TABLE 5.

Details of analyses used and statistics produced in included studies which examined the therapeutic alliance as a predictor of prospective suicidal experiences during and post‐therapy

	Therapeutic alliance as a predictor of prospective suicidal experiences during and post‐therapy
Study number and reference	Therapeutic alliance in relation to suicidal ideation post‐therapy	Therapeutic alliance as a predictor of prospective suicidal behaviour (e.g. suicide attempts and self‐harm) during and post‐therapy	Therapeutic alliance during psychotherapy in relation to predicting prospective changes in suicidal ideation over time	Therapeutic alliance during psychotherapy in relation to predicting change in suicidal behaviour (e.g. suicide attempts) over time
1. Shearin and Linehan (1992)	N/A	N/A	N/A	Time series Client χ2(8) = 25.68, p < .001 Therapist χ2(8) = 17.26, p < .05
2. Turner (2000)	Canonical correlation Alliance: Canonical coefficient = .628 Intervention: Canonical coefficient = .631 Therapy cessation suicidal ideation: Canonical coefficient = .84	Canonical correlation Therapy cessation suicide attempts and self‐harm (composite measure) Canonical coefficient = .80	N/A	N/A
3. Goldman and Gregory (2009)	N/A	Predictive correlation r = .36, p = .552	N/A	N/A
4. Hirsh et al. (2012)	N/A	N/A	N/A	Multilevel modelling Client b = −.01, SE = .01, t/chi‐square = 2.92 Reduction in suicide attempts b = −.05, SE = .02, t = 10.09, p < .05
5. Bryan et al. (2012)	N/A	N/A	Repeated measures mixed linear Regression Client B = .045, SE = .117, p = .702	N/A
6. Perry et al. (2013)	N/A	N/A	Simple linear regression Interactions r s = −.45, n = 28, p = .02 Client r s = −.18, n = 28, p = .38 Therapist r s = −.24, n = 28, p = .24	N/A
8. Bedics et al. (2015)	N/A	N/A	N/A	Hierarchical linear modelling Client Changes in alliance b = −.12, SE = .10, z = −1.14, p = .26 Working capacity Suicide‐focused therapy b = −.35, SE = .16, z = −2.39, p < .02 Therapy without focus on suicide prevention b = .02, SE = .13, z = .17, p = .87 Therapist Overall alliance across both therapies b = −.31, SE = .10, z = −3.13, p < .005 Suicide‐focused therapy Overall alliance b = −.34, SE = .14, z = −2.38, p < .02 Client commitment b = −.28, SE = .11, z = −2.56, p < .02 Client working capacity b = −.26, SE = .12, z = −2.26, p < .03 Therapy without focus on suicide prevention Understanding and involvement b = −.43, SE = .14, z = −3.00, p < .003 Overall alliance b = −.27, SE = .14, z = −1.93, p = .05
9. Gysin‐Maillart et al. (2016) ¶	Linear regression Client 12‐month follow‐up: t57 = −3.02, p = .004; coefficient: −.26, R2 = .18 24‐month follow‐up: t57 = −3.11, p = .003; coefficient: −.21, R2 = .30	N/A	N/A	N/A
10. Gysin‐Maillart et al. (2017) ¶	Stepwise multiple linear regression Client β = −.334, R2 = .386, p = .004	N/A	N/A	N/A
11. Plöderl et al. (2017)	N/A	N/A	Spearman's correlation (change score calculated as difference pre and post) Client r = .05, p = .23	N/A
15. Johnson et al. (2019)	N/A	N/A	Structural equation modelling Client IRR = 1.04, p = .001	N/A
16. Ryberg et al. (2019)	N/A	N/A	Mixed effects linear regression Overall alliance 6‐month follow‐up: β = .38, N = 78, p = .039 Client–therapist bond 6‐month follow‐up β = .1.47, N = 78, p = .003 12‐month follow‐up β = 1.10, N = 78, p = .029	N/A
18. Huggett et al. (2021)	Pearson's correlation Client r(58) = −.22, p = .087, 99% CI [−.51, .11] Therapist r(58) = −.22, p = .087, 99% CI [−.51, .11] Multiple hierarchical linear regression Client Model 1: β = −.33, t(56) = −2.66, p = .010, 95% CI [−2.64, −.37] R2 = .110, p = .010 for Step 1 Model 2: β = −.28, t(55) = −2.51, p = .015, 95% CI [−2.29, −.26] R2 = .231, p = .001 for Step 1; ΔR2 = .078, p = .015 for Step 2 Model 3: β = −.27, t(53) = −2.34, p = .023, 95% CI [−2.23, −.18] R2 = .231, p = .001 for Step 1; ∆R2 = .037, p = .261 for Step 2; ∆R2 = .068, p = .023 for Step 3. WAI‐SR Moderated linear regression Client Interaction effect: b = .003, t(54) = 1.85, p = .07 Total number of minutes spent in therapy Short: b = −2.07, 95% CI [−3.40, −.74], t = −3.12, p = .003 Mean: b = − 1.14, 95% CI [−2.18, −.11], t = −2.20, p = .032 Long: = − .21, 95% CI [−1.76, 1.34], t = −.59, p = .560	Independent samples t‐test Client t(55) = −.72, p = .463, 99% CI [−9.62, 6.64] Therapist t(56) = .63, p = .529, 99% CI [−4.68, 6.36]	N/A	N/A
19. Ibrahim et al. (2021)	Hierarchical linear models Interaction between therapy adherence and client alliance in relation to suicidal ideation t (329) = −2.72, p < .01 ∆R2 = .02, ∆F (3, 329) = 2.80, p = .04	N/A	N/A	N/A