MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391836829 · doi:10.2196/47699

The Journey of Engaging With Web-Based Self-Harm and Suicide Content: Longitudinal Qualitative Study

2024· article· en· W4391836829 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Zoë Haime, Laura Kennedy, Lydia Grace, Rachel Cohen, Jane Derges, Lucy Biddle

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Infodemiology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSuicide and Self-Harm Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContent (measure theory)HarmQualitative researchContent analysisPsychologyLongitudinal studyMedicineSocial psychologySociologySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Self-harm and suicide are major public health concerns worldwide, with attention focused on the web environment as a helpful or harmful influence. Longitudinal research on self-harm and suicide-related internet use is limited, highlighting a paucity of evidence on long-term patterns and effects of engaging with such content. OBJECTIVE: This study explores the experiences of people engaging with self-harm or suicide content over a 6-month period. METHODS: This study used qualitative and digital ethnographic methods longitudinally, including one-to-one interviews at 3 time points to explore individual narratives. A trajectory analysis approach involving 4 steps was used to interpret the data. RESULTS: The findings from 14 participants established the web-based journey of people who engage with self-harm or suicide content. In total, 5 themes were identified: initial interactions with self-harm or suicide content, changes in what self-harm or suicide content people engage with and where, changes in experiences of self-harm or suicide behaviors associated with web-based self-harm or suicide content engagement, the disengagement-reengagement cycle, and future perspectives on web-based self-harm or suicide content engagement. Initial engagements were driven by participants seeking help, often when offline support had been unavailable. Some participants' exposure to self-harm and suicide content led to their own self-harm and suicide behaviors, with varying patterns of change over time. Notably, disengagement from web-based self-harm and suicide spaces served as a protective measure for all participants, but the pull of familiar content resulted in only brief periods of disconnection. Participants also expressed future intentions to continue returning to these self-harm and suicide web-based spaces, acknowledging the nonlinear nature of their own recovery journey and aiming to support others in the community. Within the themes identified in this study, narratives revealed that participants' behavior was shaped by cognitive flexibility and rigidity, metacognitive abilities, and digital expertise. Opportunities for behavior change arose during periods of cognitive flexibility prompted by life events, stressors, and shifts in mental health. Participants sought diverse and potentially harmful content during challenging times but moved toward recovery-oriented engagements in positive circumstances. Metacognitive and digital efficacy skills also played a pivotal role in participants' control of web-based interactions, enabling more effective management of content or platforms or sites that posed potential harms. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated the complexity of web-based interactions, with beneficial and harmful content intertwined. Participants who demonstrated metacognition and digital efficacy had better control over web-based engagements. Some attributed these skills to study processes, including taking part in reflective diaries, showing the potential of upskilling users. This study also highlighted how participants remained vulnerable by engaging with familiar web-based spaces, emphasizing the responsibility of web-based industry leaders to develop tools that empower users to enhance their web-based safety.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.133
GPT teacher head0.431
Teacher spread0.298 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR InfodemiologySame topicSuicide and Self-Harm StudiesFrench-language works237,207