Relationship Breakdown and Mental Health: The Evidence and How Therapists Can Help

This article examines the impact of relationship breakdown on mental health and outlines practical, evidence-informed strategies therapists can use to support affected clients.

Related articles: Trauma-Informed Care for High-Conflict Couples, Case Study: Narcissism in a Romantic Relationship, The Psychological Impact of Assisted Reproduction.

Introduction

Relationship breakdown is common, but it is not psychologically trivial. The end of an intimate relationship can disrupt attachment, identity, daily routines, housing, finances, parenting arrangements, and social networks simultaneously. For some clients, this produces intense but gradually resolving distress. For others, separation becomes the starting point for major depression, harmful substance use, prolonged interpersonal conflict, or suicidal behaviour.

The clinical challenge is to distinguish an expectable stress response from a trajectory requiring more intensive intervention. Cross-sectional studies often exaggerate simple cause-and-effect conclusions because people experiencing mental illness or severe relationship distress may already be more likely to separate. Stronger longitudinal research paints a more nuanced picture: distress frequently begins before the formal separation, peaks around the breakdown and then declines, but recovery is uneven and strongly shaped by pre-existing vulnerability, conflict, social resources and the practical consequences of separation.

This article examines what robust studies tell us about relationship breakdown across adolescence, adulthood and later life, including important differences between men and women. It then translates that evidence into practical strategies for assessment and treatment.

The science: disruption, selection and adaptation

Relationship breakdown is not a single event. It is usually a process that may include months or years of conflict, emotional disengagement, disclosure, physical separation, legal proceedings, financial restructuring, and renegotiation of parenting roles. Consequently, mental health outcomes cannot always be attributed to the date on which a couple formally separates.

Two broad mechanisms help explain the association between separation and poorer mental health.

The social-selection mechanism proposes that pre-existing psychological distress, substance use, impulsivity or interpersonal difficulties increase both the risk of relationship breakdown and later mental health problems. The social-causation mechanism proposes that separation itself produces new stressors – including loss, loneliness, reduced income, relocation and disrupted parenting – that adversely affect mental health. Longitudinal evidence supports both mechanisms rather than a simplistic choice between them (Amato, 2000).

Studies following individuals before and after marital dissolution generally find anticipatory increases in distress, followed by a sharper deterioration around the separation itself. Average symptoms then decline over subsequent years. Among middle-aged and older Australian adults, divorce and widowhood were associated with pronounced short-term psychological deterioration, but many differences weakened over longer follow-up periods (Ding et al., 2021). Similarly, fixed-effects analyses of British adults aged 50 and over found that depressive symptoms increased around later-life divorce and subsequently recovered, although adjustment was slower among older parents than among adults without children (Tosi & van den Broek, 2020).

These averages conceal substantial heterogeneity. A client leaving a coercive or chronically hostile relationship may experience improved wellbeing. Another may lose their primary attachment figure, home, financial stability, and daily contact with their children at once. Relationship quality before separation, who initiated the separation, betrayal, abuse, custody conflict and economic consequences may matter more clinically than marital status alone.

Clinical pearl: Do not treat “separated” as a diagnosis or assume that intense early distress is pathological. Assess the client’s trajectory, functioning, safety, and accumulating stressors.

Adults: distress is common, but chronic impairment is not inevitable

During the first weeks and months after a breakup, clients commonly report sadness, anxiety, sleep disruption, appetite changes, intrusive thinking, concentration problems and impaired work performance. These symptoms can resemble depression without necessarily constituting a depressive disorder.

In a longitudinal study of young adults experiencing romantic breakup, depressive symptoms increased sharply during the breakup period but, on average, returned to pre-breakup levels within approximately three months. Greater perceived control and less negative appraisal were associated with better adjustment (Acolin et al., 2024). This finding is clinically useful: severe early distress can be real and disabling while still following a natural recovery trajectory.

Recovery may stall when clients become caught in repetitive negative thinking, compulsive monitoring of the former partner, repeated attempts to obtain explanations, escalating legal disputes or avoidant coping through alcohol, drugs, overwork or rapid replacement relationships. Rumination is particularly important because it creates the subjective experience of “working through” the breakup while repeatedly reactivating loss and threat.

Economic strain also matters. Separation may involve legal expenses, two households, reduced housing security and loss of shared income. For parents, distress may be intensified by reduced contact with children, conflict over care arrangements or fears about the former partner’s parenting. Clinicians should therefore avoid reducing post-separation distress to an internal emotional problem. Many symptoms are responses to continuing external instability.

A practical formulation

A useful formulation divides the client’s difficulties into four interacting domains: loss, including attachment, companionship, identity and anticipated futures; threat, including financial insecurity, housing disruption, legal proceedings and reduced contact with children; dysregulation, including insomnia, substance use, anger, panic and repetitive negative thinking; and disconnection, including loneliness, shame and the fragmentation of shared social networks.

This formulation is consistent with divorce-stress models showing that mental health outcomes are shaped not only by the loss of the relationship, but also by the accumulation of secondary stressors, reduced psychological and social resources, and pre-existing vulnerability (Amato, 2000; Sbarra, 2015). Longitudinal findings also indicate that financial hardship, continuing conflict and diminished social support can help sustain distress after the immediate separation period has passed (Lorenz et al., 2006; Symoens et al., 2014).

Intervention should therefore address all four domains. Emotional processing alone is unlikely to be sufficient when a client is experiencing unstable housing, heavy alcohol use, severe sleep disruption or daily conflict with a former partner.

Men and women: different risks, not competing suffering

Women generally report higher levels of depressive and anxiety symptoms across the population, and some studies find larger or more persistent increases in women’s antidepressant use around later-life separation. Women may also experience greater post-separation economic disadvantage, particularly following relationships organised around unequal caregiving and employment responsibilities.

Men, however, appear to face a particularly serious risk of suicidality after relationship breakdown.

A 2025 systematic review and meta-analysis led by Michael Wilson and colleagues (covered by Michael in this MHA course) examined 75 studies across 30 countries, representing more than 100 million men. Compared with married men, separated or divorced men had greater odds of suicidal ideation, suicide attempt and death by suicide. Divorced men had approximately 2.8 times the odds of dying by suicide, while suicide risk appeared greatest during the immediate separation period. Younger age, unemployment, lower education, loneliness and emotion-regulation difficulties were associated with greater vulnerability (Wilson et al., 2025b).

Australian longitudinal evidence reinforces this concern. Across four waves of the Ten to Men cohort, men reporting a relationship breakdown in the previous year had 82% higher adjusted odds of recent suicidal ideation. The association was observed even among men without a previously identified pattern of suicidal thoughts, indicating that separation can create an acute risk in clients who might not otherwise be regarded as chronically suicidal (Wilson et al., 2025a).

A subsequent Australian Institute of Family Studies analysis found that almost 31% of men who had recently experienced relationship breakdown reported suicidal thoughts, compared with approximately 14% of other men. Recent suicide attempts were reported by 6.8% of separated men and 0.9% of men without a recent breakdown. Elevated risk remained visible beyond the immediate aftermath and across demographic groups (Australian Institute of Family Studies, 2026).

These findings should not be interpreted as evidence that men necessarily experience greater emotional pain than women. Rather, risk may be expressed differently. Some men rely heavily on an intimate partner for emotional disclosure and social connection. When the relationship ends, they may simultaneously lose their principal confidante, daily contact with children and a central source of identity. Shame, emotional restriction, alcohol use, and reluctance to seek help may then increase the likelihood that distress remains hidden until it becomes acute.

Clinical implications for gender-responsive care

Clinicians should directly assess all recently separated clients for suicidal thoughts, potential harm towards others, coercive control, stalking, technology-facilitated monitoring, economic abuse, disrupted contact with children, and financial, housing and social instability.

Assessment should be tailored to the individual while remaining informed by population-level patterns. Men appear particularly vulnerable to suicidality following relationship breakdown and may not present with visible sadness. Women are disproportionately exposed to severe coercive control, economic abuse, stalking and post-separation violence. These patterns should guide clinical vigilance without becoming assumptions about an individual client’s experience.

Teenagers and young people

Young people may be affected by both their own romantic breakups and their parents’ separation.

Adolescent romantic breakups

An adolescent’s first serious breakup may be dismissed by adults as temporary or immature. Developmentally, however, romantic relationships can become important sources of identity, emotional intimacy, peer status and belonging. Prospective research has identified romantic relationship loss as a significant precipitant of first-onset major depression during adolescence, particularly among young people who already possess cognitive or interpersonal vulnerabilities (Monroe et al., 1999). Longitudinal evidence also suggests that adolescent romantic involvement can be associated with increased depressive symptoms, although outcomes vary according to relationship quality, developmental timing and the young person’s broader social context (Joyner & Udry, 2000).

Most adolescents recover without developing a disorder, but risk may rise when the breakup includes rejection by a peer group, cyberbullying, public humiliation, coercion, sexual-image distribution or threats of self-harm. Digital contact can also prolong emotional activation by making the former partner continuously visible and enabling repeated checking, messaging or monitoring. Although much of the direct evidence on post-breakup online surveillance comes from young-adult samples, greater monitoring of a former partner has been associated with higher breakup distress, greater longing and poorer personal growth (Marshall, 2012).

Assessment should therefore include digital behaviour, sleep, school attendance, peer relationships, self-harm, substance use and changes in daily functioning. Clinicians should also ask whether either young person is using suicide threats to prevent separation. Such threats require a safety response, but the adolescent should not be made responsible for preserving the relationship in order to keep the other person safe.

Parental separation

Research does not support the fatalistic view that divorce inevitably damages children. Most children do not develop severe or enduring disorders. Nevertheless, exposure to parental separation is associated with a modest increase in risk across several outcomes.

A meta-analysis of 54 studies involving more than 500,000 participants found that parental divorce was associated with elevated long-term odds of depression, anxiety, psychological distress, suicidal ideation, suicide attempt, and substance use. Effect sizes were generally small to moderate, meaning parental divorce is best understood as a risk factor rather than a deterministic cause (Auersperg et al., 2019).

The prospective TRAILS study followed 2,230 young people from early adolescence into adulthood. Internalising and externalising problems increased after parental divorce rather than before it and remained elevated across subsequent assessments (Tullius et al., 2022).

Crucially, family processes help explain variation in outcomes. A meta-analysis of 115 samples involving 24,854 divorced families found that interparental conflict, parenting quality, and parent–child relationship factors were meaningfully associated with children’s post-divorce adjustment (van Dijk et al., 2020). The practical implication is clear: the legal dissolution itself may be less modifiable than what children experience afterwards.

Children are particularly vulnerable when they:

• are exposed to persistent hostility or frightening conflict;
• are asked to carry messages or gather information;
• feel responsible for a parent’s emotional stability;
• are pressured to reject or choose between parents;
• experience abrupt loss of contact with a parent;
• face repeated changes in homes, schools or routines;
• lose access to extended family, culture, or community;
• are exposed to family violence, substance misuse, or neglect.

Example of a dialogue with a parent

• Parent: “My daughter needs to know what her father did. Otherwise, she’ll think I broke up the family.”
• Therapist: “It makes sense that you want her to understand your decision. The question is whether the details will help her feel safer or place her inside the adult conflict. We can give her an honest, age-appropriate explanation without asking her to judge either parent.”
• Parent: “So I’m supposed to pretend everything is fine?”
• Therapist: “No. We can say that serious adult problems made living together unworkable, that the separation is not her fault and that she does not need to fix it. That is truthful without making her carry information she cannot use.”

Later-life separation

Later-life or “grey” divorce may follow decades of shared identity, routines, friendships, assets, and family traditions. Even when initiated voluntarily, it can destabilise assumptions about ageing, retirement, and care.

Longitudinal British data indicate that depressive symptoms rise around later-life divorce and often decline afterwards. Adjustment may be slower for older parents, possibly because the separation affects relationships with adult children and established family networks (Tosi & van den Broek, 2020). Australian evidence similarly suggests that the strongest health effects of marital disruption occur in the shorter term, particularly in psychological wellbeing (Ding et al., 2021).

Clinicians should assess retirement finances, housing, physical illness, caregiving responsibilities, and social isolation. Older clients may have fewer opportunities to rebuild networks, particularly when friendships were organised around the couple. Adult children may also become emotionally triangulated, even when they no longer depend on their parents for daily care.

How therapists can help

Mental health professionals are well placed to reduce the risk that acute post-separation distress develops into persistent psychological impairment. Effective support requires more than validating grief: clinicians must assess suicide risk, interpersonal danger, substance use, sleep disruption, parenting stress, and practical instability, while helping clients regain emotional regulation, agency and social connection. The following strategies provide a structured framework for supporting adults, young people and families through the immediate crisis and longer-term adjustment.

Assess timing, trajectory and cumulative disruption

Begin with a timeline rather than relying only on a symptom checklist. Longitudinal studies indicate that psychological distress may increase before formal separation, rise further around the point of dissolution and then decline for many people, although a subgroup experiences persistent or recurrent difficulties (Ding et al., 2021; Sbarra & Emery, 2005; Tosi & van den Broek, 2020). Establishing when symptoms began therefore helps clinicians avoid attributing every difficulty to the breakup and assists in distinguishing an acute adjustment response from a pre-existing, recurrent or independently emerging disorder.

The assessment should identify when the relationship began deteriorating, who initiated the separation, when the client understood that it was final, and what practical changes followed. Clinicians should also map concurrent stressors such as relocation, financial loss, legal proceedings, disrupted parenting, family violence and loss of social support. The cumulative burden of these secondary stressors may be more predictive of sustained impairment than marital status alone (Amato, 2000; Lorenz et al., 2006).

Validated measures such as the PHQ-9, GAD-7, Insomnia Severity Index and Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test can support repeated monitoring, but should supplement rather than replace assessment of functioning, risk and context.

Make suicide assessment routine

Relationship breakdown should be treated as a clinically meaningful suicide-risk indicator, particularly among men, younger adults, people with previous attempts, clients experiencing unemployment or social isolation, and parents facing reduced contact with children. A recent systematic review and meta-analysis found substantially elevated rates of suicidal ideation, attempts and suicide mortality among separated and divorced men, with the period close to separation appearing especially concerning (Wilson et al., 2025b). Australian longitudinal data likewise found that recent intimate relationship breakdown was associated with increased odds of suicidal ideation among men, including some without an established history of suicidal thinking (Wilson et al., 2025a).

Assessment should be direct and should cover passive wishes for death, active ideation, intent, planning, access to lethal means, rehearsal, insomnia, agitation, intoxication, perceived humiliation, entrapment, and loss of purpose. Clinicians should also assess potential harm towards the former partner or children when separation is accompanied by coercion, stalking, revenge ideation or escalating hostility.

Where risk is present, collaborative safety planning can help clients recognise warning signs, identify internal coping responses, contact supportive people and services, and reduce access to lethal means. Safety-planning-type interventions are associated with reductions in suicidal behaviour and improvements in treatment engagement, although they should form part of comprehensive risk management rather than replace clinical follow-up (Nuij et al., 2021; Stanley & Brown, 2012).

Stabilise before pursuing meaning

During the acute phase, practical and physiological stabilisation may be more immediately useful than extensive exploration of the relationship’s meaning. Sleep disruption, reduced food intake, escalating alcohol or drug use, loss of routine, and repeated conflict can intensify affective dysregulation and diminish problem-solving capacity. Insomnia is also independently associated with suicidal ideation and behaviour, making sleep assessment particularly important in recently separated clients (Pigeon et al., 2012).

Initial priorities may include restoring a regular sleep–wake schedule, reducing substance use, securing safe accommodation, limiting high-conflict communication and establishing manageable daily tasks. Behavioural activation provides an evidence-based framework for helping depressed or immobilised clients re-engage with routine, mastery, physical activity, and supportive relationships rather than waiting for motivation to return spontaneously (Uphoff et al., 2020).

A seven-day stabilisation plan might include a consistent waking time, regular meals, one practical task each day, physical movement, planned social contact, defined periods for legal or separation-related administration, and a commitment not to contact the former partner while intoxicated or highly activated. These strategies do not minimise grief; they establish the conditions under which grief can be processed more safely.

Interrupt rumination without suppressing grief

Clients need opportunities to grieve, but grief and rumination are not interchangeable. Rumination involves repetitive, negatively focused thinking that often increases depressed mood, impairs problem-solving and prolongs emotional activation without producing useful resolution (Nolen-Hoeksema et al., 2008). Following relationship dissolution, repetitive thinking, attachment-related preoccupation, and difficulty accepting the ending have been associated with greater emotional distress and poorer adjustment (Sbarra & Emery, 2005).

Clinicians can help clients evaluate the function of their thinking by asking whether a period of reflection has produced new understanding, supported a decision, or enabled constructive action. When thinking repeatedly returns to unanswerable questions – such as whether the former partner ever truly cared or whether the relationship could have been saved – it may be more helpful to introduce scheduled reflection periods, attention-shifting, behavioural activation, mindfulness-based strategies or acceptance of uncertainty. Continued digital surveillance may also maintain distress: monitoring a former partner on social media has been associated with greater longing, distress and reduced personal growth after breakup (Marshall, 2012).

The aim is not to suppress memories or painful emotion. It is to help the client move flexibly between acknowledging the loss and re-engaging with present-day responsibilities, relationships and goals.

Rebuild identity and social connection

The end of a close relationship can disrupt not only attachment but also the client’s sense of self. Experimental and longitudinal research indicates that romantic breakup can reduce self-concept clarity – the extent to which people experience their identity as coherent, stable, and clearly defined – and that this disruption is associated with greater emotional distress (Slotter et al., 2009). Therapy may therefore need to address who the client is outside the former relationship, rather than focusing exclusively on why the relationship ended.

The loss of shared friendships and routines can further compound adjustment. Social isolation and loneliness are robustly associated with depression and poorer psychological and physical health, while supportive relationships can buffer the effects of stressful life transitions (Leigh-Hunt et al., 2017). Clinicians should translate general advice to “seek support” into specific behavioural steps, particularly for clients whose former partner was their main or only source of emotional disclosure.

Useful questions include: “Which parts of your life became smaller during the relationship?”, “Who knew you before you became part of this couple?”, and “What kind of parent, friend or colleague do you want to be during this transition?” Activity-based contact – such as sport, volunteering, professional groups, or shared projects – may be more accessible initially than direct emotional disclosure, particularly for clients who feel ashamed or uncomfortable asking for help.

Protect children from adult conflict

Evidence-based post-divorce parenting programmes focus on improving parent–child relationships, effective discipline and protection from interparental conflict.

The New Beginnings Program, developed by Sharlene Wolchik, Irwin Sandler, and colleagues, has been evaluated across several randomised trials. In a community effectiveness trial involving 830 parents, the ten-session programme strengthened aspects of parenting and reduced child mental health problems for some families at post-treatment and ten-month follow-up. Outcomes varied across cultural groups, underscoring the need for adaptation rather than one-size-fits-all delivery (Sandler et al., 2020).

A 2022 meta-analysis of 30 post-divorce child interventions found beneficial effects across children’s symptoms, personal resources, and adjustment, although outcomes differed by programme characteristics (Herrero et al., 2023).

Clinicians can translate these principles into four co-parenting rules:

1. Do not ask children to deliver messages.
2. Do not interrogate them about the other household.
3. Do not make them responsible for a parent’s emotional wellbeing.
4. Do not expose them to legal, sexual, or financial details they cannot use.

Where violence, coercive control, or serious intimidation is present, parallel parenting and specialist family-violence responses may be safer than cooperative co-parenting.

Use scalable, targeted interventions

Emerging evidence suggests that structured digital programmes can help some separating adults. A Danish randomised trial of the Cooperation After Divorce platform found improvements in mental and physical health, and subsequent research has followed participants through registry outcomes over five years (Sander et al., 2020; Hald et al., 2025). The intervention combined material addressing personal adjustment, children, and co-parenting rather than offering generic wellbeing advice.

Digital programmes should not replace risk assessment, trauma treatment, or individual care for complex cases. They may, however, provide accessible psychoeducation and skills training for clients who do not require intensive therapy or who are waiting for services.

Conclusion

Relationship breakdown can be both a painful loss and a major reorganisation of life. The strongest evidence rejects two extremes: separation is neither psychologically harmless nor inevitably traumatising. Most people improve, but a meaningful minority experience persistent depression, dangerous substance use, severe family conflict, or suicidality.

Mental health professionals can improve outcomes by monitoring trajectories rather than pathologising initial pain, assessing suicide and interpersonal danger directly, addressing practical stressors and helping clients rebuild routines, relationships, and identity. For families, reducing children’s exposure to adult conflict and strengthening parenting are among the clearest intervention targets.

The central clinical question is not simply, “How distressed is this person?” It is, “What combination of loss, threat, dysregulation, and disconnection is keeping this person unsafe or stuck – and which part can we change first?”

Key takeaways

• Relationship breakdown is a process involving emotional, social, and practical disruption – not merely a single legal or interpersonal event.
• Distress often begins before separation, peaks around the breakdown, and declines over time, but recovery varies considerably.
• Severe early distress can be expectable; persistent deterioration, functional impairment, substance misuse, and suicidality require active intervention.
• Men face a particularly elevated risk of suicidal behaviour after separation, including men without an established history of suicidal ideation.
• Women may face greater economic consequences and heightened risk from post-separation coercion, stalking, or violence.
• Parental separation modestly increases children’s long-term mental health risk, but outcomes are strongly influenced by conflict, parenting quality, stability, and parent–child relationships.
• Children should not be used as messengers, confidants, witnesses, or judges in adult disputes.
• Effective treatment addresses loss, threat, dysregulation, and social disconnection together.
• Early sessions should prioritise safety, sleep, substance use, daily structure, and practical stability.
• Evidence-based parenting programmes and structured digital interventions show promise, although cultural adaptation and careful case selection remain essential.

Questions therapists often ask

Q. How can I distinguish normal post-breakup distress from a mental health disorder?

A. Focus on trajectory, severity, and functional impairment rather than distress alone. Intense sadness, anxiety, disrupted sleep, and reduced concentration are common in the early stages of relationship breakdown and may improve naturally over several months. Greater concern is warranted when symptoms continue to worsen, remain severe, substantially impair daily functioning, or are accompanied by suicidality, escalating substance use, psychotic symptoms, or prolonged inability to meet basic responsibilities. A timeline of symptoms before, during, and after the separation can help clarify whether the presentation reflects an adjustment response, a recurrence of an existing condition, or a new disorder.

Q. Should I routinely assess suicide risk after relationship breakdown?

A. Yes. Relationship breakdown is a recognised suicide-risk factor, particularly for men, younger adults, socially isolated clients, and people experiencing unemployment, financial strain or reduced contact with children. Assessment should be direct and include passive death wishes, suicidal ideation, intent, planning, access to lethal means, substance use, agitation, insomnia, and feelings of humiliation or entrapment. Clinicians should also assess risk towards former partners or children when anger, revenge fantasies, coercive behaviour, or escalating conflict are present.

Q. Is encouraging clients to “process the breakup” always helpful?

A. Not necessarily. Emotional processing can support recovery, but repeated analysis may become rumination rather than productive reflection. A useful distinction is whether the thinking produces new understanding, emotional integration, or constructive action. If the client repeatedly revisits unanswerable questions and feels more distressed afterwards, intervention may need to shift towards attention training, behavioural activation, scheduled reflection periods, digital boundaries, and acceptance of uncertainty. The goal is not to suppress grief, but to prevent grief from becoming a repetitive and immobilising cognitive loop.

Q. How should therapy change when children are involved?

A. Treatment should address the parent’s distress while protecting children from being drawn into adult conflict. Clinicians can help parents provide honest, age-appropriate explanations, maintain predictable routines, and avoid using children as messengers, confidants or sources of information about the other household. Parenting quality, parent–child relationships, and exposure to interparental conflict are important predictors of children’s adjustment following separation (van Dijk et al., 2020). Where family violence or coercive control is present, cooperative co-parenting may be inappropriate, and safety-focused or parallel-parenting approaches may be required.

Q. What should I prioritise in the first few sessions?

A. Begin with stabilisation. Assess safety, sleep, substance use, housing, finances, parenting pressures, social support and immediate legal or practical stressors. Help the client establish a basic routine, identify high-risk periods, reduce impulsive contact with the former partner and reconnect with supportive people. Deeper work involving attachment, identity, grief, and relationship patterns can follow once the client is sufficiently regulated and practically stable. In many cases, helping a client sleep, eat, reduce alcohol use, and manage hostile communication will create more immediate benefit than beginning with extensive exploration of the relationship’s meaning.

References

• Acolin, J., Cadigan, J. M., Fleming, C. B., Rhew, I. C., & Lee, C. M. (2024). Trajectory of depressive symptoms in the context of romantic relationship breakup: Characterizing the “natural course” of response and recovery in young adults. Emerging Adulthood, 11(5), 431–442. https://doi.org/10.1177/21676968231184922
• Amato, P. R. (2000). The consequences of divorce for adults and children. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62(4), 1269–1287. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.01269.x
• Auersperg, F., Vlasak, T., Ponocny, I., & Barth, A. (2019). Long-term effects of parental divorce on mental health: A meta-analysis. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 119, 107–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychires.2019.09.011
• Australian Institute of Family Studies. (2026). Intimate partner relationship breakdown and the risk of suicidal thoughts and behaviours among Australian men. Ten to Men: The Australian Longitudinal Study on Male Health.
• Ding, D., Gale, J., Bauman, A., Phongsavan, P., & Nguyen, B. (2021). Effects of divorce and widowhood on subsequent health behaviours and outcomes in a sample of middle-aged and older Australian adults. Scientific Reports, 11, 15237. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-93210-y
• Hald, A., Fallesen, P., Eriksson, F., and Hald G. (2025). Digital Health Intervention for and Long-Term Health Outcomes of a Divorce Cohort With Linked Danish Data: 5-Year Posttrial Follow-Up of a Randomized Controlled Trial. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 27, e69387. https://www.jmir.org/2025/1/e69387   DOI: 10.2196/69387
• Herrero, M., Roca, P., Cormenzana, S., & Martínez-Pampliega, A. (2023). The efficacy of postdivorce intervention programs for children: A meta-analytic review. Family Process, 62(1), 74-93. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12807
• Joyner, K., & Udry, J. R. (2000). You don’t bring me anything but down: Adolescent romance and depression. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 41(4), 369–391. https://doi.org/10.2307/2676292
• Leigh-Hunt, N., Bagguley, D., Bash, K., Turner, V., Turnbull, S., Valtorta, N., & Caan, W. (2017). An overview of systematic reviews on the public health consequences of social isolation and loneliness. Public Health, 152, 157–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2017.07.035
• Lorenz, F. O., Wickrama, K. A. S., Conger, R. D., & Elder, G. H., Jr. (2006). The short-term and decade-long effects of divorce on women’s midlife health. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 47(2), 111–125. https://doi.org/10.1177/002214650604700202
• Marshall, T. C. (2012). Facebook surveillance of former romantic partners: Associations with postbreakup recovery and personal growth. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 15(10), 521–526. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2012.0125
• Monroe, S. M., Rohde, P., Seeley, J. R., & Lewinsohn, P. M. (1999). Life events and depression in adolescence: Relationship loss as a prospective risk factor for first onset of major depressive disorder. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 108(4), 606–614. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.108.4.606
• Nolen-Hoeksema, S., Wisco, B. E., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2008). Rethinking rumination. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3(5), 400–424. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2008.00088.x
• Nuij, C., van Ballegooijen, W., de Beurs, D., Juniar, D., Erlangsen, A., Portzky, G., O’Connor, R. C., Smit, J. H., Kerkhof, A., & Riper, H. (2021). Safety planning-type interventions for suicide prevention: Meta-analysis. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 219(2), 419–426. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.2021.50
• Pigeon, W. R., Pinquart, M., & Conner, K. (2012). Meta-analysis of sleep disturbance and suicidal thoughts and behaviors. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 73(9), e1160–e1167. https://doi.org/10.4088/JCP.11r07586
• Sander, S., Hald, G. M., Cipric, A., Øverup, C. S., Strizzi, J. M., Kjeld, S. G., & Lange, T. (2020). A randomized controlled trial study of the effects of a digital divorce platform on mental and physical health. Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being, 12(3), 863–886. https://doi.org/10.1111/aphw.12213
• Sandler, I., Wolchik, S., Mazza, G., Gunn, H., Tein, J.-Y., Berkel, C., Jones, S., & Porter, M. (2020). Randomized effectiveness trial of the New Beginnings Program for divorced families with children and adolescents. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 49(1), 60–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2018.1540008
• Sbarra, D. A. (2015). Divorce and health: Current trends and future directions. Psychosomatic Medicine, 77(3), 227–236. https://doi.org/10.1097/PSY.0000000000000168
• Sbarra, D. A., & Emery, R. E. (2005). The emotional sequelae of nonmarital relationship dissolution: Analysis of change and intraindividual variability over time. Personal Relationships, 12(2), 213–232. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1350-4126.2005.00112.x
• Slotter, E. B., Gardner, W. L., & Finkel, E. J. (2009). Who am I without you? The influence of romantic breakup on the self-concept. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(2), 147–160. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167209352250
• Stanley, B., & Brown, G. K. (2012). Safety planning intervention: A brief intervention to mitigate suicide risk. Cognitive and Behavioral Practice, 19(2), 256–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbpra.2011.01.001
• Symoens, S., Colman, E., & Bracke, P. (2014). Divorce, conflict, and mental health: How the quality of intimate relationships is linked to post-divorce well-being. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 44(3), 220–233. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12215
• Tosi, M., & van den Broek, T. (2020). Gray divorce and mental health in the United Kingdom. Social Science & Medicine, 256, 113030. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113030
• Tullius, J. M., de Kroon, M. L. A., Almansa, J., & Reijneveld, S. A. (2022). Adolescents’ mental health problems increase after parental divorce, not before, and persist until adulthood: A longitudinal TRAILS study. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 31(6), 969–978. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00787-020-01715-0
• Uphoff, E., Ekers, D., Robertson, L., Dawson, S., Sanger, E., South, E., Samaan, Z., Richards, D., Meader, N., & Churchill, R. (2020). Behavioural activation therapy for depression in adults. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2020(7), CD013305. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD013305.pub2
• van Dijk, R., van der Valk, I. E., Deković, M., & Branje, S. (2020). A meta-analysis on interparental conflict, parenting, and child adjustment in divorced families: Examining mediation using meta-analytic structural equation models. Clinical Psychology Review, 79, 101861. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2020.101861
• Wilson, M. J., Mansour, K., Seidler, Z. E., Oliffe, J. L., Rice, S. M., Sharp, P., Greenwood, C. J., & Macdonald, J. A. (2025a). Intimate partner relationship breakdown and suicidal ideation in a large representative cohort of Australian men. Journal of Affective Disorders, 372, 618-626. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2024.12.071
• Wilson, M. J., Scott, A. J., Pilkington, V., Macdonald, J. A., Rice, S. M., Oliffe, J. L., & Seidler, Z. E. (2025b). Suicidality in men following relationship breakdown: A systematic review and meta-analysis of global data. Psychological Bulletin, 151(7), 819–860. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000482