What Helps or Hinders Therapeutic Relationships in Inpatient Mental Healthcare: a Systematic Review to Inform Policy and Practice
Abstract
Background: Therapeutic relationships between service users and staff on inpatient mental health wards are central to the delivery of high-quality care and have been prioritised by policy makers. Yet these relationships are frequently found to be poor across inpatient settings, and more evidence is needed on how to foster good therapeutic relationships. In collaboration with lived experience researchers, we conducted a large systematic review, which was requested and carried out in partnership with NHS England, to identify facilitators and barriers to effective therapeutic relationships on inpatient wards.
Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, HMIC (between January 1999-September 2025) for quantitative, qualitative or mixed methods primary research studies. Study quality was assessed using the Mixed Method Appraisal Tool (MMAT). Data were synthesised using an iterative analytic process, informed by framework analysis and narrative synthesis, across five interconnected levels: 1) individual (service user and staff experiences), 2) microsystem (daily interactions), 3) mesosystem (ward environment), 4) macrosystem (the wider organisation), 5) chronosystem (time and change across levels).
Results: 184 studies with 19,984 participants (n=16,138 service users, n=3,846 staff) were included. Across study designs, four main categories emerged: 1) reducing power imbalances helped facilitate positive relationships and, conversely, restrictive practices damaged them; 2) staff relational skills including empathy, non-judgemental approaches and treating service users as individuals, rather than simply ‘patients’, helped build positive relationships; 3) staff continuity and time for staff to connect with service users was critical to building positive relationships; ward contexts that prioritised task completion and/or were risk-focused weakened relationships; 4) ward environments that created opportunities to build interpersonal connections between staff and service users (e.g. shared spaces) strengthened relationships whereas those that provided limited opportunities for interaction weakened relationships.
Conclusion: We identified four key factors that can help or hinder therapeutic relationships on mental health inpatient wards: power dynamics between staff and service users; restrictive practices; relational skills of staff; staff availability and consistency, and ward environments that facilitated interpersonal connections. We found evidence gaps particularly for minoritised ethnic communities and organisational influences. We suggest strategies which could help relationship building, including support with repairing relational ruptures, greater emphasis on relationship building in staff roles, and ward environments that support connection.
Registration: The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (registration number: CRD420251047929).
Related
- Bridging the Gap Between Research and Practice: A Systematic Literature Review of IoT and Machine Learning Applications in Mental Healthcare Systems
- A comparison of mortality for neonates aged 35 versus 36 weeks gestational age with hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy treated with therapeutic hypothermia in the National Inpatient Sample.
- Self-harm incidents and restrictive practice use in an acute female inpatient unit: a service evaluation of a continuous multi-system improvement approach
- Quantifying Diagnostic Misclassification and Inpatient Mortality Determinants in Scrub Typhus: A Systematic Review and Interaction Meta-Analysis of Acute Undifferentiated Febrile Illness (AUFI) Cohorts in India
- Thirty-day clinical outcomes, early recovery, and healthcare resource use after planned ambulatory vs. conventional inpatient laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a propensity-score overlap-weighted retrospective cohort study
BibTeX
@misc{cooper2026what,
title = {{What Helps or Hinders Therapeutic Relationships in Inpatient Mental Healthcare: a Systematic Review to Inform Policy and Practice}},
author = {Ruth Cooper and Siying Li and Una Foye and Lara Levetan and Alessandro Dorata and Jude Beng and Winnie Liu and T K and Dawn Cutler and Jasmine Lee},
howpublished = {PsyArXiv},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.31234/osf.io/dknq2_v2},
url = {https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/dknq2_v2/},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - UNPB
TI - What Helps or Hinders Therapeutic Relationships in Inpatient Mental Healthcare: a Systematic Review to Inform Policy and Practice
AU - Ruth Cooper
AU - Siying Li
AU - Una Foye
AU - Lara Levetan
AU - Alessandro Dorata
AU - Jude Beng
AU - Winnie Liu
AU - T K
AU - Dawn Cutler
AU - Jasmine Lee
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/28
PB - PsyArXiv
DO - 10.31234/osf.io/dknq2_v2
UR - https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/dknq2_v2/
AB - Background: Therapeutic relationships between service users and staff on inpatient mental health wards are central to the delivery of high-quality care and have been prioritised by policy makers. Yet these relationships are frequently found to be poor across inpatient settings, and more evidence is needed on how to foster good therapeutic relationships. In collaboration with lived experience researchers, we conducted a large systematic review, which was requested and carried out in partnership with NHS England, to identify facilitators and barriers to effective therapeutic relationships on inpatient wards. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, HMIC (between January 1999-September 2025) for quantitative, qualitative or mixed methods primary research studies. Study quality was assessed using the Mixed Method Appraisal Tool (MMAT). Data were synthesised using an iterative analytic process, informed by framework analysis and narrative synthesis, across five interconnected levels: 1) individual (service user and staff experiences), 2) microsystem (daily interactions), 3) mesosystem (ward environment), 4) macrosystem (the wider organisation), 5) chronosystem (time and change across levels). Results: 184 studies with 19,984 participants (n=16,138 service users, n=3,846 staff) were included. Across study designs, four main categories emerged: 1) reducing power imbalances helped facilitate positive relationships and, conversely, restrictive practices damaged them; 2) staff relational skills including empathy, non-judgemental approaches and treating service users as individuals, rather than simply ‘patients’, helped build positive relationships; 3) staff continuity and time for staff to connect with service users was critical to building positive relationships; ward contexts that prioritised task completion and/or were risk-focused weakened relationships; 4) ward environments that created opportunities to build interpersonal connections between staff and service users (e.g. shared spaces) strengthened relationships whereas those that provided limited opportunities for interaction weakened relationships. Conclusion: We identified four key factors that can help or hinder therapeutic relationships on mental health inpatient wards: power dynamics between staff and service users; restrictive practices; relational skills of staff; staff availability and consistency, and ward environments that facilitated interpersonal connections. We found evidence gaps particularly for minoritised ethnic communities and organisational influences. We suggest strategies which could help relationship building, including support with repairing relational ruptures, greater emphasis on relationship building in staff roles, and ward environments that support connection. Registration: The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (registration number: CRD420251047929).
ER -