

    leonor_sentieiro@hotmail.com

    Affiliations Faculty of Psychology, University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal, Faculty of Psychology, University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal, CICPSI, Faculdade de Psicologia, Universidade de Lisboa, Alameda da Universidade, Lisboa, Portugal

    ⨯
  • Luana Cunha Ferreira,

    Roles Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Validation, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliations Faculty of Psychology, University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal, CICPSI, Faculdade de Psicologia, Universidade de Lisboa, Alameda da Universidade, Lisboa, Portugal

    ⨯
  • Mariana Pires de Miranda,

    Roles Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Ispa–Instituto Universitário, Lisbon, Portugal

    ⨯
  • Beatriz Araújo Vitória

    Roles Formal analysis, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliations Faculty of Psychology, University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal, Faculty of Psychology, University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal, CICPSI, Faculdade de Psicologia, Universidade de Lisboa, Alameda da Universidade, Lisboa, Portugal

    ⨯

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic constituted a public health crisis bound to impact couples, parents, and families globally. However, the literature on the impacts of COVID-19 in families is not yet integrated. This systematic review aims to (1) provide an overview of how the COVID-19 pandemic potentially changed family systems, especially the couples and parenting dynamics, as well as (2) integrate inconsistent findings, and, finally, (3) define new avenues for research and clinical practice. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were defined for this review. The data was collected in bibliographic databases using a combination of keywords. The study includes empirical research published in English, Spanish, Italian, or Portuguese, appearing in peer-reviewed journals, focusing on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the functioning of different-gender or same-gender couples, married or cohabitating, or cohabitating parents with children aged 2 to 18, between April 2020 and December 2023. Within 381 articles, 58 studies met the inclusion criteria, which 50 were quantitative, four qualitative, and four mixed methods studies. A qualitative thematic analysis of the reviewed articles identified 12 categories that were organized by stress sources, mediators, and outcomes. There is consistent evidence across the literature showing some sources of stress during COVID-19, such as Gender Inequalities (e.g., Unequal Division of Household Duties and Lack of Support for Mothers), and External Stress. Also, we identified some themes on the mediators such as Coping Strategies (e.g., Dyadic Support, Communication as a Mediator and Adaptation to New Daily Routines) and finally as outcomes, Lower Psychological Well-Being, and Relational Growth. However, some inconsistencies were found in Relationship (In) Satisfaction, Sexual Functioning and Communication as an Outcome. Explorations of moderators showed that these inconsistencies should be understood in reference to (1) quality assessment (2) coping and (3) income. After conducting a comprehensive analysis of inconsistencies, our study revealed no notable differences in either relationship satisfaction or sexual frequency before and after the COVID-19 pandemic. Notably, a decline in sexual satisfaction was observed during the COVID-19 period. No conclusive associations were identified between income, relationship satisfaction, sexual satisfaction, sexual frequency, and stress related to COVID-19. Nonetheless, our observations indicated that individuals with moderate or high income, in conjunction with the implementation of effective coping strategies, exhibited a diminished impact of COVID-19-related stress on both relationship satisfaction and sexual functioning. Future studies should focus on a dyadic perspective at various stages of the family cycle, including longitudinal perspectives, as well as studies focused on the role of dyadic coping during times of crises. Findings must be considered with caution because not all studies had equal methodological rigor.

Citation: Sentieiro ML, Cunha Ferreira L, Pires de Miranda M, Araújo Vitória B (2025) Couples and parenting dynamics during Covid-19 pandemic: A systematic review of the literature. PLoS ONE 20(2): e0315417. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0315417

Editor: Chrysanthi Lioupi, University of Nicosia, CYPRUS

Received: February 7, 2024; Accepted: November 26, 2024; Published: February 18, 2025

Copyright: © 2025 Sentieiro et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: Most of relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files (Table 1 presents the relevant findings of each study). This is a systematic review of the literature, the data is available on the selected articles, referenced at the end of the manuscript.

Funding: This work received Portuguese national funding from FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, I.P, through the Research Center for Psychological Science of the Faculty of Psychology, University of Lisbon (UID/04527: Centro de Investigação em Ciência Psicológica).

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

On the 18th of March 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared COVID-19 a pandemic and a global public health emergency. Strict isolation measures were implemented worldwide to prevent the spread of the virus, resulting in lengthy lockdowns and social distancing measures impacting individuals, families, and society. Forced cohabitation led families to alter their dyadic and family-level dynamics. The objectives of this systematic review are to (a) describe relevant changes; (b) integrate inconsistent findings, and ultimately (c) define new avenues for both research and clinical practice.

The family system and stress

The family system is a self-regulating system, that maintains stability through negative feedback and enables change through positive feedback [1]. A family consists of subsystems with specific roles and boundaries [2], like conjugality or parenting, and that adapts continually to maintain stability and allow change [2], underlying the importance of communication between family members [3].

The classic family life cycle starts with single adults forming couples, progressing through stages such as families without children, families with young children, and families with adolescents [4–6].

Is this literature review, we will particularly focus on three of the life cycles: families without children, families with young children and families with adolescents, as differences in household type during the lockdowns show that couples with children and lone parents were described as more materially vulnerable and subjectively constrained [7]. Across time, the family undergoes distinct cycles, steered by expected challenges and specificities that are inherent in its growth, in which families with adolescents require more flexibility in the family boundaries to accommodate their children’s independence while caring for the older generation [6].

However, there are also changes that families must cope with that go beyond the expected developmental process, such as coping with external stressors. Ecological Systems Theory [8] helps to understand the complex and multisystemic interplay between family system and subsystems, the societal and chronological contexts. This theory includes the microsystem (immediate environment), mesosystem (interactions between microsystems), exosystem (indirectly affecting environments), macrosystem (cultural and societal context) and chronosystem (temporal context) [8].

Applying Bronfenbrenner’s framework aids to understanding the COVID-19 pandemic’s impact on families [9] on the living system that is a family [10]. This review starts by describing the specific contextual developments that took place during lockdowns in households composed of couples and families with children, living in forced cohabitation.

The pandemic context

China was the first country to declare confinement in late February 2020, followed by several Asian countries. In Europe, the first localized lockdown took place on late February in Italy, followed by several of other countries in March 2020. In the American continent, localized lockdown also started from the middle of March. Most confinement periods lasted until March 2021.

The pandemic exacerbated pre-existing inequalities in accessing healthcare [11–13], unemployment [14, 15], financial instability [16–19] and confinement stress [20–22].

Families were forced into prolonged cohabitation for long periods [23]. Emotional cohabitation, whether with partners or family of origin, became crucial, as pre-pandemic research indicated complex consequences during catastrophes [24]. Research on the pandemic’s impact on families focused on three areas: (a) identifying risks and challenges [7, 21, 25, 26], (b) factors enabling positive vs. negative adaptation to the crisis [27–30], (c) changes in mental health [31–37] and relationship dynamics [38–43].

The present research follows a similar structure: stressors, processes and outcomes. We start with level one, focusing on stressors–COVID-19 blurred boundaries between home and work [44], as well as limited global travel [45], affecting family and extended family contact, with increased risk of prolonged grief [46] and adolescents [47], as well as parents juggled remote work and homeschooling [45, 48, 49].

The second level explores the processes of family adaptation, that requires a complex interplay between stressors, available resources at individual, relational and family levels, and the family’s appraisal of these stressors [50, 51], influenced by coping models [50–53] and resources [54]. Research with families focused (a) not only on individual models [55] and individual strategies (e.g., problem solving or emotional coping), (b) but also on relational models [56–58] and on the dyadic strategies established by the couple (e.g., problem-focused, or emotion-focused dyadic support), c) and on community resources [59–61].

Finally, the third level encompasses a wide range of outcomes–family members experienced psychopathology [32], such as anxiety [35], depression [36, 37], post-traumatic stress, lower levels of quality of life and general stress [37], increased worry, lack of attention and irritability [31, 33, 34]. Additionally, evaluation of family relations [40–42], in which the literature we find highlights into family resilience with an increase of positive family dynamics [62] to negative consequences [40, 42], ranging from difficulty in eating behaviours or in physical activity [63], to accounts of interpersonal violence [64, 65].

Inconsistencies in data and insufficient literature integration were address by several reviewers, on psychological impact [66] and in specific groups [67]. This study identifies a gap in the literature on COVID-19’s impact on families, focusing on vulnerable households: couples and families in forced cohabitation.

Method

The present study is a systematic review of the literature that aims to [1] provide an overview of how the COVID-19 pandemic potentially changed family systems, especially the couples and parenting dynamics, as well as [2] integrate inconsistent findings, and, finally, [3] define new avenues for research and clinical practice. To explore the hypothesis of the study quality, we conducted a quality assessment (QuaDS) assessing the theorical framework, methodology, research design and sample characteristics. We undertook a systematic review of the literature that did not focus on meta-analysis results, given the unavailability of data and heterogeneity of design.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Following the systematic reviews guidelines outlined by CRD (2009), articles must satisfy the following inclusion criteria to qualify for this review: (a) published in English, Spanish, Italian or Portuguese, because it is the languages known by the research team; (b) published in a journal with peer review; (c) designed as empirical studies (either quantitative, qualitative or mixed methods); (d) targeting the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on couples functioning with different-gender couples or same-gender couples, married or living together; or with cohabitating parents (at least 90% of the sample) with children between 2 and 18 years old and (f) published between April 2020 to December 2023. The study excluded four types of studies: (a) those involving parents of children with chronic illnesses or prior conditions, due to the added stressors and unique dynamics; (b) parents of newborns born during the COVID-19 pandemic, as this does not align with the aim of comprehending the transition to parenthood; (c) studies with less than 10 participants, to ensure the accuracy and validity of data and its accuracy; and (d) studies that investigate the outcomes of family or couple therapy, as the aim is not to investigate the seeking of professional help by families and couples.

Procedure

To identify relevant literature for our review, we conducted a systematic literature search across four databases following the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) (2020) [68–70] statement and the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) (2009) protocol [71, 72]. Various strategies were utilized to retrieve applicable studies, ensuring a comprehensive review of the literature. First, a computerized search of bibliographic databases PubMed, EBSCO, Google Scholar, and Web of Science was conducted using the following search combinations for the title and abstract: "Couples" AND "COVID-19 Pandemic"; "Romantic Relationships" AND "COVID-19 Pandemic"; "Marital Satisfaction" AND "COVID-19 Pandemic"; "Parental Functioning" AND "COVID-19 Pandemic"; "Parenting" AND "COVID-19 Pandemic"; "Family" AND "COVID-19 Pandemic". In this review, specific journals were not directly consulted for literature related to the review. Instead, we utilized comprehensive databases described above to ensure a wide-ranging and unbiased collection of relevant studies.

A search query was conducted in the Web of Science (Clarivate, 2022) online database to identify relevant studies. This decision was based on a two-step approach. First, a review of similar literature revealed that using multiple databases is the most common practice to ensure comprehensive topic coverage. Second, during the query design phase, extensive trial tests were performed on both Scopus and Web of Science. Web of science consistently produced results that better matched our query criteria, making it a more suitable choice for our review. Therefore, we decided to focus exclusively on Web of science.

Study selection: Decision marking

The first step on the decision making involved entering the keywords into online data bases. Before screening, we removed the duplicate records. Subsequently, the titles of the articles were reviewed and based on their relevance, they were either advanced to the next stage or excluded. Following this title-based selection, the abstracts were thoroughly read to assess whether they met the inclusion criteria of our systematic review. After this dual stage screening process, which involved both title and abstract evaluation, the remaining articles were full to ensure they satisfied all the inclusion criteria for the study (See Fig 1 in S1 Fig). Articles were removed if including having less than 90% of couples living together or having divorced parents. Fifty-eight articles were selected for final comprehensive analysis after a careful review of all remaining articles and analysis of their full texts (See Fig 1 in S1 Fig).

Data collection process

Data extraction was performed by reviewing general study information (author name, article title, citation, type of publication, geographical area, and funding source), study characteristics (aim/objectives of the study, study design, study inclusion and exclusion criteria and recruitment procedures) and participant characteristics (age, gender, ethnicity, marital and cohabitation status, number of children). The method and instruments of each study were analysed for accuracy. After selecting the final articles, authors carefully reviewed the selected and relevant articles, extracted the data, and organised the relevant information. The final evidence table is presented in Table 1 - in this section, we present the author’s name and year of publication, the number of participants in each study, the study design, the geographical area, the data collection time and the main findings.

thumbnail
Download:
Table 1. Summary of baseline characteristics and outcomes of included studies.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0315417.t001

Results

Overall mapping of the papers

We start this section by describing an outline map of the overall findings with respect to study methodology, location, and article quality. As for the design of the research, quantitative studies were the majority, but qualitative studies, and mixed-method studies were also included (See Table 1). Of the quantitative studies, the majority were cross-sectional, and few were longitudinal. As for the qualitative studies, all were cross-sectional [45, 92, 97, 99] and the data collection instruments used were mostly individual semi-structured interviews [92, 99], dyadic interviews [45] and open-ended questions [97]. Regarding mixed-method studies, on the qualitative section some authors used individual semi-structured interviews [90, 102, 121] and on the quantitative section questionnaires were the most common instruments [81, 90, 102, 121]. Studies were longitudinal [90, 121] and were cross-sectional [81, 102].

According to geographical distribution, most studies were conducted in Asia (n = 19) and America (n = 20), followed by Europe (n = 13), Oceania (n = 4) and Africa (n = 2). The total number of participants across all the studies were n = 45572.

Quality assessment results

Due to the novelty of couple and family research in association with COVID-19, studies were still scattered and showed great heterogeneity in terms of study design. Therefore, the Quality Assessment with Diverse Studies (QuADS) [128, 129] was applied to prevent bias and provide a clear indication of the strength of evidence and standards for future research. Studies were not excluded from this review based on quality, as there were no predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. All studies were reported, and quality was assessed using 13 items and graded from zero to three.

Following Harrison and colleagues’ (2021) guidelines [128], the quality analysis of the articles was conducted in two phases. In the first phase, two authors performed an individual and independent quality analysis of the studies (n = 43) (See S1–S3 Tables). In this phase, the authors first selected five studies to perform the quality assessment independently and discussed the application of criteria. Once a common understanding was reached, authors independently reviewed all remaining articles. As the levels of agreement were found to be high, in a second phase, only the main author conducted the quality analysis of the studies (n = 15). The final percentage of study quality is presented, ranging from low quality to very good quality (See S1–S3 Tables).

Articles were analysed through NVIVO12, and 13 codes were identified, corresponding to each item and the subcodes according to the score (for example, if an article scored 1 on item 5, it would go to the subcode identified). Articles were evaluated as demonstrating very good (75% to 100%), good (50–75%), medium (25% to 50%) and low quality (0 to 25%). Finally, an interrater analysis was carried on using percent agreement index [129] which showed 91.48% of ratings between the two authors was the same. Most of the studies were classified as good, ten as very good and six as medium (See S1–S3 Tables).

Thematic analysis results

A qualitative analysis was conducted to identify main themes from key findings in the reviewed articles, following Braun and Clarke’s (2006) thematic analysis approach [130]. In a first moment, data was analysed through hierarchical organisation of initial codes. Initial codes were created inspired by Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory [8], depicting the systems affected by Covid-19—microsystem, mesosystem, macrosystem, exosystem and chronosystem. We also integrated the Stress Model Process [51] in the organization of themes, based on the three elements of stress: 1) sources, 2) mediators, and 3) outcomes. Each code was subdivided and organised into sub-codes. During the second round of data analysis, greater flexibility was enabled in generating the codes using open coding [131, 132]. This involves generating categories in an open and line-by-line manner based on the data, whilst constantly questioning the information presented [132]. After modifying the codes, an inter-categorical analysis was initiated, followed by axial coding involving continuous comparison between categories [132]. Furthermore, the interactions between category dimensions were explored, resulting in the renaming, and identification of new relationships, and even new categories. We also constructed cognitive maps to categorise and formulate new connections that became apparent. Ultimately, the systematic coding facilitated the identification of a range of categories and subcategories regarding the data, to address the research inquiries.

The thorough literature review allowed a categorization of the key domains that appear to have influenced parenting and couples functioning during the COVID-19 pandemic. Nine categories were identified through the thematic analysis. The classification of stress themes based on their sources, mediators, outcomes, and the corresponding systems in which they occurred (See S4 Table). In the following section, we describe the themes organized by stress elements, beginning with the themes that arose as stress sources. Subsequently, we outline the themes that acted as mediators and finally, the themes that surfaced as outcomes.

Themes on stress sources as result of COVID-19 pandemic

Two stress sources categories were identified—Gender Inequalities (n = 14) and External Stress (n = 15). The Gender Inequalities category is within the macrosystem of the couple, affected by domestic and parental duties and social norms, including two subcategories. The first subcategory named Unequal Division of Household Duties (n = 11), refers to an unequal sharing of household management tasks and parental responsibilities in providing primary care for children. The second subcategory named Lack of Support in Maternity (n = 3), defined as the absence of support, particularly with regards to childcare and social isolation. Regarding the External Stress (n = 15), emerged as well in the macrosystem and is known as the emotional strain and mental tension experienced by couples and parents in adverse and demanding circumstances such as the COVID-19 pandemic. The categories are detailed below.

Unequal division of household duties (n = 11)

The distribution of household duties during the COVID-19 pandemic was evaluated in eleven studies [65, 79, 83, 90, 93, 97, 99, 115, 119, 122, 126]. Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic crisis, a noticeable change in the division of housework and childcare [99] was observed. On the one hand, one of the emerging points within this category, as indicated by seven studies, was the gender differences between men and women in the allocation of household work during the COVID-19 outbreak [65, 79, 83, 90, 93, 115, 126]. While there was an increase in fathers’ involvement in domestic tasks, particularly in task allocation, mothers continued to provide more housework and childcare than fathers [65, 79, 83, 90, 93, 115, 122, 126]. The overwhelming domestic and parental burden, in both genders, was reflected in reduced satisfaction [126] and well-being, as well as in work performance [115]—We found an impact of working remotely [119] in family dynamics [99].

Lack of support for mothers (n = 3)

The lack of support for mothers during the pandemic led to feelings of loneliness, isolation, and inadequate support [89, 92, 99]. On one hand, the significance of support systems in parenting practices was evident [92, 99] and on the other hand, a link was observed with more hostile parenting practices and more negative attitudes towards the pandemic [89].

External stress (n = 15)

Elevated stress levels were identified and had a negative impact in dyadic dynamics [75, 81, 89, 91, 92, 94, 99, 101, 104, 117, 120], such as a decline in daily positive mood and an upswing in negative mood amongst couples [75]. The consequences of external stress were not exclusive to couples, as we will mention in the section after.

Focusing on parental stress [80, 82, 86, 89, 91, 92, 101, 109, 117], we identified some contributing factors: (a) household disorganization and chaos [117] and (b) the perception of the pandemic as overwhelming and burdensome [92]. The consequence of parental stress includes (a) a reduction on engagement in their children’s activities; (b) less attention and fewer time spent together; (c) more harsh parenting [82]; (d) less responsive parenting [117] and (e) more conflict in the intimate relationship [80]–those results in a decline in emotional regulation among children [86, 117], more work-family conflict and less balance [99] and parent depression [86].

Themes on the mediators during COVID-19 pandemic

Coping Strategies (n = 21) emerged in the mesosystem, as dyadic coping skills, such as Dyadic Support (n = 14), Communication as Mediator (n = 4) and Adaptation to New Daily Routines (n = 3). Dyadic Support is characterised by one partner helping the other to cope with and overcome problems or challenges, including those caused by COVID-19. Communication as a Mediator (n = 3) is defined as the process by which couples send and receive information, verbal or non-verbal, within the relationship. Adaptation to New Daily Routines (n = 3), that describes the main day-to-day changes and transformations in couple and parenting dynamics during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Coping strategies (n = 21)

As for the coping mechanisms recognized in the themes, we will first consider dyadic support, before turning our attention to communication and finally to strategies to adapt to new routines imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Dyadic support (n = 14)

Dyadic support was considered a pivotal element in aiding families to cope with the demanding and precarious circumstances posed by the COVID-19 pandemic [111] whilst also proving to be vital for personal development throughout the pandemic period [121]. On the one hand, positive dyadic support reflected on less dyadic conflicts [61, 80], more relationship satisfaction [73, 76, 77, 124], increased gratitude within the relationship, and on more quality in the relationship through the reduction of reducing anxiety levels caused by confinement [95, 111], promoting psychological well-being [75]. On the contrary, negative dyadic coping had a negative impact on relational satisfaction [75, 91, 120] as it accentuated negative mood and had a greater impact on relationships compared to positive dyadic coping [84].

Communication as mediator (n = 3)

Communication emerged as pivotal for couples to handle challenges during the COVID-19 and as a tactic to manage conflict resolution [81, 85], defined as an inter-communication as a psychosocial strategy during conflict management, such as allocating sufficient time for enjoyable active learning [81], negotiating, accepting, and nurturing their relationship cultures [45].

Adaptation to new daily routines (n = 3)

Some changes imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic included the establishment of new routines at home [97, 99] as well as a change in family schedules [92]. Jones [97] found changes in dependency processes, such as the establishment of new routines at home. Kolo and colleagues [99] found that participants reported the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in terms of daily routines, and Hood et al. [92] showed that family schedules changed.

Themes on outcomes effects because of COVID-19

Focusing on the outcomes from the COVID-19 pandemic, we found Lower Psychological Well-Being (n = 20), as particularly salient in the microsystem, as it reflects individual emotional distress. At the mesosystemic level of the couple, categories such as Relationship (In) Satisfaction (n = 21), Sexual Functioning (n = 10), and Communication as an Outcome (n = 4) have emerged. The Relationship (In) Satisfaction is referred interaction patterns exhibited by couples that affect their satisfaction. The Sexual Functioning category represents the perception of the couples on several sexual dynamics, such as frequency, intimacy, desire, satisfaction, arousal, pleasure, and individual practices (e.g., masturbation). Finally, Communication as a Process is defined as a dimension of the couple that was affected by the pandemic in both positive and negative ways. Relational Growth in the Chronosystem (n = 4) emerged as the ability of couples to bounce back and surmount challenges and obstacles during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Lower psychological well-being (n = 20)

Several studies demonstrated psychological difficulties during the COVID-19 crisis [65, 61, 74, 81, 84, 86, 89, 97–100, 102, 103, 108, 110, 111, 113–115, 126]. We also found gender differences in individual well-being, with women reporting inferior levels of well-being [65, 74, 98, 102, 108, 111, 126], especially in women with children [86, 102, 115, 126].

Furthermore, it became evident that these dynamics were reflected in relations, sexual dynamics, and parental interactions. Concerning to relationship dynamics, we found a positive relationship between individual well-being and relationship quality [74, 81], particularly among women [74], that highlight the importance of individual well-being in relation to relationship dynamics [110, 114].

Focusing on the interinfluences between personal well-being and sexual dynamics, some studies have found a negative impact of psychological distress on sexual dysfunctions [98], on pleasure, desire, and arousal [108]. Conversely, elevated levels of personal well-being were reflected in the quality, intimacy, and passion within sexual relationships [114]. Finally, some studies found higher maternal anxiety [89], less relational well-being [113], and poorer parenting behaviours, including those that are hostile [89], as well as parenting being the primary influence on individual and relational well-being [113].

Relationship (In) satisfaction (n = 21)

Several studies examined the levels of satisfaction among couples during the COVID-19 pandemic [73, 74, 77–78, 80, 85, 87, 88, 100, 102–104, 110, 112, 114, 116, 122–125], however the results were not consistent. Focusing on the studies that focused on relationship satisfaction before and after the pandemic, some studies suggested that the COVID-19 pandemic did not affect the satisfaction levels of couples [76, 78, 102, 104, 114, 123–125] and three studies found a decline in relationship satisfaction during the COVID-19 crisis [77, 112, 116]. Two studies found that changes in relationship satisfaction that varied according to relational processes [73] and to the perception of the pandemic as a source of conflict in the relationship [88]. Other studies found high levels of marital satisfaction, namely on relationship quality [103], although not comparing the pre- and post-pandemic periods [80, 85, 100, 110]. Others found that couples were moderately satisfied with their relationship [74, 120, 123]. Some factors were identified as moderators: sexual satisfaction, relationship validation, not having children, perception of fairness in the power dynamics on the relationship, social functioning, not having physical or sleep problems [74, 87], high levels of income [120] and doing activities together as a couple [103].

Sexual functioning (n = 10)

Ten studies analysed couples’ sexual experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic [74, 87, 97, 98, 105–108, 118, 127], but focused on different domains. At an individual level, there was an increase in individual sexual practices both in men and women, but higher in men [98].

At the relationship level, we found a positive impact of sexual satisfaction on relational satisfaction during the COVID-19 pandemic [74, 87]. One of the findings indicated a decrease in sexual satisfaction compared to the pre-pandemic period [98, 105, 106], particularly among women [108], because of the lower levels of well-being being associated with a higher risk of sexual difficulties [105, 118]. Factors contributing to moderate levels of sexual satisfaction included lower relationship invalidation, no children in the home and higher perceived fairness of relationship power [87].

In terms of sexual frequency, one study found a decrease [107] and two studies found no differences before and after the pandemic [74, 127] and one study found an increase on weekly sexual frequency [118]. Two studies reported no changes in sexual desire, arousal, and orgasm [108, 127] comparing to before the pandemic.

In terms of quality of sexual life, one study found a moderate level of quality reported in women and it was influenced by age, education of the spouse as well as the sexual frequency before and during the COVID-19 pandemic [107]. The study suggested that couples with university degrees and specifically women whose partner had a university degree had higher levels of quality of sexual life. Men with a nuclear family had higher levels of quality of sexual life.

Concerning intimacy, one study found both positive and negative changes in intimacy, in which participants described having both more and less time to connect [97] and other found no differences on emotional bonding during COVID-19 pandemic [127].

Communication as an outcome (n = 4)

Some studies have reported changes in the quality and frequency of communication in couples and families during the COVID-19 pandemic. On the one hand, two studies found a decrease in the communication quality, in a more and less communicative engagement with the partner, as well as more negative and more positive valence of conversations [97] such as severe irritation and less open and more aggressive communication, affected relationship quality over time [96]. On the other hand, other study found that communication improved during the COVID-19 pandemic [123], possibly due to fewer external demands such as commuting and travelling in couples with children. Another study found that COVID-19 pandemic concerns were reflected in couples’ stress communication, which was positively correlated with dyadic coping responses, but negatively correlated with psychological well-being [84].

Relational growth (n = 4)

During the COVID-19 pandemic, couples engaged in dynamic processes of negotiation and reconstruction [45], highlighting the importance of coping strategies as promoters of resilience, such as creating new rituals to express care towards their partner [45, 81]. One factor contributing to the relationship satisfaction was attributing any relationship issues to external factors [104]. This led to a decrease in spillover processes, resulting in higher levels of marital satisfaction and fewer negative behaviours.

Furthermore, Chakraborty et al. [81] discovered that psychological distress can have a beneficial effect on a couple’s adjustment during a crisis by promoting affection, emotional support, reliable alliance, satisfaction, approval, and companionship, thereby enhancing relational resilience [81]. More importantly, the study determined psycho-social methods for dealing with COVID-19 challenges, such as communication for conflict resolution, offering emotional support, and respecting personal space. Additionally, self-introspection through dialogue and self-realisation, along with inter-communication improvement through active listening and making time for leisure activities, were identified. Finally, Kolo et al. [99] highlighted the importance of prioritisation, scheduling and time management as crucial factors that aided couples in balancing work and life. These findings imply that these elements could offer valuable insights for interventions aimed at supporting couples during a family crisis [99].

Integrating inconsistent results

Given the aims of this literature review, the inconsistent findings are discussed in terms of the quality of the papers and the moderating variables. There are three categories where we describe inconsistent results, all of which are presented as outcomes of the process and included as part of the mesosystem: Relationship (In) Satisfaction, Sexual Functioning, and Communication as an Outcome.

Aim 1. Quality assessment

We first started by crossing the studies with different results against the quality matrix. From the studies reporting good or very good quality, we observed that some changes were identified in relationship (in) satisfaction. On the one hand, the studies reporting good quality found no disparities in relationship satisfaction before and after the COVID-19 pandemic (7 out of 8), fewer studies found a decrease in relationship satisfaction (3 out of 3), other studies found high levels of satisfaction (3 out of 5) and finally other studies found moderate levels (2 out of 2). A pattern was identified, with seven studies reporting both good methodological quality and no changes in relationship satisfaction during the pandemic (See Table 6 in S4 Table).

Despite different record of the changes on sexual functioning (both positive and negative changes), most of the studies were classified as of good quality. Several dimensions of sexual functioning have been identified, including sexual satisfaction and sexual frequency. We identified a pattern and observed that sexual satisfaction (3 out of 4) decreased during COVID-19, and that sexual frequency did not change (3 out of 5) (See Table 7 in S4 Table).

Finally, as to communication as an outcome, a pattern was identified, with the one study reporting a positive impact being of lower quality that the two that reported a decrease in communication ((See Table 8 in S4 Table). As observed during the pandemic there was a negative impact on the level of communication.

Aim 2. Moderators

To further explore underlying factors of the inconsistent of findings as to couple (in) satisfaction, sexual satisfaction, and communication as an output we will consider two possible hidden moderators. Considering social reports on the economic impact [133, 134] of the COVID-19 pandemic, we will explore the moderating effect of income—a macro variable of the pandemic—on these three categories of mesosystem outcomes. We will also consider the role of coping as a crucial process for crisis intervention at a secondary level.

As to relationship satisfaction, we identified several papers that have information of family income, coping strategies, or both (See Table 9 in S4 Table). We found no clear contribution of income in explaining variations in relationship satisfaction when couples were exposed to COVID-19 pandemic stress–some studies reported that income did not moderate slopes in relationship satisfaction [124], others identified financial problems as a stress factor [103], other did not report any changes in income during the pandemic [74, 80, 125] and further reported high- or average-income families [73, 102, 104]. Moving to our second moderator, seven studies showed that coping strategies (positive or negative) do moderate the relationship between pandemic stressors and relationship satisfaction, thus leading to different relationship outcomes. Finally, in three studies that included information on both coping and income [73, 80, 102], we find that the presence of moderate or high income and the development of coping strategies minimized the impact of COVID-19 stress on relationship satisfaction.

Next, we will present the studies with sexual functioning as a dependent variable which refer information on income, coping or both (See Table 10 in S4 Table). We found no clear relationship between income and sexual functioning. On the one hand, one study found that low levels of sexual satisfaction were linked to economic losses [98], but other study found no relationship between sexual satisfaction [105] and income. In contrast, moderate levels of sexual satisfaction have been associated with higher income [87]. On the other hand, when no differences in sexual frequency were observed, some studies found that couples tended to have a high income or no changes to the income, and high educational levels [74, 127], and one study found no significant differences [118]. Furthermore, three studies measured both coping, income, and sexual functioning. It appears that the presence of coping strategies and moderate to high income indeed moderated the impact of stress imposed by the pandemic and sexual dynamics [87, 97, 98].

Finally, as to the theme Communication as an Outcome, the only study that have an inconsistent and positive effect of COVID-19 pandemic on communication did not record income and/or coping strategies, so that we cannot move forward in our analysis (See Table 11 in S4 Table).

Discussion

To our knowledge, this is the first systematic review to explore the impact of Covid-19 pandemic on couples and parenting worldwide. From 58 studies across the world, there were 12 themes that interconnected challenges, coping strategies and the impact on parenting and couples during this moment of crisis.

This systematic review of the literature aimed to 1) describe and synthetize the main changes in individual, relationship, and family dynamics during the pandemic; 2) integrate the inconsistent findings and 3) define new routes for research and clinical practice.

Regarding our first goal (to describe the existing thematizes on couples and parenting dynamics during the COVID-19 pandemic), we identified Gender Inequalities and Lack of Support for Mothers relating to how domestic and childcare tasks are divided. This is of particular importance because gender inequalities arise from traditional family models that are structured and operate according to gender roles. This overload of domestic work for women has been described in the literature [135, 136], as a “gender care gap” [137], with repercussions not only on individual well-being [138, 139] but also on the quality of their relationships [140]. We suggest that clinicians should systematically address the division of labour and work-family balance, emphasizing that equitable sharing of responsibilities and improving communication can enhance relationship satisfaction. Additionally, it is important to develop appropriate interventions for mothers, who are a vulnerable group, to address the different dimensions of their overload and risk of mental health issues. This can be achieved by creating programs that offer parental support and reduce psychological distress, hopefully mitigating some of the negative effects of gender inequality. Future investigations should focus on the intersectionality of gender with other factors such as race, socioeconomic status, and single parenthood during crises to understand the unique challenges faced by these groups. This finding also highlights the urgency for the development of more effective support systems, including mental health services, workplace policies, social support networks and community resources. This multifaceted approach advocates for systemic change by targeting policy changes and promoting cultural shifts.

In addition to the stress caused by gender inequalities, external challenges led to high levels of stress in couples and families. Stress can corrode or strengthen relational bonds [141], depending on the resources available [142], on the perception of the situation and on the stress factors [143], that reflect either on maladaptation or relational growth and resilience [143]. In this sense, dyadic support is a significant and relevant aspect highlighted in this review due to existing reduced levels of wellbeing among participants. With effective resources, a period of crisis might carry the potential for positive transformation and present an opportunity for improvement in couples, by building resilience, problem-solving and adaptive skills. Couples can use a crisis as a catalyst for positive change and as a chance to address relational challenges. We believe that the interaction between stress, gender inequalities, and external challenges (e.g., the COVID-19 pandemic) within families depends on the resources available within the dyad. The outcome of this interaction is influenced by how effectively these resources are utilized.

Intimate relationships serve as a context for emotional support and space to alleviate psychological distress, consequently promoting mental and physical health for both family members and couples [144–146]. Also, it is considered a crucial mechanism for overcoming challenges [147] aiding in managing and dealing with stressful situations in a dynamic and reciprocal process [51]. By employing positive coping strategies, relational growth was achieved. We consider that family therapists and other family interventors focus on positive communication skills and assist couples in building an emotionally supportive relational context, which involves both support and stress communication. Since dyadic support becomes particularly important during times of stress, we also believe it is crucial to help couples develop stress management techniques that address both relational and individual stress. Additionally, dyadic support often includes problem-solving skills to address conflicts effectively. Relational growth can emerge from crises, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, when couples foster mutual support and recognize their progress together. Acknowledging families as competent is central to reinforcing positive behaviours and utilizing available resources within the family. Furthermore, since dyadic support is a modifiable dimension, it should be a focus of clinical intervention. Accordingly, therapists can work on changing patterns of dyadic support, communication, validation, and emotional regulation during stressful times. As mentioned before, we found low levels of psychological well-being. Extensive studies conducted during the pandemic have also reported psychological difficulties [31, 33–37]. In the absence of coping strategies and dyadic support, we found a bi-directional relationship between psychological difficulties and couple dynamics [148, 149], also described in the academic field, specifically in parenting [150–152] but also in sexuality [153, 154]. Conversely, insufficient relational satisfaction is reflected in an individual’s well-being [149, 155] and relationship dissatisfaction was found to be strongly linked with emotional distress in both genders [156]. A new aspect that comes to light in this analysis is the effect on work and performance, as previously explored in other research studies [157] and during the COVID-19 pandemic [158]. We believe that this result is a reflection on the gender inequalities and parental overload, as we identify gender-specific challenges, discussed before. Political measures include supportive workplace policies by targeting work-family balance to alleviate the pressure on women and mothers.

Concerning our second goal (integrate inconsistent findings), we found conclusive associations were identified between income, relationship satisfaction, sexual satisfaction, sexual frequency, and stress related to COVID-19. Nonetheless, our observations indicated that individuals with moderate or high income, in conjunction with the implementation of effective coping strategies, exhibited a diminished impact of COVID-19-related stress on both relationship satisfaction and sexual functioning. The effect of coping on the relationship between stressors and marital satisfaction, has been described in the literature as a strong predictor of marital satisfaction [159–161] that confirms our findings. The investigations about relationship between sexual functioning and dyadic coping found that positive dyadic coping has a positive effect on sexual outcomes [161–164].

Regarding income, although we did not find any clear relationship, some studies report that low income can reflect on more fluctuations in marital satisfaction [165], as middle-income couples report both more psychological well-being and dyadic adjustment [166], exerting an important role in marital satisfaction [167–169]. Some factors may contribute to the negative impact of low income on marital satisfaction, namely financial stress [170, 171], financial dependency and difficulties in managing daily life. One possible reason for not finding a moderating effect could be that the families in the study samples maintained their income during the pandemic and may have incurred fewer financial expenses due to lockdown measures, which could have reduced the pressure on the families. Additionally, it is important to note that the primary objective of the studies in this review was not to examine the relationship between income, relational variables, and pandemic-related stress. This socioeconomic vulnerability should be target by public policies to develop support for lower-income individuals and make mental health services available. This can be achieved with public health initiatives as well as workplace policies to improve better work-family balance, as described before, that can be beneficial regardless of income. In the future, academic research should examine how variations in income levels affect the efficacy of different coping strategies and their impact on relationship satisfaction and sexual functioning. Understanding these nuances should better inform targeted therapeutic interventions and policy measures.

Focusing on our third aim (to define new avenues for research and clinical practice), we identified relevant key points: 1) it is essential to identify sources of stress and resources available within families (e.g. coping strategies or socio-demographic characteristics); 2) it is crucial to assess and promote equal sharing of household tasks, as this promotes individual, relational and family well-being and adjustment [172] as well as work-family balance; 3) positive dyadic skills play a central role in the adjustment process and promote resilience and 4) individual well-being needs to be assessed and considered in couple and family therapy.

Regarding the methodological findings, our study included few qualitative studies, so we believe that is important to develop more qualitative studies to capture the perceptions, meanings, and construction of the COVID-19 pandemic experience as a couple and parent, using dyadic interviews. Future investigations should focus on the perspective of both members of the couple and parents at different stages of the family cycle, including longitudinal studies–as all the qualitative studies were cross-sectional. Also, dyadic qualitative studies are greatly needed to understand better the strategies developed to manage childcare demands, division of house duties, and work demands and their respective perception of impact on couple and family quality and satisfaction.

From our perspective, caution should be exercised when considering the findings of the current systematic literature review due to certain limitations. Initially, our study’s research criteria were confined to online databases in peer-reviewed journals as we believed that these publications are more trustworthy and have undergone a thorough review process. Consequently, only peer-reviewed articles were incorporated to ensure that the review’s quality was upheld. Secondly, it is important to recognize the findings while bearing in mind that not all studies had equal methodological rigor.

Conclusion

Couples and parents faced multiple challenges during this worldwide crisis, which varied according to their individual contexts and living conditions, affecting their individual, relational and family well-being. Our review explores the impact of COVID-19 on these dynamics, which are complex and multifaced. With appropriate resources and strategies, families can transform a period of crisis into an opportunity for growth and change. These resources constitute protective factors for the well-being of couples and families, mitigating difficulties and allowing couples to build new meaning, strategies and relational dynamics. It is necessary to reflect on the risk factors (e.g., unequal household duties, low psychological well-being or poor communication) and the urgent need for intervention and prevention in the future contexts of vulnerability and stress. This includes developing communication skills within dyadic support dynamics, establishing self-care routines, prioritizing mental health, and implementing measures to promote gender equality.

Besides identifying the negative and positive impact of COVID-19 pandemic on relational dynamics, we also identify that significant research gaps remain, particularly regarding marginalized groups. This review identifies strategies to help families cope with crises and prevent some of the relational and individual impacts. To our knowledge, this is the first systematic review that mapped the dynamics of cohabitating families during the COVID-19 pandemic. This review may serve to guide professionals intervening with couples and families, as it identified key areas of prevention and intervention.

Supporting information

S1 Checklist. Prisma statement checklist.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0315417.s001

(DOCX)

S1 Fig.

Fig 1. PRISMA flowchart for study selection.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0315417.s002

(PDF)

S1 Table.

Table 1. Quality assessment for selected studies—quality assessment for diverse studies.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0315417.s003

(DOCX)

S2 Table.

Table 2. Quality assessment for selected studies—Quality Assessment for Diverse Studies (QuADS) (2 judges).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0315417.s004

(DOCX)

S3 Table.

Table 3. Quality assessment judge 1 and Table 4. Quality Assessment Judge 2.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0315417.s005

(DOCX)

S4 Table.

Table 5. Thematic analysis categories by elements of stress and systems, Table 6. relationship satisfaction and quality assessment, Table 7. Sexual Functioning and Quality Assessment, Table 8. Communication as an Outcome and Quality Assessment, Table 9. Income and Coping on Relationship Satisfaction, Table 10. Income and Coping on Sexual Functioning and Table 11. Income and Coping on Communication as an Outcome.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0315417.s006

(DOCX)

S5 Table.

Table 12. Inclusion criteria for studies targeting couples and Table 13. Inclusion Criteria for Studies Targeting Parents.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0315417.s007

(DOCX)

S6 Table.

Table 14. Excluded reports for the systematic review of the literature.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0315417.s008

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

The authors are responsible for the consent and writing of the paper.

References

  1. 1. Watzlawick P, Beavin JH. Some formal aspects of communication. American Behavioral Scientist [Internet]. 1967 Apr 1;10(8):4–8. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764201000802
  2. 2. Minuchin S. Families and family therapy. In: Harvard University Press eBooks [Internet]. 1974. Available from: https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674041127
  3. 3. Palazzoli MS, Boscolo L, Cecchin GF, Prata G. Family Rituals A Powerful Tool in Family Therapy. Family Process [Internet]. 1977 Dec 1;16(4):445–53. Available from: pmid:590473
  4. 4. Carter EA, McGoldrick M. The Changing Family Life Cycle: A framework for family therapy [Internet]. 1989. Available from: https://ci.nii.ac.jp/ncid/BA05016464
  5. 5. Relvas AP. O Ciclo Vital da Família. Revista Portuguesa De Filosofia [Internet]. 1997 Jan 1;53(1). Available from: https://philpapers.org/rec/RELOCV
  6. 6. Carter EA, McGoldrick M. The expanded family life Cycle: individual, family, and social perspectives [Internet]. 1998. Available from: https://ci.nii.ac.jp/ncid/BB25106705
  7. 7. Gouveia R, Ramos V, Wall K. Household diversity and the impacts of COVID-19 on families in Portugal. Frontiers in Sociology [Internet]. 2021 Oct 22;6. Available from: pmid:34746295
  8. 8. Bronfenbrenner U, Morris PA. The bioecological model of human development. Handbook of child psychology. 2007 Jun 1;1.
  9. 9. Navarro Góngora J. Algunas reflexiones sobre la atención psicológica en la pandemia de la Covid-19. Mosaico: Revista De La Federación Española De Asociaciones De Terapia Familiar = Journal of the Spanish Federation of Family Therapy Associations,. 2021; 77:29–48.
  10. 10. Von Bertalanffy L. AN OUTLINE OF GENERAL SYSTEM THEORY. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science [Internet]. 1950 Aug 1;1(2):134–65. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/i.2.134
  11. 11. Bambra C, Riordan R, Ford J, Matthews FE. The COVID-19 pandemic and health inequalities. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health [Internet]. 2020 Jun 13; jech-214401. Available from: pmid:32535550
  12. 12. Mishra V, Seyedzenouzi G, Almohtadi A, Chowdhury T, Khashkhusha A, Axiaq A, et al. Health inequalities during COVID-19 and their effects on morbidity and mortality. Journal of Healthcare Leadership [Internet]. 2021 Jan 1;Volume 13:19–26. Available from: pmid:33500676
  13. 13. Stennett M, Tsakos G. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on oral health inequalities and access to oral healthcare in England. British Dental Journal [Internet]. 2022 Jan 28;232(2):109–14. Available from: pmid:35091614
  14. 14. Ahmad M, Khan YA, Jiang C, Kazmi SJH, Abbas SZ. The impact of COVID‐19 on unemployment rate: An intelligent based unemployment rate prediction in selected countries of Europe. International Journal of Finance & Economics [Internet]. 2021 Jan 12;28(1):528–43. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1002/ijfe.2434´
  15. 15. Tetlow G, Pope Dalton. Coronavirus and unemployment. Institute for Government; 2020 May.
    • 16. Bodrud-Doza Md, Shammi M, Bahlman L, Islam ARMdT, Rahman MdM. Psychosocial and Socio-Economic crisis in Bangladesh due to COVID-19 Pandemic: A Perception-Based Assessment. Frontiers in Public Health [Internet]. 2020 Jun 26;8. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2020.00341
    • 17. Fraenkel P, Cho WL. Reaching Up, Down, In, and Around: Couple and Family Coping During the Coronavirus Pandemic. Family Process [Internet]. 2020 Aug 9;59(3):847–64. Available from: pmid:32589265
    • 18. Villatoro AP, Wagner KM, De Snyder VS, Walsdorf AA, Valdez CR. Economic and social consequences of COVID-19 and mental health burden among Latinx young adults during the 2020 pandemic. Journal of Latinx Psychology [Internet]. 2022 Feb 1;10(1):25–38. Available from: pmid:38283106
    • 19. Whitehead M, Taylor‐Robinson D, Barr B. Poverty, health, and covid-19. BMJ [Internet]. 2021 Feb 12; n376. Available from: pmid:33579719
    • 20. García-Rodríguez MT, Juanatey-Rodríguez I, Seijo-Bestilleiro R, González-Martín C. Psycho-emotional distress in children and adolescents in relation to COVID-19 confinement and pandemic: A systematized review. Italian Journal of Pediatrics [Internet]. 2023 Apr 15;49(1). Available from: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13052-023-01450-7
    • 21. Prime H, Wade M, Browne DT. Risk and resilience in family well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic. American Psychologist [Internet]. 2020 Jul 1;75(5):631–43. Available from: pmid:32437181
    • 22. Odriozola-González P, Planchuelo‐Gómez Á, Muñiz MJI, De Luis‐García R. Psychological symptoms of the outbreak of the COVID-19 confinement in Spain. Journal of Health Psychology [Internet]. 2020 Oct 30;27(4):825–35. Available from: pmid:33124471
    • 23. Mari E, Fraschetti A, Lausi G, Pizzo A, Baldi M, Paoli E, et al. Forced Cohabitation during Coronavirus Lockdown in Italy: A Study on Coping, Stress and Emotions among Different Family Patterns. Journal of Clinical Medicine [Internet]. 2020 Dec 1;9(12):3906. Available from: pmid:33272002
    • 24. Lowe SR, Rhodes JE, Scoglio A a J. Changes in marital and partner relationships in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Psychology of Women Quarterly [Internet]. 2012 Feb 2;36(3):286–300. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684311434307
    • 25. Kene P. Mental health implications of the COVID-19 pandemic in India. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy [Internet]. 2020 Sep 1;12(6):585–7. Available from: pmid:32757578
    • 26. Bonaccorsi G, Pierri F, Cinelli M, Flori A, Galeazzi A, Porcelli F, et al. Economic and social consequences of human mobility restrictions under COVID-19. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America [Internet]. 2020 Jun 18;117(27):15530–5. Available from: pmid:32554604
    • 27. Cusinato M, Iannattone S, Spoto A, Poli M, Moretti C, Gatta M, et al. Stress, Resilience, and Well-Being in Italian Children and Their Parents during the COVID-19 Pandemic. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health [Internet]. 2020 Nov 10;17(22):8297. Available from: pmid:33182661
    • 28. Lee WE, Park SW, Weinberger DM, Olson DR, Simonsen L, Grenfell BT, et al. Direct and indirect mortality impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States, March 1, 2020, to January 1, 2022. eLife [Internet]. 2023 Feb 22;12. Available from: pmid:36811598
    • 29. Ayuso L, Requena F, Jiménez-Rodriguez O, Khamis N. The effects of COVID-19 confinement on the Spanish family: adaptation or change? Journal of Comparative Family Studies [Internet]. 2020 Oct 1;51(3–4):274–87. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3138/jcfs.51.3-4.004
    • 30. Chan ACY, Piehler TF, Ho GWK. Resilience and mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic: Findings from Minnesota and Hong Kong. Journal of Affective Disorders [Internet]. 2021 Dec 1; 295:771–80. Available from: pmid:34517251
    • 31. Ezpeleta L, Navarro JB, De La Osa N, Trepat E, Penelo E. Life Conditions during COVID-19 Lockdown and Mental Health in Spanish Adolescents. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health [Internet]. 2020 Oct 7;17(19):7327. Available from: pmid:33036461
    • 32. Huffman EM, Athanasiadis DI, Anton NE, Haskett LA, Doster DL, Stefanidis D, et al. How resilient is your team? Exploring healthcare providers’ well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic. The American Journal of Surgery [Internet]. 2020 Sep 12;221(2):277–84. Available from: pmid:32994041
    • 33. Jiao W, Wang LN, Liu J, Fang SF, Jiao FY, Pettoello‐Mantovani M, et al. Behavioral and Emotional Disorders in Children during the COVID-19 Epidemic. The Journal of Pediatrics [Internet]. 2020 Jun 1; 221:264–266.e1. Available from: pmid:32248989
    • 34. Orgilés M, Morales A, Delvecchio E, Mazzeschi C, Espada JP. Immediate psychological effects of the COVID-19 quarantine in youth from Italy and Spain. Frontiers in Psychology [Internet]. 2020 Nov 6;11. Available from: pmid:33240167
    • 35. Ravens-Sieberer U, Kaman A, Erhart M, Otto C, Devine J, Löffler C, et al. Quality of life and mental health in children and adolescents during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic: results of a two-wave nationwide population-based study. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry [Internet]. 2021 Oct 12;32(4):575–88. Available from: pmid:34636964
    • 36. Wang Y, Shi L, Que JY, Lu Q, Liu L, Lu ZA, et al. The impact of quarantine on mental health status among general population in China during the COVID-19 pandemic. Molecular Psychiatry [Internet]. 2021 Jan 22;26(9):4813–22. Available from: pmid:33483692
    • 37. Xiong J, Lipsitz O, Nasri F, Lui LMW, Gill H, Phan L, et al. Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on mental health in the general population: A systematic review. Journal of Affective Disorders [Internet]. 2020 Dec 1; 277:55–64. Available from: pmid:32799105
    • 38. Günther-Bel C, Puigdesens AV, Carratala E, Torras-Garat S, Testor CP. A mixed‐method study of individual, couple, and parental functioning during the state‐regulated COVID‐19 lockdown in Spain. Family Process [Internet]. 2020 Aug 29;59(3):1060–79. Available from: pmid:32678461
    • 39. Luetke M, Hensel DJ, Herbenick D, Rosenberg M. Romantic relationship conflict due to the COVID-19 pandemic and changes in intimate and sexual behaviors in a nationally representative sample of American adults. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy [Internet]. 2020 Sep 3;46(8):747–62. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/0092623x.2020.1810185
    • 40. Eleuteri S, Alessi F, Petruccelli F, Saladino V. The global impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on individuals’ and couples’ sexuality. Frontiers in Psychology [Internet]. 2022 Jan 6;12. Available from: pmid:35069392
    • 41. Sequeira J. Adaptação e resiliência familiar na crise. Reflexões em torno da pandemia COVID 19. In Congresso (Inter) Nacional Conversas de Psicologia, Coimbra, Portugal 2020.
      • 42. Batista A, Sotero L, Major, Rebelo B, Relvas, editors. Impacto(s) da COVID-19 nas relações parentais e conjugais. CES–Universidade de Coimbra, Portugal
        • 43. Pietromonaco PR, Overall NC. Applying relationship science to evaluate how the COVID-19 pandemic may impact couples’ relationships. American Psychologist [Internet]. 2021 Apr 1;76(3):438–50. Available from: pmid:32700937
        • 44. Medina HRB, Aguirre RC, Coello-Montecel D, Ochoa P, Paredes-Aguirre MI. The Influence of Work–Family Conflict on Burnout during the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Effect of Teleworking Overload. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health [Internet]. 2021 Sep 30;18(19):10302. Available from: pmid:34639602
        • 45. Nuru AK, Bruess CJ. Exploring how couples navigate the COVID-19 pandemic using Wefulness Theory. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships [Internet]. 2021 Aug 6;38(10):2838–62. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075211037742
        • 46. Goveas JS, Shear MK. Grief and the COVID-19 pandemic in older adults. American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry [Internet]. 2020 Oct 1;28(10):1119–25. Available from: pmid:32709542
        • 47. Weinstock L, Dunda D, Harrington H, Nelson H. It’s Complicated—Adolescent grief in the time of COvid-19. Frontiers in Psychiatry [Internet]. 2021 Feb 23;12. Available from: pmid:33708148
        • 48. American Psychological Association. Stress in America 2020: Stress in the time of COVID-19. https://www.apa.org/topics/covid-19 [Internet]. 2020 May [cited 2021 Mar 7]; Available from: https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/stress/2020/stress-in-america-covid.pdf
        • 49. Khan T. Parents’ experiences of home-schooling amid COVID-19 school closures, in London, England. Journal of Early Childhood Research [Internet]. 2022 May 25;20(4):580–94. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/1476718x221098666
        • 50. Lazarus RS PhD, Folkman S PhD. Stress, appraisal, and coping. Springer Publishing Company; 1984.
          • 51. Pearlin LI, Bierman A. Current Issues and Future Directions in Research into the Stress Process. In: Handbooks of sociology and social research [Internet]. 2012. p. 325–40. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4276-5_16
          • 52. Folkman S. The case for positive emotions in the stress process. Anxiety, stress, and coping. 2008 Jan 1;21(1):3–14. pmid:18027121
          • 53. Lazarus RS. Emotions and interpersonal relationships: Toward a person‐centered conceptualization of emotions and coping. Journal of personality. 2006 Feb;74(1):9–46. pmid:16451225
          • 54. McCubbin MA, McCubbin HI. Theoretical orientations to family stress and coping. Treating Stress in Families [Internet]. 1989 Jan 1; Available from: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1989-97469-001
          • 55. Stanisławski K. The coping circumplex model: an integrative model of the structure of coping with stress. Frontiers in Psychology [Internet]. 2019 Apr 16; 10. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00694
          • 56. Coyne JC, Smith DA. Couples coping with a myocardial infarction: a contextual perspective on wives’ distress. Journal of personality and social psychology. 1991 Sep;61(3):404. pmid:1941511
          • 57. Bodenmann G. Dyadic coping and its significance for marital functioning. In: American Psychological Association eBooks [Internet]. 2005. p. 33–49. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1037/11031-002
          • 58. Falconier MK, Kuhn R. Dyadic Coping in Couples: A conceptual integration and a review of the Empirical literature. Frontiers in Psychology [Internet]. 2019 Mar 26;10. Available from: pmid:30971968
          • 59. Beja MJ, Pires De Miranda M. Intervenção em Catástrofe: A Inevitabilidade de uma Leitura Sistémica. In: Manual de Terapia Familiar—Teoria, Avaliação e Intervenção Sistémica. 1st ed. Pactor; 2021. p. 225–36.
            • 60. Carney MA, Chess D, Rascón-Canales M. “There Would Be More Black Spaces”: Care/giving Cartographies during COVID‐19. Medical Anthropology Quarterly [Internet]. 2022 Oct 17;36(4):442–62. Available from: pmid:36250638
            • 61. Lee SJ, Ward KP, Rodriguez CM. Longitudinal Analysis of Short-term changes in relationship Conflict during COVID-19: A risk and Resilience perspective. Journal of Interpersonal Violence [Internet]. 2021 Apr 18;37(15–16):NP14239–61. Available from: pmid:33866855
            • 62. Salvaterra F, Chora M. Relatório de investigação. Research Gate. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Fernanda-Salvaterra2/publication/350838001_Relatorio_de_investigacao_O_que_pensam_e_o_que_sentem_as_familias_em_isolamento_social__Fase_I_Instituto_de_Apoio_a_Crianca/links/60757a7aa5c0b34b72a907c9/Relatorio-de-investigacao-O-que-pensam-e-o-que-sentem-as-familias-em-isolamento-social-Fase-I-Instituto-de-Apoio-a-Crianca.pdf
            • 63. Nguyen TT, Nguyen MH, Pham TT, Le VTT, Nguyen TT, Luong TC, et al. Negative impacts of COVID-19 induced lockdown on changes in eating behavior, physical activity, and mental health as modified by digital healthy diet literacy and eHealth literacy. Frontiers in Nutrition [Internet]. 2021 Nov 12;8. Available from: pmid:34869540
            • 64. Arenas‐Arroyo E, Fernández-Kranz D, Nollenberger N. Intimate partner violence under forced cohabitation and economic stress: Evidence from the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Public Economics [Internet]. 2021 Feb 1; 194:104350. Available from: pmid:35702337
            • 65. Agüero JM. COVID-19 and the rise of intimate partner violence. World Development [Internet]. 2020 Sep 29; 137:105217. Available from: pmid:33012955
            • 66. Prati G, Mancini AD. The psychological impact of COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns: a review and meta-analysis of longitudinal studies and natural experiments. Psychological Medicine [Internet]. 2021 Jan 1;51(2):201–11. Available from: pmid:33436130
            • 67. Sun P, Wang M, Song T, Wang Y, Luo J, Chen L, et al. The Psychological Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Health Care Workers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Frontiers in Psychology [Internet]. 2021 Jul 8;12. Available from: pmid:34305703
            • 68. PRISMA [Internet]. Available from: http://prisma-statement.org/prismastatement/Checklist.aspxPRISMA [Internet]. Available from: http://prisma-statement.org/prismastatement/Checklist.aspx
              • 69. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann T, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ [Internet]. 2021 Mar 29; n71. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
              • 70. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow CD, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JPA, et al. The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies that Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration. PLOS Medicine [Internet]. 2009 Jul 21;6(7): e1000100. Available from: pmid:19621070
              • 71. University of York. Systematic Reviews. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. University of York; 2008.
                • 72. Booth AL, Wright K, Outhwaite H. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination databases: Value, content, and developments. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care [Internet]. 2010 Oct 1;26(4):470–2. Available from: pmid:20923587
                • 73. Ascigil E, Luerssen A, Gonzalez R, Gordon AM. Predictors of relationship satisfaction during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Social and Personality Psychology Compass [Internet]. 2023 Aug 28;17(11). Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12881
                • 74. Banaei M, Safarzadeh S, Moridi A, Dordeh M, Dashti S, Abdi F, et al. Associated Factors of marital satisfaction in Iranian women during the COVID-19 pandemic: a Population-Based study. Shiraz E Medical Journal [Internet]. 2021 Aug 4;22(11). Available from: https://doi.org/10.5812/semj.112434
                • 75. Bar‐Kalifa E, Randall AK, Perelman Y. Daily dyadic coping during COVID-19 among Israeli couples. Emotion [Internet]. 2022 Dec 1;22(8):1713–22. Available from: pmid:34516177
                • 76. Bar‐Shachar Y, Lopata S, Bar‐Kalifa E. Relationship satisfaction during COVID‐19: The role of partners’ perceived support and attachment. Family Relations [Internet]. 2022 Aug 29;72(1):105–21. Available from: pmid:36246206
                • 77. Bretaña I, Alonso‐Arbiol I, Kittel KK, Landa SU. “I can’t escape!”: Avoidantly attached individuals’ conflict resolution and relationship satisfaction before and during the COVID‐19 lockdown. PsyCh Journal [Internet]. 2023 May 24;12(3):430–42. Available from: pmid:37224873
                • 78. Budiartini NN. Effect of Covid-19 related Stress on Marital Quality during Covid-19 Pandemic. Psychological Research and Intervention [Internet]. 2021 Aug 27;4(1):9–18. Available from: https://doi.org/10.21831/pri.v4i1.43287
                • 79. Carlson DL, Petts RJ, Pepin JR. Changes in US Parents’ Domestic Labor During the Early Days of the COVID‐19 Pandemic. Sociological Inquiry [Internet]. 2021 Sep 26;92(3):1217–44. Available from: pmid:34908600
                • 80. Carvalho MS, Matias M. Parental exhaustion during COVID-19 pandemic: links to relationship outcomes and dyadic coping. Current Psychology [Internet]. 2023 May 16; Available from: pmid:37359694
                • 81. Chakraborty U, Pandey MK, Mishra DC, Mishra NK, Bapte A. Original Research Article_Impact of psychological distress due to COVID-19 pandemic on spouse interpersonal relationships. Indian Journal of Mental Health [Internet]. 2020 Dec 15;8(2):192. Available from: https://doi.org/10.30877/ijmh.8.2.2021.192-199
                • 82. Chung G, Lanier P, Wong PT h. Mediating Effects of Parental Stress on Harsh Parenting and Parent-Child Relationship during Coronavirus (COVID-19) Pandemic in Singapore. Journal of Family Violence [Internet]. 2020 Sep 2;37(5):801–12. Available from: pmid:32895601
                • 83. Craig L, Churchill B. Dual‐earner parent couples’ work and care during COVID‐19. Gender, Work & Organization [Internet]. 2020 Jul 24;28(S1):66–79. Available from: pmid:32837023
                • 84. Donato S, Parise M, Pagani AF, Lanz M, Regalia C, Rosnati R, et al. Together Against COVID-19 Concerns: The Role of the Dyadic Coping Process for Partners’ Psychological Well-Being During the Pandemic. Frontiers in Psychology [Internet]. 2021 Jan 7;11. Available from: pmid:33488449
                • 85. El Akmal M, Marpaung W, Manurung YS, Mirza R. Work from home during the pandemic & work-life balance: Married working woman perspective. International Research Journal of Advanced Engineering and Science. 2021;6(2):1–5.
                • 86. Feinberg ME, Mogle J, Lee JK, Tornello SL, Hostetler ML, Cifelli JA, et al. Impact of the COVID‐19 pandemic on parent, child, and family functioning. Family Process [Internet]. 2021 Apr 8;61(1):361–74. Available from: pmid:33830510
                • 87. Fleming CJE, Franzese AT. Should I stay or should I go? Evaluating intimate relationship outcomes during the 2020 pandemic shutdown. Couple and Family Psychology [Internet]. 2021 Sep 1;10(3):158–67. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1037/cfp0000169
                • 88. From A, Luerssen A, Gordon AM. Both overwhelmed or in it together? Similarity in COVID‐19‐related stress and romantic relationship quality. Social and Personality Psychology Compass [Internet]. 2023 May 19;17(8). Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12789
                • 89. Hanetz‐Gamliel K, Levy S, Dollberg D. Mediation of Mothers’ Anxiety and Parenting in Children’s Behavior Problems during COVID-19. Journal of Child and Family Studies [Internet]. 2021 Sep 23;30(11):2732–43. Available from: pmid:34584394
                • 90. Hank K, Steinbach A. The virus changed everything, didn’t it? Couples’ division of housework and childcare before and during the Corona crisis. Journal of Family Research [Internet]. 2021 Apr 12;33(1):99–114. Available from: https://doi.org/10.20377/jfr-488
                • 91. Hiraoka D, Tomoda A. Relationship between parenting stress and school closures due to the COVID‐19 pandemic. Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences [Internet]. 2020 Jul 3;74(9):497–8. Available from: pmid:32779846
                • 92. Hood R, Zabatiero J, Silva D, Zubrick SR, Straker L. “Coronavirus Changed the Rules on Everything”: Parent Perspectives on How the COVID-19 Pandemic Influenced Family Routines, Relationships and Technology Use in Families with Infants. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health [Internet]. 2021 Dec 6;18(23):12865. Available from: pmid:34886591
                • 93. Hudde A, Hank K, Jacob M. Gender Role Attitudes Cannot Explain How British Couples Responded to Increased Housework Demands during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Socius [Internet]. 2021 Jan 1; 7:237802312110643. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/23780231211064395
                • 94. Idsøe T, Dyregrov A, Janson H, Nærde A. Pandemic-Related stress symptoms among Norwegian parents of adolescents in grades 6 to 8. Frontiers in Psychiatry [Internet]. 2021 Oct 6;12. Available from: pmid:34690827
                • 95. Jiang D, Chiu MM, Liu S. Daily positive support, and perceived stress during COVID-19 outbreak: The role of daily gratitude within couples. Journal of Happiness Studies [Internet]. 2021 Apr 18;23(1):65–79. Available from: pmid:33897277
                • 96. Jones HE, Theiss JA. Relational turbulence during the COVID-19 pandemic: A longitudinal analysis of the reciprocal effects between relationship characteristics and outcomes of relational turbulence. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships [Internet]. 2021 Oct 1;38(10):3033–58. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075211044491
                • 97. Jones HE, Yoon DB, Theiss JA, Austin JT, Lee LE. Assessing the effects of COVID-19 on romantic relationships and the coping strategies partners use to manage the stress of a pandemic. Journal of Family Communication [Internet]. 2021 May 24;21(3):152–66. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/15267431.2021.1927040
                • 98. Karagöz MA, Gül A, Borg C, Erïhan İB, Uslu M, Ezer M, et al. Influence of COVID-19 pandemic on sexuality: a cross-sectional study among couples in Turkey. International Journal of Impotence Research [Internet]. 2020 Dec 16;33(8):815–23. Available from: pmid:33328620
                • 99. Kolo VI, Osezua C, Osezua G, Aigbona C. COVID-19 upon Us: The Work-Family Experiences of Married Couples during the First Three Months of the Pandemic in Lagos, Nigeria. Open Journal of Social Sciences [Internet]. 2021 Jan 1;09(10):1–21. Available from: https://doi.org/10.4236/jss.2021.910001
                • 100. Li Y, Samp JA. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on same-sex couples’ conflict avoidance, relational quality, and mental health. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships [Internet]. 2021 Mar 30;38(6):1819–43. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075211006199
                • 101. McRae C, Overall NC, Henderson AME, Low RST, Chang VT. Parents’ distress and poor parenting during a COVID-19 lockdown: The buffering effects of partner support and cooperative coparenting. Developmental Psychology [Internet]. 2021 Oct 1;57(10):1623–32. Available from: pmid:34807685
                • 102. Mousavi SF. Psychological Well-Being, Marital Satisfaction, and Parental Burnout in Iranian Parents: The Effect of home quarantine during COVID-19 outbreaks. Frontiers in Psychology [Internet]. 2020 Dec 3;11. Available from: pmid:33343439
                • 103. Mutang JA, Chua BS, Yee HK, Siau CS, Wider W, Ismail R. Stressors, Psychological States, and Relationship Quality among East Malaysian Adults with Partners Amid the COVID-19 Lockdown. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health [Internet]. 2022 Sep 7;19(18):11258. Available from: pmid:36141527
                • 104. Neff LA, Gleason MEJ, Crockett EE, Ciftci O. Blame the pandemic: buffering the association between stress and relationship quality during the COVID-19 pandemic. Social Psychological and Personality Science [Internet]. 2021 Jun 21;13(2):522–32. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506211022813
                • 105. Omar SS, Dawood W, Eid N, Eldeeb D, Munir A, Arafat W. Psychological and sexual health during the COVID-19 pandemic in Egypt: Are women suffering more? Sexual Medicine [Internet]. 2021 Jan 9;9(1):100295. Available from: pmid:33434851
                • 106. Osur J, Ireri EM, Esho T. The effect of COVID-19 and its control measures on sexual satisfaction among married couples in Kenya. Sexual Medicine [Internet]. 2021 Mar 18;9(3):100354. Available from: pmid:34077871
                • 107. Özlü İ, Özlü ZK, Kılınç T, Demir ZY, Apay SE, ÇeliK AS, et al. Was the Quality of Sexual Life Affected during the COVID-19 Pandemic? American Journal of Family Therapy [Internet]. 2021 Jul 10;50(5):475–90. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/01926187.2021.1941418
                • 108. Panzeri M, Ferrucci R, Cozza A, Fontanesi L. Changes in sexuality and quality of couple relationship during the COVID-19 lockdown. Frontiers in Psychology [Internet]. 2020 Sep 29;11. Available from: pmid:33132969
                • 109. Partington LC, Mashash M, Hastings PD. Family thriving during COVID-19 and the Benefits for Children’s Well-Being. Frontiers in Psychology [Internet]. 2022 May 12;13. Available from: pmid:35645847
                • 110. Del Carmen Quezada Berumen L, Hernández RL, González-Ramírez MT. Couple satisfaction and impact of confinement by COVID-19 pandemic in Mexico. Interacciones [Internet]. 2020 Sep 27; Available from: https://doi.org/10.24016/2020.v6n3.173
                • 111. Rodríguez-Domínguez C, Carrascal-Caputto B, Durán M. Anxiety and intimate relationships in times of lockdown due to COVID-19. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy [Internet]. 2022 Feb 1;14(2):237–46. Available from: pmid:34472945
                • 112. Schmid L, Wörn J, Hank K, Sawatzki B, Walper S. Changes in employment and relationship satisfaction in times of the COVID-19 pandemic: Evidence from the German family Panel. European Societies [Internet]. 2020 Oct 30;23(sup1):S743–58. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/14616696.2020.1836385
                • 113. Sels L, Galdiolo S, Gaugue J, Géonet M, Verhelst P, Chiarolanza C, et al. Intimate Relationships in Times of COVID-19: A Descriptive Study of Belgian Partners and their Perceived Well-Being. Psychologica Belgica [Internet]. 2022 Jan 1;62(1):1–16. Available from: pmid:35087676
                • 114. Seok CB, Ching SS, Yun LW, Fitriana M, Khan R. PSYCHOLOGICAL DISTRESS, RELATIONSHIP QUALITY AND WELL-BEING IN TIME OF COVID-19 PANDEMIC MOVEMENT CONTROL ORDER ENACTMENT AMONG COUPLES IN MALAYSIA. Psychological Applications and Trends 2021 [Internet]. 2021 Apr 23; Available from:
                • 115. Shockley KM, Clark MA, Dodd HR, King EB. Work-family strategies during COVID-19: Examining gender dynamics among dual-earner couples with young children. Journal of Applied Psychology [Internet]. 2021 Jan 1;106(1):15–28. Available from: pmid:33151705
                • 116. James SL, Brik AB, Jorgensen‐Wells MA, Esteinou R, Acero IDM, Mesurado B, et al. Relationship quality and support for family policy during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Family Relations [Internet]. 2022 May 30;71(4):1367–84. Available from: pmid:35936017
                • 117. Spinelli M, Lionetti F, Setti A, Fasolo M. Parenting Stress during the COVID‐19 Outbreak: Socioeconomic and environmental risk factors and implications for Children Emotion Regulation. Family Process [Internet]. 2020 Sep 28;60(2):639–53. Available from: pmid:32985703
                • 118. Tan PL. Changes in Frequency and Patterns of Marital Sexual Activity During COVID-19: Evidence from Longitudinal Data Prior to, During and After Lockdown in Singapore. The Journal of Sexual Medicine [Internet]. 2021 Dec 12;19(2):188–200. Available from: pmid:35058151
                • 119. Tomohiro T. Working from home and work-life balance during COVID-19: the latest changes and challenges in Japan. Japan Labor Issues. 2021 Aug;5(33):21–33.
                • 120. Turliuc MN, Candel OS. Not all in the same boat. Socioeconomic differences in marital stress and satisfaction during the COVID-19 pandemic. Frontiers in Psychology [Internet]. 2021 Mar 31;12. Available from: pmid:33868101
                • 121. Vowels LM, Mark KP. Relationship and sexual satisfaction: a longitudinal actor–partner interdependence model approach. Sexual and Relationship Therapy [Internet]. 2018 Apr 9;35(1):46–59. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/14681994.2018.1441991
                • 122. Waddell N, Overall NC, Chang VT, Hammond MD. Gendered division of labor during a nationwide COVID-19 lockdown: Implications for relationship problems and satisfaction. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships [Internet]. 2021 Mar 2;38(6):1759–81. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407521996476
                • 123. Weber DM, Wojda AK, Carrino EA, Baucom DH. Love in the time of COVID‐19: A brief report on relationship and individual functioning among committed couples in the United States while under shelter‐in‐place orders. Family Process [Internet]. 2021 Jul 27;60(4):1381–8. Available from: pmid:34315187
                • 124. Williamson HC. Early effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on relationship satisfaction and attributions. Psychological Science [Internet]. 2020 Nov 5;31(12):1479–87. Available from: pmid:33151125
                • 125. Wong JS, Zhong S, Liu H. Relationship quality change among partnered older adults during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Journals of Gerontology: Series B [Internet]. 2022 Sep 19;78(2):352–8. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbac140
                • 126. Zamarro G, Prados MJ. Gender differences in couples’ division of childcare, work and mental health during COVID-19. Review of Economics of the Household [Internet]. 2021 Jan 16;19(1):11–40. Available from: pmid:33488316
                • 127. Zhang Y, Wen C, Zhang Y, Luo X, Feei Z. The impact of mental health and stress concerns on relationship and sexuality amidst the COVID-19 lockdown. The Journal of Sexual Medicine [Internet]. 2021 Jun 27;18(11):1843–50. Available from: pmid:34535368
                • 128. Harrison R, Jones B, Gardner P, Lawton R. Quality assessment with diverse studies (QuADS): an appraisal tool for methodological and reporting quality in systematic reviews of mixed- or multi-method studies. BMC Health Services Research [Internet]. 2021 Feb 15;21(1). Available from: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-021-06122-y
                • 129. Gisev N, Bell J, Chen T. Interrater agreement, and interrater reliability: Key concepts, approaches, and applications. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy [Internet]. 2013 May 1;9(3):330–8. Available from: pmid:22695215
                • 130. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology [Internet]. 2006 Jan 1;3(2):77–101. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
                • 131. Strauss AL, Corbin JM. Grounded theory in practice. SAGE; 1997.
                  • 132. Charmaz K. Constructing grounded theory. SAGE; 2014.
                    • 133. Magalhães P., Gouveia R., Costa-Lopes R., Silva P. A. e (2020). O Impacto Social da Pandemia. Estudo ICS/ISCTE Covid-19. Instituto de Ciências Sociais da Universidade de Lisboa e Instituto Universitário de Lisboa. http://hdl.handle.net/10451/42911http://hdl.handle.net/10451/42911
                      • 134. European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions. Living, working and COVID-19 (Update April 2021): Mental health and trust decline across EU as pandemic enters another year [Internet]. Office of the European Union; [cited 2022 Aug 4]. Available from: https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/en/publications/2021/living-working-and-covid-19-update-april-2021-mental-health-and-trust-decline
                        • 135. Stafford R, Backman EV, Dibona P. The Division of Labor among Cohabiting and Married Couples. Journal of Marriage and Family [Internet]. 1977 Feb 1;39(1):43. Available from: https://doi.org/10.2307/351061
                        • 136. Ferrant G, Thim A. Measuring women’s economic empowerment: Time use data and gender inequality. OECD Development Policy Papers [Internet]. 2019 Jan 1; Available from: https://ideas.repec.org/p/oec/dcdaab/16-en.html
                        • 137. Kitterød RH. The organisation and division of caregiving work among parents in Norway. Evidence from focus groups with full-time working mothers and fathers. Report from the Gender Pay Gap and Gender Care Gap Project.
                        • 138. De Sousa Pinho P, De Araújo TM. Associação entre sobrecarga doméstica e transtornos mentais comuns em mulheres. Revista Brasileira De Epidemiologia [Internet]. 2012 Sep 1;15(3):560–72. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1590/s1415-790x2012000300010
                        • 139. Polachek AJ, Wallace JE. Unfair to me or unfair to my spouse: Men’s and women’s perceptions of domestic equity and how they relate to mental and physical health. Marriage & Family Review [Internet]. 2015 Apr 3;51(3):205–28. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/01494929.2015.1031420
                        • 140. Faulkner RA, Davey M, Davey A. Gender-Related Predictors of change in marital satisfaction and marital conflict. American Journal of Family Therapy [Internet]. 2005 Jan 1;33(1):61–83. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/01926180590889211
                        • 141. Randall A. K., & Bodenmann G. (2017). Stress and its associations with relationship satisfaction. Current opinion in psychology, 13, 96–106. pmid:28813303
                        • 142. McCubbin HI, Patterson JM. The family stress process: The double ABCX model of adjustment and adaptation. InSocial stress and the family 2014 Apr 23 (pp. 7–37). Routledge.
                          • 143. Walsh F. The concept of family resilience: Crisis and challenge. Family process. 1996 Sep;35(3):261–81. pmid:9111709
                          • 144. Zaider TI, Heimberg RG, Iida M. Anxiety disorders and intimate relationships: A study of daily processes in couples. Journal of Abnormal Psychology [Internet]. 2010 Feb 1;119(1):163–73. Available from: pmid:20141253
                          • 145. Cutrona CE. Social support as a determinant of marital quality: The interplay of negative and supportive behaviors. InHandbook of social support and the family 1996 (pp. 173–194). Boston, MA: Springer US.
                            • 146. Austin KW, Kane HS, Williams DD, Ackerman RA. Emotional approach coping and daily support behavior in romantic relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships [Internet]. 2021 Dec 7;39(3):526–48. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075211041657
                            • 147. Randall AK, Bodenmann G. The role of stress on close relationships and marital satisfaction. Clinical psychology review. 2009 Mar 1;29(2):105–15. pmid:19167139
                            • 148. Goldfarb MR, Trudel G, Boyer R, Préville M. Marital relationship and psychological distress: Its correlates and treatments. Sexual and relationship therapy. 2007 Feb 1;22(1):109–26. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/14681990600861040
                            • 149. Overbeek G, Vollebergh W, de Graaf R, Scholte R, de Kemp R, Engels R. Longitudinal associations of marital quality and marital dissolution with the incidence of DSM-III-R disorders. Journal of Family Psychology. 2006 Jun;20(2):284–91. Available from: pmid:16756404
                            • 150. Borré A, Kliewer W. Parental strain, mental health problems, and parenting practices: A longitudinal study. Personality and Individual Differences [Internet]. 2014 Oct 1; 68:93–7. Available from: pmid:24976666
                            • 151. Peng B, Hu N, Yu H, Han-Shi X, Luo J. Parenting style and adolescent Mental Health: The chain Mediating effects of Self-Esteem and Psychological Inflexibility. Frontiers in Psychology [Internet]. 2021 Oct 13;12. Available from: pmid:34721210
                            • 152. Gulenc A, Butler E, Sarkadi A, Hiscock H. Paternal psychological distress, parenting, and child behaviour: A population based, cross‐sectional study. Child: Care, Health and Development [Internet]. 2018 Aug 29;44(6):892–900. Available from: pmid:30155910
                            • 153. Bradford A, Meston CM. The impact of anxiety on sexual arousal in women. Behaviour research and therapy. 2006 Aug 1;44(8):1067–77. pmid:16199003
                            • 154. Laurent SM, Simons AD. Sexual dysfunction in depression and anxiety: conceptualizing sexual dysfunction as part of an internalizing dimension. Clinical psychology review. 2009 Nov 1;29(7):573–85. Available from: pmid:19632022
                            • 155. Trudel G, Goldfarb MR. Marital and sexual functioning and dysfunctioning, depression and anxiety. Sexologies. 2010 Jul 1;19(3):137–42. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sexol.2009.12.009
                            • 156. Røsand GM, Slinning K, Eberhard-Gran M, Røysamb E, Tambs K. The buffering effect of relationship satisfaction on emotional distress in couples. BMC public health. 2012 Jan 22;12(1). Available from: pmid:22264243
                            • 157. Salgado JF, Blanco S, Moscoso S. Subjective well-being and job performance: Testing of a suppressor effect. Revista de Psicología del Trabajo y de las Organizaciones. 2019;35(2):93–102. Available from: https://doi.org/10.5093/jwop2019a9
                            • 158. Xiao Y, Becerik-Gerber B, Lucas G, Roll SC. Impacts of Working from home during COVID-19 Pandemic on Physical and Mental Well-Being of Office Workstation Users. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine [Internet]. 2020 Nov 23;63(3):181–90. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1097/jom.0000000000002097
                            • 159. Falconier MK, Jackson JB, Hilpert P, Bodenmann G. Dyadic coping and relationship satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review [Internet]. 2015 Jul 29;42:28–46. Available from: pmid:26295276
                            • 160. Genç E, Su Y, Turhan Z. The mediating role of dyadic coping on the effects of COVID-19 and relationship satisfaction among Turkish Couples. The American Journal of Family Therapy. 2023 Aug 8;51(4):421–39. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/01926187.2021.1984338
                            • 161. Randall AK, Tao C, Leon G, Duran ND. Couples’ co-regulation dynamics as a function of perceived partner dyadic coping. Anxiety, Stress, & Coping. 2021 Nov 2;34(6):597–611. Available from: pmid:33834918
                            • 162. Wawrziczny É, Nandrino J, Constant E, Doba K. Characterizing the determinants of sexual dissatisfaction among heterosexuals: The specific role of dyadic coping. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology [Internet]. 2021 Jun 28;62(5):763–73. Available from: pmid:34180071
                            • 163. Tutelman PR, Dawson SJ, Schwenck GC, Rosen NO. A Longitudinal Examination of Common Dyadic Coping and Sexual Distress in New Parent Couples during the Transition to Parenthood. Family Process [Internet]. 2021 Apr 30;61(1):278–93. Available from: pmid:33928639
                            • 164. Bodenmann G, Atkins DC, Schär M, Poffet V. The association between daily stress and sexual activity. Journal of Family Psychology [Internet]. 2010 Jan 1;24(3):271–9. Available from: pmid:20545400
                            • 165. Jackson GL, Krull JL, Bradbury TN, Karney BR. Household income and trajectories of marital satisfaction in early marriage. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2017 Jun;79(3):690–704. Available from: pmid:28603296
                            • 166. Dakin J, Wampler R. Money doesn’t buy happiness, but it helps: Marital satisfaction, psychological distress, and demographic differences between low-and middle-income clinic couples. The American Journal of Family Therapy. 2008 Jul 2;36(4):300–11. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/01926180701647512
                            • 167. Cai Y, Li Q. The Role of Relative Income in Determining Marital Satisfaction for Husband and Wife in China. Journal of Family and Economic Issues. 2023 May 10:1–1.
                            • 168. Zhang H, Tao T. Marital happiness, and psychosocial mechanisms in Low-Income Chinese families. Illness, Crisis, & Loss [Internet]. 2018 May 10; Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/1054137318773083
                            • 169. Obradović J, Čudina-Obradović M. MARITAL PARTNERS’ INCOME AS a DETERMINANT OF MARRIAGE QUALITY. Društvena Istraživanja: Časopis Za Opća Društvena Pitanja [Internet]. 2006 Apr 30; 15:117–39. Available from: https://hrcak.srce.hr/18113
                            • 170. Kelley HH, LeBaron AB, Hill EJ. Financial stress and marital quality: The moderating influence of couple communication. Journal of Financial Therapy [Internet]. 2018 Jan 1;9(2). Available from: https://doi.org/10.4148/1944-9771.1176
                            • 171. Archuleta KL, Britt SL, Tonn TJ, Grable JE. Financial satisfaction and financial stressors in marital satisfaction. Psychological reports. 2011 Apr;108(2):563–76. Available from: pmid:21675570
                            • 172. Nourani S, Seraj F, Shakeri MT, Mokhber N. The relationship between Gender-Role beliefs, household labor division and marital satisfaction in couples. Journal of Holistic Nursing and Midwifery [Internet]. 2019 Jan 1;29(1):301–7. Available from: https://doi.org/10.29252/hnmj.29.1.301