Exploring the Therapeutic Affordances of Self-Harm Online Support Communities: An Online Survey of Members
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A growing number of online communities have been established to support those who self-harm. However, little is known about the therapeutic affordances arising from engagement with these communities and resulting outcomes. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to explore the presence of therapeutic affordances as reported by members of self-harm online support communities. METHODS: In total, 94 respondents (aged 13-63 years, mean=23.5 years; 94% female) completed an online survey exploring their experiences of engaging with a self-harm online support community. Respondents varied in terms of how long they had been accessing an online community, with 22% (21/94) accessing less than 1 year, 39% (37/94) 1 to 2 years, 14% (13/94) 2 to 3 years, and 24.5% (23/94) more than 3 years. Responses were analyzed using deductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: The results of our analysis describe each of the five therapeutic affordances that were present in the data, namely (1) connection, the ability to make contact with others who self-harm for the purposes of mutual support and in so doing reduce feelings of loneliness and isolation; (2) adaptation, that is, how use of online support varies in relation to the personal circumstances of the individual user; (3) exploration, that is, the ability to learn about self-harm and learn about strategies to reduce or stop self-harming behavior; (4) narration, that is, the ability to share experiences, as well as read about the experiences of others; and (5) self-presentation, that is, how and what users present about themselves to others in the online community. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that engagement with self-harm online support communities may confer a range of therapeutic benefits for some users, which may serve to minimize the psychosocial burden of self-harm and promote positive coping strategies. In addition, the online nature of the support available may be helpful to those who are unable to access face-to-face support.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".