Markman Howard J, Ritchie Lane L
University of Denver, Denver, CO.
Fam Process. 2015 Dec;54(4):655-71. doi: 10.1111/famp.12191. Epub 2015 Nov 7.
This paper focuses on issues sparked by the Couples Relationship Education (CRE) field moving toward a more clinical model to meet the needs of an increasing number of distressed couples coming to CRE programs. We review the concerns raised and recommendations made by Bradford, Hawkins, and Acker (2015), most of which push CRE toward a more clinical model. We address these recommendations and make suggestions for best practices that preserve the prevention/education model underlying research-based CRE. The three main issues are couple screening, leader training, and service delivery models. Our suggested best practices include: conducting minimal screening including the assessment of dangerous levels of couple violence, training leaders with key skills to handle issues raised by distressed couples as well as other couples who may place additional burdens on leaders, providing referrals and choices of programs available to participants at intake and throughout the CRE program, and adding (rather than integrating) clinical services to CRE services for couples who desire additional intervention. Finally, throughout the paper, we review other key issues in the CRE field and make recommendations made for future research and practice.
本文聚焦于夫妻关系教育(CRE)领域向更临床模式转变所引发的问题,以满足越来越多前来参加CRE项目的苦恼夫妻的需求。我们回顾了布拉德福德、霍金斯和阿克尔(2015年)提出的担忧和建议,其中大部分建议推动CRE向更临床的模式发展。我们探讨这些建议,并针对保持基于研究的CRE基础的预防/教育模式提出最佳实践建议。三个主要问题是夫妻筛查、领导者培训和服务提供模式。我们建议的最佳实践包括:进行最低限度的筛查,包括评估夫妻暴力的危险程度;培训领导者掌握关键技能,以处理苦恼夫妻以及可能给领导者带来额外负担的其他夫妻所提出的问题;在参与者报名时以及整个CRE项目过程中,为他们提供转介服务和项目选择;为希望获得额外干预的夫妻在CRE服务中增加(而非整合)临床服务。最后,在整篇论文中,我们回顾了CRE领域的其他关键问题,并对未来的研究和实践提出建议。