The relationship between therapeutic alliance and patient's suicidal thoughts, self-harming behaviours and suicide attempts: A systematic review
Abstract
Background Suicidality is a common concern for people with mental health problems. The interpersonal nature of suicidality suggests that therapeutic alliance may be important when working clinically with suicidal patients. This paper is a systematic review of studies investigating the association between alliance and treatment outcome relating to suicidal ideation and behaviours.Methods Systematic searches of PsychINFO, MEDLINE, AMED, EMBASE, Web of Science and CINAHL were completed using words that captured the concepts of alliance and suicidality. Eligible studies: involved participants aged 18-years-old or over; used a validated measure of therapeutic alliance; and reported associations between alliance and suicidality. Abstracts, qualitative studies and articles not written in English were excluded.Results Twelve studies were included. Findings indicated that alliance is associated with suicidality. Alliance was related to suicidality in eleven of the papers. Self-harming behaviours had the strongest association with patient-rated alliance. Suicide attempts had the weakest association, possibly due to the infrequency of suicide attempts in the studies reviewed.Limitations The twelve studies were heterogeneous in terms of the measure of alliance used, method of assessing suicidality, clinical setting and professional-type. This variability limited the degree to which findings could be synthesised.Conclusion Therapists, care-coordinators and mental health teams should recognise the importance of building a strong therapeutic alliance with suicidal patients. Researchers should use consistent methods of measuring alliance and assessing suicidality in future studies. Clinicians and researchers should note that suicidal thoughts, self-harm and suicide attempts may be related to alliance in different ways and therefore should be assessed as separate constructs.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Mental health professionals have emphasized that developing and maintaining a therapeutic relationship is central to reducing suicide risk.
“Mental health professionals have emphasized that developing and maintaining a therapeutic relationship is central to reducing suicide risk.75”
From Suicide (2020) · cites this paper as [75]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 48 · Cited by 93
- Authors
- Dunster-Page, C., Haddock, G., Wainwright, L., & Berry, K.
- Affiliations
- Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Dunster-Page, Charlotte
- Venue
- Journal of Affective Disorders
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2017-12
- Volume
- 223
- Pages
- 165-174
- ISSN
- 0165-0327 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2739279969
- Cited by
- 93
- References
- 48
- Citations by year
- 2026: 13 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 1
- FWCI
- 1.09
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Affective Disorders (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Suicide and Self-Harm Studies
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychoanalysis and Psychopathology Research
- Keywords
- therapeutic relationship, suicidality, suicidal ideation, self-harm, suicide attempts, treatment outcomes, mental health services
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Psychotherapy, Suicide, Attempted, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Self-Injurious Behavior, Treatment Outcome, Young Adult, Suicidal Ideation
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review