‘I’ve seen you at your worst,but I still want to be your friend’: A qualitative study of peer support exchange from the perspective of participants in online communities centred around self-harming and suicidal behaviour

Abstract

Objective

Research on online communities centred around self-harming and suicidal behaviour often focuses on harmful effects. The concept of peer support, which may help explain why individuals engage with such forums, remains under-explored. This study aimed to examine how peer support is experienced in these communities.

Methods

Thirteen in-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted with current and former participants in online communities focused on self-harming and suicidal behaviour (12 women and one non-binary person, mean age 28). A reflective thematic analysis was used to identify patterns in the data.

Results

Four main themes emerged: (1) You are allowed to feel bad and express it on your own terms, (2) Anonymity and intimacy is not a paradox in the online world, (3) It is necessary to have friends in real life as well, and (4) When support, relations, and motivation change over time, one must ask: Should I stay or should I go? The findings not only illustrate the communities as emotionally supportive spaces that foster belonging and intimacy, but also point to challenges in maintaining boundaries and disengaging when support becomes unhelpful.

Conclusion

Online communities centred around self-harming and suicidal behaviour provide an alternative to traditional mental health services, often perceived as paternalistic and unsupportive of autonomy. Participants describe online peer support as a way to share emotional burdens and form meaningful relationships. However, the informal nature of support may complicate recovery, especially when individuals become entrenched in the community. These dynamics warrant further research and consideration in mental health practice.

Keywords

Self-harm suicidality social media peer support qualitative research

Introduction

Peer support involves individuals using their lived experiences to support others facing similar challenges.^1–3 Within mental health care, peer support has a well-documented positive effect on both clinical and personal recovery.² Shery Mead et al.¹ defines peer support as:

A system of giving and receiving help founded on key principles of respect, shared responsibility, and mutual agreement of what is helpful. Peer support is not based on psychiatric models and diagnostic criteria. It is about understanding another's situation empathically through the shared experience of emotional and psychological pain. This connection, or affiliation, is a deep, holistic understanding based on mutual experience where people are able to ‘be’ with each other without the constraints of traditional (expert/patient) relationships.

This definition highlights that peer support emphasises relational connection beyond clinical diagnosis and professional roles, centring on empathy and shared experience. Traditionally peer support was delivered through face-to-face interactions or clinical settings.⁴ Today peer support is increasingly facilitated by social media platforms, which provide unique affordances such as anonymity, immediacy, and multimodal communication, that is, through text, videos, or pictures.^5–7 Unlike offline peer support, online communities allow for rapid, anonymous, and multimedia exchanges that can reduce barriers to disclosure and create novel support opportunities.^3,7,8 Further, the ability to algorithmically promote content, sustain large-scale visibility, and enable persistent engagement through features such as likes, shares, and follows marks a significant shift from earlier, more static online forums.^9,10

Online communities centred on self-harm and suicidal content, especially on image- and video-based social media platforms like Instagram, Tumblr, and TikTok, have grown substantially.^11,12 These spaces allow individuals to share experiences, express distress, and seek understanding from peers facing similar challenges. The anonymity and immediacy afforded by these platforms facilitate open and timely peer interactions that might not be possible offline, creating a sense of safety and belonging.^8,13,14 These communities are often attractive to individuals who may face stigma, social isolation, or lack of offline support, providing a space where they can connect with others who truly understand their experiences.^4,7,15

However, these communities present a double-edged sword. Minimal content moderation on social media and easy access to graphic or triggering materials can contribute to harmful outcomes, such as normalising self-harming behaviours or exacerbating suicidal ideation.^16,17 Participation has been linked both to increased self-harming urges and suicidal ideation as well as reduced feelings of loneliness and improved access to peer support.^18,19 A recent review found that posting or viewing self-harm images can lead to both positive outcomes, like empathy and help-seeking, and negative outcomes, such as learning new methods to self-harm, which may normalise harmful behaviours.⁶ This suggests that the effects of these online communities vary widely depending on individual experiences, supported by current evidence.^6,8,11,19,20

What distinguishes self-harm and suicidality-focused online communities on social media from other mental health forums is this complex duality, where peer support can both foster recovery and exacerbate risk. This dynamic interplay highlights the importance of understanding not only why individuals engage in these spaces but also how peer support relationships emerge and develop within them. While prior research has investigated motivations for participation and broad outcomes of engagement, there remains a gap in knowledge about the formation and functioning of peer support exchanges in these online community contexts.

Understanding these relational processes is essential to harness the benefits of peer support in reducing stigma and promoting recovery while mitigating potential harms associated with exposure to self-harm and suicidal content. This study aims to explore the subjective experiences of peer support among participants in online communities centred on self-harm and suicidal behaviours.

Specifically, we ask how peer relations emerge and form in social media-hosted online communities centred around self-harm and suicidal

Method

Recruitment

We employed criterion-based purposive sampling to select participants who could provide rich, detailed accounts relevant to our research questions. Participants were included if they (1) had self-reported experience engaging in online communities centred around self-harming and/or suicidal behaviour, regardless of level of involvement, (2) were fluent in English or Nordic languages (Danish, Swedish, or Norwegian), (3) provided informed written consent, and (4) were 15 years of age or older.

Participants were recruited between April 2024 and July 2024 through psychiatric in/outpatient facilities in four out of five Danish regions and through residential institutions across the country. Further, three Danish non-governmental organisations (NGO) shared the recruitment advert through their social media accounts.

Throughout the recruitment period, MEH, JM, and KJ evaluated the number of participants in relation to information power²¹ with the understanding that saturation does not conform to the values and assumptions of reflexive thematic analysis but is inevitably situated and subjective and can therefore only be determined on an ongoing basis.²² Based on the inclusion of theory, a focused objective, and expecting comprehensive data through rich dialogue, we estimated that 10–15 participants would be sufficient, depending on the variation achieved within our sample.

Participants

A total of 13 participants aged 21–49 were included in the study, representing all five regions of Denmark. None of the participants was known by the authors prior to study commencement. No participants were excluded. Of these, 12 identified as women and one as non-binary. All participants had previously experienced psychiatric hospitalisations, including emergency room or intensive care stays. Yet, only one participant was recruited from mental health settings; the remaining 12 responded to an advertisement shared on social media by three Danish NGOs. Their diagnoses included attention-deficit disorders, personality disorders, autism spectrum disorders, and schizophrenia. All but one participant reported prior suicide attempts. All had engaged in physical self-harm, although six reported no longer engaging in self-harming behaviours. Four participants resided in group homes, while nine lived alone or with a spouse. Five had completed or were studying for a bachelor's or master's degree and worked full or part-time. Two participants were on sick leave or unemployed. One participant worked flexibly, three were on early retirement, and two were unemployed, relying on social services. Ten participants were currently active in online communities related to self-harm and/or suicidal behaviour, while three were not active anymore. All participants chose to remain anonymous and created profiles using pseudonyms, when participating in social media-hosted online communities centred on self-harming and suicidal content.

Ethics

Prior to the interviews, participants received oral and written information about the study's purpose and methods, and their rights. They then provided written consent either physically or electronically. It is important to pay particular attention to vulnerable groups in research, for example, people suffering from mental health problems²³; participant materials and consent forms were therefore prepared in accordance with Danish legislation and recommendations from two patient representatives, currently employed as mental health peer workers in the Capital Region of Denmark, but not affiliated with the study nor part of the research team. Post-interview, participants were asked about their current state of mind and were offered support if needed, for example, in the form of supportive conversation or contact details for the psychiatric emergency room, and so on (see Appendix A). No participant reported discomfort or thoughts of self-harm. Data were safely stored in accordance with the European Union General Data Protection Regulation.²⁴ Anonymity and confidentiality were established by coding data and identifying respondents using ID numbers.

Interviews

The guide for our semi-structured interviews was inspired by existing interview guides,^25–28 evidence identified in our recent work,²⁹ and Shery Mead et al.'s conceptualisation of peer support.¹ We also used feedback from the patient representatives to refine the guide and ensure that our questions were relevant to people with lived experience.³⁰ The interview guide is included in Appendix A.

The interviews were conducted by MEH, a female mental health nurse with a master's degree, 10+ years of clinical experience, and prior qualitative research experience. MEH was unknown to the participants, who were given background information about them, including age, sex, education, and study motivations. All contact was through MEH.

The participants chose their preferred format for interview, that is, face-to-face (n = 2), online (n = 6), telephone (n = 2), and mail/in writing (n = 3). On average, interviews lasted 70 min (min 44 min/max 108 min) regardless of format. The resulting transcriptions were 249 pages (ranging from 14 to 25 pages each). This comprehensive textual corpus formed the basis of our analysis.

Analytical process

MEH transcribed the audio recordings of the telephone, online, and face-to-face interviews verbatim. The interviews in writing were uploaded in un-edited form. Transcriptions were uploaded to NVivo for analysis. We followed Braun and Clarke's six-phase approach to reflexive thematic analysis, which allows inductive exploration of data, focusing on patterned themes.^31,32 In phase one, for further familiarisation with the data, MEH re-listened to and re-read the interviews and transcriptions. In phase two, initial codes were generated by identifying patterns and meanings within the data. These codes were grouped into themes in phase three. Phase four involved reviewing and further developing the themes by consolidating content across the initial themes before finalising and naming them in phase five. The analysis process was iterative,³² revisiting each phase several times to improve and refine results (see Table 1 for examples).

Table 1.

Overview of the iterative analysis process.

Coded text	Code name	Subtheme	Theme
SOMETIMES IT'S JUST REALLY NICE TO BE IN A PLACE WHERE YOU DON'T HAVE TO WORK TO STOP AND CAN SAY WHAT YOU WANT. PARTICIPANT 13	Freedom of speech, when feeling bad	Express it in your own way	You are allowed to feel bad and express it in your own way
IT HAS BEEN LONG MESSAGES ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED TODAY… AND IT IS JUST SO NICE TO HAVE SOMEONE YOU CAN TALK TO ABOUT EVERYTHING. THERE IS NO JUDGEMENTS, THERE’S NOTHING. AND SHE DOES NOT GET, YOU KNOW, SUPER WORRIED ID I WRITE THAT I HAVE SELF-HARMED. PARTICIPANT 10	Being acknowledged and supported when feeling bad	Express it in your own way	You are allowed to feel bad and express it in your own way
YOU DON'T NEED ALL THAT FORMAL STUFF FIRST. THERE'S NO CHEMISTRY CHECK, THERE'S NO WHAT DO YOU REALLY THINK OF ME? BECAUSE YOU ALREADY KNOW EACH OTHER'S INNERMOST THOUGHTS. PARTICIPANT 5	Non-superficial relation	The depth of friendship	Anonymity and intimacy is not a paradox in the online world
IT'S LIKE YOU START YOUR FRIENDSHIP ON A DIFFERENT LEVEL. YOU UNDERSTAND EACH OTHER IN A DIFFERENT WAY AND HAVE A DIFFERENT UNDERSTANDING OF EACH OTHER AND EACH OTHER'S CHALLENGES. PARTICIPANT 4	Deep understanding of one another	Friendship on another level	Anonymity and intimacy is not a paradox in the online world
I ALSO NEED MY FRIENDSHIPS WITH THOSE WHO AREN'T MENTALLY ILL, BUT I'LL JUST TELL YOU THAT THERE AREN'T MANY LEFT. IT'S BECAUSE THERE ARE SO MANY PEOPLE WHO HAVE ENDED THEIR FRIENDSHIP WITH ME, BECAUSE HOW COULD THEY EVER REFLECT THEMSELVES IN ME AND IN WHAT I'VE GONE THROUGH? AND IT'S PROBABLY BEEN INSANELY HARD FOR THEM TO BE WORRIED ABOUT ME. PARTICIPANT 10	Offline friends leave	When the offline friends leave	It is necessary to have friends offline as well
I JUST REALLY NEEDED NORMAL FRIENDS TOO. PARTICIPANT 11	The need for normal relations	The need for normal relations
IT NOT THE ONLY KIND OF PEOPLE YOU WANT TO HANG OUT WITH. PARTICIPANT 3	Can’t just be with social media relations	The need for normal relations
NOW I MOSTLY USE IT AS A SCARE CAMPAIGN. FOR WHAT HAPPENS IF I DON’T STAY AWAKE. LIKE A MIRROR OF WHAT I DON’T WANT TO GO BACK TO. IT MAKES ME FEEL LESS ALONE. IF I GET TRIGGERED, I HAVE THE RESPONSIBILITY MYSELF NOT TO FOLLOW IT OR ASK MYSELF ‘WHY DOES THIS TRIGGER SOMETHING IN ME?’ THEN IT BECOMES A WORK POINT FOR ME. PARTICIPANT 6	Uses it as motivation	Reasons for staying	When support, relations and motivation change over time, one must ask, ‘Should I stay or should I go’
I DON'T THINK I COULD TAKE CARE OF MYSELF IN THAT ENVIRONMENT. IT ALWAYS ENDED UP IN MORE SELF-HARM AND MASSIVE SUICIDAL THOUGHTS AND SOME SUICIDE ATTEMPTS. I COULDN'T BE IN THAT ENVIRONMENT. I SEE THAT TODAY. PARTICIPANT 9	Leave to take care of oneself	Reasons for leaving

Phase six involved writing a structured report following the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ) checklist.³³ The COREQ checklist is provided in Appendix B.

MEH, JM, and KJ contributed to phases one to four, and MEH, JM, KJ, KA, MV and MN contributed to phases five and six.

Results

The analysis resulted in four themes.

Theme 1: you are allowed to feel bad and express it on your own terms

Participants described the option to participate anonymously in online communities centred around self-harming and suicidal behaviour as crucial in alleviating concerns about the impact of their online activity on their current or future lives. In particular, participants experienced significant stigma related to their mental health diagnoses, self-harming behaviours, and suicidal urges and thus felt compelled to participate anonymously to avoid jeopardising their chances of a normal life. They described experiencing anonymous participation as a pre-condition of authenticity.

It's really because I think I’m going to work as a teacher at some point again, and therefore I would be really worried if students or parents could connect me to some of the things I write in there.

Participant 10.

Participants’ attachment to online communities seemed to be reinforced by the reactions of family and friends when exposed to their self-harming behaviour and suicidal urges. Participants shared how their loved ones struggle to understand their reasons for self-harm, often scolding them and demonstrating a lack of understanding. Encountering such reactions made being a part of online communities even more appealing, as they could share thoughts and feelings without experiencing guilt or judgement and without being asked to take responsibility for using self-harm as a coping strategy.

You don’t have to use your skills. You’re allowed to feel bad. And it's sometimes really nice. If you say you feel like shit in real life, it becomes a cross-examination: In what way? How bad is it? Is it dangerous? If I say I feel like shit, it's not just ‘Do you need a hug?’ It's ‘oh no! We’re going on vacation! The travel insurance won’t work. Do you remember what this did to your sister last time? It doesn’t benefit me. It's nice that there are people who understand in there (online communities ed.)

Participant 13.

Participants reported their experiences with the mental health system, describing it as one that is often paternalistic, under-resourced, patronising, and unsupportive of autonomy.

There are a lot of staff who criticise the network and don’t really listen to what we think. They tell us not to share our Facebook or Instagram. We’re not supposed to connect outside the psychiatric hospital, because of our self-harming behaviour. I think it's because they don’t know much about it.

Participant 8.

They reported experiencing mistrust and stigmatisation due to their self-harming behaviour, with these feelings being further reinforced when staff forbid the formation of relationships with peers through psychiatric hospitalisation or outpatient treatment. They describe the failure of staff to understand or be curious about their online engagements, resulting in participants intensifying their secrecy around and attachment to online communities.

Theme 2: anonymity and intimacy is not a paradox in the online world

Participants highlighted the unique bonds formed with peers through shared experiences, despite the fact that participants engage from anonymous profiles and do not identify themselves with their actual identity. A recurring narrative was the profound understanding and lack of judgement within these relations, emphasising that they are built through shared struggles. This creates a strong foundation of empathy and mutual support, leading most participants to call these relations their friends, rather than just acquaintances or peers.

It's like the worst thing in your life that has united you. We’ve seen each other in the most broken situations, and still choose each other. I mean really, really providing strong support, care and very, very beautiful people-to-people interactions. I've seen you at your worst and I still want to be your friend.

Participant 10

Participants stressed that these relations start at a deeper level than conventional ones, bypassing the superficial layers often present in novel relationships and diving straight into deeper, more meaningful interactions. Anonymity and intimacy are not perceived to be paradoxes; rather, anonymity appears to create a safe space where vulnerability can emerge more readily. By removing the pressures of identity performance and social judgement, participants described feeling freer to share personal experiences, fostering a sense of immediate emotional connection.

As soon as you've met someone from the network and you click personality-wise, it's never superficial. You've already seen their worst side of themselves. It's almost the other way around. Usually, it's often superficial ‘I'm fine, things are going well’ and stuff like that. So it's a deeper relationship from the start compared to real-life meetings.

Participant 2

Having witnessed one another's most vulnerable moments constitutes an acceptance that is inherent to these relationships. Participants contrasted the freedom to be oneself without fear of judgement with the pressure to conform to societal norms when interacting with people in social settings offline.

Because of my ADHD, I'm very fidgety. So, meeting people in real life, I make these rules. ‘In an hour you can move this many times on a chair’, because you don't want to seem completely fucked up or uninterested. But if I meet with my friends from the network, I can stand on my head if I want. I don't care. There's not that barrier.

Participant 5

Participants described the deep emotional connection despite the physical distance or lack of face-to-face interaction as a peculiar but poignant aspect of these relationships. A term that surfaced repeatedly was ‘mirror’, with participants describing the experience of exceptionally solid connections; some characterised meeting these individuals – either online or in real life – as ‘coming home’, representing the epitome of safety and cohesion. The participants recounted finding a mirror so recognisable and powerful that they experienced a true meeting with their own reflection, thus becoming united with and more forgiving and understanding of themselves.

Theme 3: it is necessary to have friends offline as well

Participants described needing offline friendships with people with and without mental illness, stressing that surrounding themselves exclusively with others who are struggling can lead to a cycle of illness and worries.

I often surrounded myself with people who were also struggling. My friend said, ‘you need healthy friendships with someone who isn't mentally ill’. And he's right. Because it can quickly turn into illness and worry and hospitalizations… It's good to have friends where you talk about something else and do something else.

Participant 10

Participants expressed the need to have friends with different life experiences to provide a balanced and stable social environment. They explained that having friends who are not struggling with mental health issues offers a different perspective and a sense of normalcy, which is crucial for their overall well-being. Real-life friends often contrast with online friends – where online relationships are rooted in shared experiences and the ability to mirror one another, offline friends reflect ‘normality’ and having relationships that represent everyday life.

It's very liberating that you didn't have to talk about it all the time. One day my friends introduced me to a program called ‘Naked Attraction’ (A TV-show, eds.). I almost died! I didn't understand the point. But it felt normal and nice.

Participant 4

Despite acknowledging the need for offline friends, participants reported struggling to maintain these friendships. Many of their friends had ended the relationships, perceived as caused by the challenges of relating to their experiences and the emotional burden of worrying about their well-being.

After I got my diagnoses and after I started self-harming, I lost a close group of friends because they are in a completely different place now. They have cut me out.

Participant 8

The participants’ experiences suggest that a feeling of social isolation often accompanies a life with mental illness. They saw the challenges in finding and maintaining supportive friendships as rooted in a sense of living in parallel worlds. While friends who understand and share similar struggles provide crucial support and empathy, non-mentally ill friends offer stability, different perspectives, and a sense of normalcy; participants viewed both forms of friendship as beneficial.

Theme 4: when support, relations, and motivation change over time, one must ask, ‘should I stay, or should I go?’

Participants describe peer support within these online communities as initially being reciprocal, but after years of engagement, they experienced a shift to a more one-dimensional form of support, with older users taking on mentorship roles for newer or younger users.

Maybe it's also because those of us who are a little older know what it was like to be young and have no one to look up to. So, you need someone who can say ‘Hey, you can have a good life’.

Participant 6

Participants expressed their desire to be role models and their awareness of representing a mirror for younger users and offering inspiration and hope. They also explained that there is a clear difference among users of the networks based on age and experience, emphasising that those younger than 18 often post very explicit and concerning self-harm and suicidal content. Conversely, participants described a tendency to follow profiles that offer relatable content and meaningful engagement. They seek connections with those who have similar experiences or challenges, and some take an active role in promoting what they call a recovery-oriented culture within the community.

Many sees the network as… I can only be here if I'm feeling bad. No, hopefully not. Because then you're stuck. Because you'll miss this community that you were such a big part of, while you were feeling really bad. If you think that you can't be a part of it if you grow and get better, then you'll be stuck. You don't want to get better. And that's not how it is supposed to be.

Participant 5

They argued that feeling unable to participate when doing well can trap some individuals in a place where they cannot get better. By actively sharing both highs and lows, they hope to make the network a place where one can seek and provide peer support without romanticising life with mental illness. However, some participants noted that sharing negative experiences garners more engagement than positive updates, suggesting that the community is more interested in shared struggles than successes. This imbalance can make those who are doing well feel overlooked, with some even feeling prompted to share self-harm or suicidal content, despite being in a place of recovery.

This is going to sound weird. But the better you are doing, the less reactions you'll get. That's just my experience. I don't think they notice me in the same way anymore.

Participant 12

Participants outlined that everyone is responsible for who they follow and how they use the communities while acknowledging the potential difficulty younger and more inexperienced users face in navigating them. They emphasised that younger users often share more explicit content and seem less reflective about what is shared.

All the participants had considered leaving the communities, acknowledging that this decision is deeply personal and influenced by various factors requiring much contemplation. Some use the community more during some periods than others, depending on their need, often engaging less during periods in which they are feeling better.

The community is a major validation machine. None of us know how to self-validate. We all hate ourselves. We validate each other, trying to give some love that we don't know how to give ourselves. So, if you're in a period where you can actually do that, then you kind of don't need it.

Participant 13

Some participants chose to stay in the community because they continue to derive meaning from the exchange of peer support and sharing their experiences. They feel a sense of duty and fulfilment in being a role model and offering hope based on their experiences. Conversely, some participants described leaving the community because they felt it hindered their recovery, exacerbating their self-harming behaviour and suicidal thoughts, leading to the realisation they needed to distance themselves for their well-being.

I don't think I could take care of myself in that environment. It always ended up in more self-harm and massive suicidal thoughts and some suicide attempts. I couldn't be in that environment. I see that today.

Participant 9

Others described having opted out because they finally found real-world community and support. Some participants had not yet decided about leaving, describing the decision as fraught with uncertainty and fear. They expressed that their needs have changed, yet they fear the repercussions of severing ties. Some grapple with a sense of responsibility towards others still active in the community and conveyed fear for their well-being.

How the hell do you delete your profile? Because what about the people I follow… What if they commit suicide? They're just not strangers anymore. These people mean the world to me.

Participant 4

Participants expressed being torn between the desire to disconnect and the emotional bonds formed with other users. The relationships within the community have become significant as a result of the intimacy and confidentiality embedded in their communication. Participants were distressed by the thought of leaving due to the potential loss of meaningful connections and concerns about the well-being of others, especially since most participants narrated having lost friends from the online communities to suicide.

Discussion

This study sheds further light on the seemingly paradoxical nature of the unique intimacy present in online friendships despite their anonymity. These online platforms provide a context in which individuals can openly express and discuss self-harming and suicidal thoughts and behaviours,⁶ thereby challenging conventional assumptions regarding secrecy and authenticity. Anonymity plays a critical role in enabling these disclosures, underscoring the complex processes involved in online self-presentation and identity negotiation.^6,34 Additionally, it addresses how exchanging peer support within these communities can evolve into friendships, which are known to be vital for mental health and overall well-being.³⁵

Our analysis of the experience of peer support exchange in online communities centred around self-harm and suicidal content reveals that the anonymity these platforms offer supports participants’ sense of autonomy, helping to manage the stigma experienced within the mental health system. Negative reactions from family and the mental health system prompt participants to seek non-judgemental support online. Despite the anonymous nature of participation, shared struggles foster deep bonds and empathy, forming strong, supportive, intimate friendships. However, balancing these online connections with offline friendships is essential to maintain normalcy and avoid a cycle of illness. The motivation for engaging in peer support exchange online evolves over time, with more experienced users taking on the position of mentor and role model for younger users. Deciding whether to leave the community or stay is influenced by the need for validation, fear of isolation, and desire for recovery. These findings align with existing evidence suggesting that engaging in mental health peer-supportive relations in online communities centred around self-harm and suicidal behaviour is a double-edged sword.^16,17,19,36

Our findings contribute directly to an ongoing, increasingly polarised debate.³⁷ On the one hand, proponents are in favour of strict social media regulation, with some even calling for an outright ban for social media use for children and young people. On the other hand, opponents argue that such measures would amount to censorship, violating young people's right to freedom of expression and potentially cause more loneliness among already vulnerable people who are finding a community online.³⁸ Our findings underscore the complexity of young people's engagement with online communities related to self-harm and suicidal behaviour. Participants described these spaces as both helpful and, at times, problematic, hence illustrating that online peer support can offer meaningful connection, emotional relief, and a sense of belonging, while also posing potential risks. These insights point to the need for a more nuanced approach to regulation, that is, one that recognises the diversity of user experiences and balances protection with the preservation of supportive peer networks for those who may not otherwise have access to care or understanding within their physical network or mental health services.

It is well established that exchanging peer support online is valuable.^6,18,19,39 We argue that peer support in these online communities can be seen as returning to fundamental peer support principles, notwithstanding its professionalisation in contemporary mental health settings.^40,41 This form of peer support, characterised as anarchistic and autonomous, is highly valued by participants. They perceive the mental health system as paternalistic, under-resourced, and unsupportive of autonomy, contradicting the historical origins of recovery and peer support, which emphasised mutual aid and reciprocity.^42,43 Thus, the perceived psychiatrisation of recovery⁴³ strengthens affiliation to these online communities. Our findings indicate that participants seek and maintain their relationships with these networks in opposition to the stigmatisation and lack of understanding they experience in the mental health system.

The nature of the peer support explored in this study reflects the principles highlighted by Mead et al., which emphasise reciprocal respect and empathic understanding through shared experiences.¹ This allows for authentic relationships without the constraints of an expert/patient dynamic,¹ simply fostering friendships and providing a context in which needs are met.³⁵ Therefore, it is essential to understand how and why peer support exchange in online communities centred around self-harming and suicidal behaviour can potentially aid recovery, and further research is warranted.

Collectively, the participants’ narratives illuminate the unique, close, and supportive nature of peer support within these communities, which develops into friendships for most. Despite differing from conventional offline friendships, they share the same characteristics of intimacy, confidentiality, and a sense of significance.³⁵ Online friendships appear to be founded on honesty, shared experiences of suffering, and an absence of pretence, allowing for a deeper connection and enabling participants to take ownership of their narrative. Our participants underscored the critical need for understanding, non-judgemental support, and emotional safety for individuals facing mental health challenges, calling for a more person-centred approach within the mental health system.^36,44 This approach should incorporate the patient's perspective, acknowledging their autonomy and expert knowledge about their own lives, aligning with a recovery-oriented approach.^43,45,46 It is also crucial for mental health professionals to become familiar with the nature of engagement in these online communities so that they can access the behaviour and intervene if necessary,³⁶ underscoring the need to advance knowledge about participation in online communities centred around self-harming and suicidal content and training for staff in mental health settings.

The #chatsafe guidelines developed by Orygen⁴⁷ represent an important framework for promoting safe and supportive conversations about mental health and suicide prevention in online spaces. These guidelines encourage peer-to-peer communication that is respectful, non-judgemental, and informed by best practices,⁴⁷ which aligns with many participants’ desires for supportive peer relationships within social media-hosted online communities. However, our findings highlight a crucial caveat: most participants expressed significant mistrust towards the mental health system and professional interventions, feeling stigmatised rather than supported by such approaches. Therefore, while initiatives like #chatsafe guidelines can play a valuable role in fostering safer peer dialogue, it is essential that their implementation be sensitive to community dynamics and participant concerns. Overly clinical or professionally framed interventions risk alienating users who prefer peer-led support and who may reject traditional mental health services. Future work should explore ways to integrate evidence-based guidelines like #chatsafe guidelines in a manner that respects participant autonomy and addresses the stigma and mistrust reported by participants.

However, in some cases, engagement can also increase self-harming urges and suicidal ideation,^16,17,19 thus hindering recovery. Our findings indicate that older members of online communities often promote recovery and act as role models, whereas younger users tend to focus more on explicit, harmful content related to their struggles. This exposure may increase vulnerability to triggers, exacerbate self-harming behaviours, and warrants careful attention. Future research should explore this, acknowledging that the informal nature of online peer support also presents unique challenges that require careful consideration,¹⁸ which may be influenced by users’ age and functional level.

Media coverage often highlights the negative aspects of participation in online communities focused on self-harm and suicidal behaviours, overlooking the potential benefits of peer support and friendship-building. Addressing both positive and negative elements is crucial for a balanced narrative to inform policymakers and clinical practice guidelines in this under-exposed yet vital area for mental health. It is hoped that additional research will add further nuance to the current debate about social media, focusing on both risks and opportunities.

Methodological considerations

Most studies on online self-harming and suicidal behaviour represent findings from females below the age of 25,²⁹ and 12 out of the 13 participants in the present study also identified as female. Based on current evidence and supported by our findings, participation in these communities seems to be most prevalent among females. However, future studies should try to ensure a gender-diverse study population, if possible, as other gender identities may have differing experiences and needs related to peer support.

Although all participants reported current or previous contact with mental health services, several described negative experiences and expressed distrust or avoidance of formal care. Such complex relationships with mental health services are well-documented, with stigma, dissatisfaction, and perceived paternalism contributing to disengagement or reluctance to seek professional support.^48,49 Consequently, some individuals turn to peer support and online communities as alternative sources of understanding and help, especially when traditional services are perceived as inadequate or stigmatising.³ While our sample reflects this diversity in engagement with clinical care, it may still under-represent individuals who are entirely outside the mental health care system. Future research should aim to include such perspectives to further broaden understanding of peer support in online communities.

Despite a broad recruitment strategy, only one participant was recruited from mental health settings. Professionals reported being reluctant to ask potential candidates to participate, deeming the potential candidate too sick to participate or too close to recovery, and not wanting to trigger a relapse by asking. This is a well-known challenge when recruiting within vulnerable groups,²³ a term that people suffering from mental health conditions are often associated with. It should, however, not automatically be an exclusive term,⁵⁰ remembering that the recovery approach, a guiding principle in mental health practice⁵¹ should also apply in research, emphasising the capacity of individuals to self-determine participation when given sufficient information.²³ The remaining 12 participants were recruited via social media in collaboration with various NGOs; this represents a promising way to recruit particularly hard-to-reach populations, with the ability to reach a wider segment of the population.⁵²

The data collected in this study are rigorous, embodying a nuanced description of experiences central to our objectives. This detailed exploration not only reinforces the validity of our findings but also deepens our understanding of the complex dynamics at play, providing valuable insights into the phenomenon. While we were unable to include patients under 18, the sample remains diverse.

The use of peer support theory strengthened information power, thus resulting in a need for fewer participants,²¹ and we believe that the 13 participants provided a comprehensive set of data. Further, MEH has prior experience of conducting interviews and both theoretical and clinical experience with the target group and the phenomenon, which heightened the quality of dialogue and interviews.²¹ The feedback from patient representatives was also fruitful in ensuring relevance and quality.

However, anonymity is crucial for gaining insight into a closed world in which shame, secrecy, and stigma have an impact. According to Danish law, participants under 18 years can only participate in research if their parents or legal guardians give permission. Since being part of these online communities is largely rooted in anonymity and confidentiality requirements, we strongly suspect that the legal requirement for parental permission is a significant reason for our inability to recruit participants under the age of 18, as many adolescents do not necessarily share their engagement with their parents. Our sample likely reflects a subset of participants who are relatively experienced and resourceful in navigating in online communities centred around self-harming and suicidal behaviour, which may limit the generalisability of our findings. Less experienced or more vulnerable users might face challenges not fully captured in this study. However, despite missing perspectives from participants under 18 years, we believe we have provided an analysis that can aid in understanding the exchange of peer support in other contexts in which people connected by similar life experiences can meet and relate.

Conclusion

This study examined the subjective experiences of peer support of participants in online communities centred around self-harm and suicidal content. Anonymity on these platforms supports autonomy and reduces mental health stigma, motivating individuals who seek non-judgemental support to find it online. Participating in these online communities can foster deep, empathetic bonds that develop into friendships; however, balancing online and offline relationships is essential to prevent isolation and maintain a sense of normalcy. The roles of network users evolve, with more experienced participants often mentoring younger ones and serving as role models. The decision to stay in or leave the communities is influenced by validation needs, fear of isolation, and recovery goals. Despite offering crucial support, these communities can also heighten urges to self-harm and suicidal thoughts, necessitating further research into their impact on mental health. Ultimately, online communities can generate deep, meaningful friendships that support recovery, but the associated risks should not be overlooked.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

First and foremost, thank you to the participants for helping us gain insight into a world usually relatively closed to outsiders. Thank you very much to all who have helped with the recruitment process and to the patient representatives for supporting the material customisation for the target group.

ORCID iDs

Malene Eiberg Holm

Julie Midtgaard

Consent to participate

Before the interviews, participants were provided with both oral and written information regarding the study's purpose, methods, and their rights. Subsequently, they provided written consent, either in physical or electronic form.

Consent for publication

Informed consent for publication was provided by the participants.

Authors’ contributions

MEH, JM, and KJ initiated and developed the study idea and design. MEH was responsible for the data generation, transcriptions, and initial analysis. JM and KJ contributed to the analysis process. MEH wrote the first draft of the article, while JM, KJ, KA, MV, and MN critically revised the draft and provided valuable feedback and amendments. All authors have approved the submitted manuscript and consent to publication.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Novo Nordisk Fonden (grant number NNF20OC0066179).

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Appendix A: Interview guide

Appendix B: Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative studies (COREQ): 32-item checklist

Developed from:

Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. International Journal for Quality in Health Care. 2007. Volume 19, Number 6: pp. 349–357

References

Mead

Hilton

Curtis

. Peer support: a theoretical perspective. Psychiatr Rehabil J 2001; 25: 134–141.

Smit

Miguel

Vrijsen

, et al. The effectiveness of peer support for individuals with mental illness: systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychol Med 2023; 53: 5332–5341.

Naslund

Aschbrenner

Marsch

, et al. The future of mental health care: peer-to-peer support and social media. Epidemiol Psych Sci 2016; 25: 113–122.

Barak

Boniel-Nissim

Suler

. Fostering empowerment in online support groups. Comput Hum Behav 2008; 24: 1867–1883.

Nesi

Burke

Bettis

, et al. Social media use and self-injurious thoughts and behaviors: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Psychol Rev 2021; 87: 102038.

Marchant

Hawton

Burns

, et al. Impact of web-based sharing and viewing of self-harm-related videos and photographs on young people: systematic review. J Med Internet Res 2021; 23: e18048.

Williams

Nielsen

Coulson

. ‘They aren’t all like that’: perceptions of clinical services, as told by self-harm online communities. J Health Psychol 2020; 25: 2164–2177.

Lavis

Winter

. #Online harms or benefits? An ethnographic analysis of the positives and negatives of peer-support around self-harm on social media. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 2020; 61: 842–854.

Moreno

Ton

Selkie

, et al. Secret society 123: understanding the language of self-harm on Instagram. J Adolesc Health 2016; 58: 78–84.

10.

Arendt

Scherr

Romer

. Effects of exposure to self-harm on social media: evidence from a two-wave panel study among young adults. New Media Soc 2019; 21: 2422–2442.

11.

Jacob

Evans

Scourfield

. The influence of online images on self-harm: a qualitative study of young people aged 16–24. J Adolesc 2017; 60: 140–147.

12.

Nesi

Burke

Lawrence

, et al. Online self-injury activities among psychiatrically hospitalized adolescents: prevalence, functions, and perceived consequences. Res Child Adolesc Psychopathol 2021; 49: 519–531.

13.

Pritchard

Lewis

Marcincinova

. Needs of youth posting about nonsuicidal self-injury: a time-trend analysis. J Adolesc Health 2021; 68: 532–539.

14.

Frost

Casey

Self-Injury

. Help-seeking, and the internet: informing online service provision for young people. Crisis 2016; 37: 68–76.

15.

Lavis

Winter

. Online harms or benefits? An ethnographic analysis of the positives and negatives of peer-support around self-harm on social media. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 2020; 61: 842–854.

16.

Dyson

Hartling

Shulhan

, et al. A systematic review of social media use to discuss and view deliberate self-harm acts. PLoS One 2016; 11: e0155813.

17.

Shanahan

Brennan

House

. Self-harm and social media: thematic analysis of images posted on three social media sites. BMJ Open 2019; 9: e027006–e027006.

18.

Brennan

Saraiva

Mitchell

, et al. Self-harm and suicidal content online, harmful or helpful? A systematic review of the recent evidence. J Public Ment Health 2022; 21: 57–69.

19.

Marchant

Hawton

Stewart

, et al. A systematic review of the relationship between internet use, self-harm and suicidal behaviour in young people: the good, the bad and the unknown. PLoS One 2017; 12: e0181722.

20.

Vidal

Lhaksampa

Miller

, et al. Social media use and depression in adolescents: a scoping review. Int Rev Psychiatry 2020; 32: 235–253.

21.

Malterud

Siersma

Guassora

. Sample size in qualitative interview studies: guided by information power. Qual Health Res 2016; 26: 1753–1760.

22.

Braun

Clarke

. To saturate or not to saturate? Questioning data saturation as a useful concept for thematic analysis and sample-size rationales. Qual Res Sport Exerc 2021; 13: 201–216.

23.

Kilkku

Halkoaho

. Informed consent, genomic research and mental health: a integrative review. Nurs Ethics 2022; 29: 973–987.

24.

The European Parliament and The Council of the European Union 2016. Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the Protection of Natural Persons with Regard to the Processing of Personal Data and on the Free Movement of Such Data, and Repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation). 2016.

25.

Biddle

Derges

Goldsmith

, et al. Using the internet for suicide-related purposes: contrasting findings from young people in the community and self-harm patients admitted to hospital. PLoS One 2018; 13: e0197712.

26.

Seko

Kidd

Wiljer

, et al. On the creative edge: exploring motivations for creating non-suicidal self-injury content online. Qual Health Res 2015; 25: 1334–1346.

27.

Teo

Strange

Bui

, et al. Responses to concerning posts on social media and their implications for suicide prevention training for military veterans: qualitative study. J Med Internet Res 2020; 22: e22076.

28.

Zhu

Westers

Horton

, et al. Frequency of exposure to and engagement in nonsuicidal self-injury among inpatient adolescents. Arch Suicide Res 2016; 20: 580–590.

29.

Holm

Østergaard

Aamund

, et al. What methods are used in research of firsthand experiences with online self-harming and suicidal behavior? A scoping review. Nord J Psychiatry 2024; 78: 165–180.

30.

Lewis

Hasking

. Putting the ‘self’ in self-injury research: inclusion of people with lived experience in the research process. Psychiat Serv 2019; 70: 1058–1060.

31.

Braun

Clarke

. Thematic analysis: a practical guide. London: Sage Publications Ltd, 2022.

32.

Braun

Clarke

. Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qual Res Sport Exerc 2019; 11: 589–597.

33.

Tong

Sainsbury

Craig

. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care 2007; 19: 349–357.

34.

Rodham

Gavin

Lewis

, et al. The NSSI paradox: discussing and displaying NSSI in an online environment. Deviant Behav 2016; 37: 1110–1117.

35.

Cleary

Lees

Sayers

. Friendship and mental health. Issues Ment Health Nurs 2018; 39: 279–281.

36.

Pritchard

Lewis

. Understanding online self-injury activity: implications for research, practice, and outreach. In: Lloyd-Richardson

Baetens

Whitlock

(eds) The Oxford handbook of nonsuicidal self-injury. Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 2024, p.787.

37.

Larsen

Johansen

Staksrud

, et al. Social media across everyday contexts: digital childhood and youth in the Nordics. Kbh: Samfundslitteratur, 2024.

38.

McAlister

Beatty

Smith-Caswell

, et al. Social media use in adolescents: bans, benefits, and emotion regulation behaviors. JMIR Ment Health 2024; 11: e64626–e64626.

39.

Brown

Fischer

Goldwich

, et al. ‘I just finally wanted to belong somewhere’ – qualitative analysis of experiences with posting pictures of self-injury on Instagram. Front Psychiatry 2020; 11: 274.

40.

Kessing

. Doing peer work in mental health services: unpacking different enactments of lived experiences. Health Sociol Rev 2022; 31: 32–46.

41.

Lerbaek

Johansen

Burholt

, et al. Non-peer professionals’ understanding of recovery and attitudes towards peer support workers joining existing community mental health teams in the North Denmark region: a qualitative study. Int J Ment Health Nurs 2024; 33: 2043–2053.

42.

Mahlke

Krämer

Becker

, et al. Peer support in mental health services. Curr Opin Psychiatr 2014; 27: 276–281.

43.

Topor

Boe

Larsen

. The lost social context of recovery psychiatrization of a social process. Front Sociol 2022; 7: 832201.

44.

Galbusera

Fuchs

Holm-Hadulla

, et al. Person-centered psychiatry as dialogical psychiatry: the significance of the therapeutic stance. Psychopathology 2022; 55: 1–9.

45.

Price-Robertson

Obradovic

Morgan

. Relational recovery: beyond individualism in the recovery approach. Adv Mental Health 2017; 15: 108–120.

46.

Leamy

Bird

Boutillier

, et al. Conceptual framework for personal recovery in mental health: systematic review and narrative synthesis. Brit J Psychiat 2011; 199: 445–452.

47.

Thorn

McKay

Hemming

, et al. #chatsafe: a young person's guide to communicating safely online about self-harm and suicide. Edition two.

48.

Corrigan

Druss

Perlick

. The impact of mental illness stigma on seeking and participating in mental health care. Psychol Sci Publ Int 2014; 15: 37–70.

49.

Clement

Schauman

Graham

, et al. What is the impact of mental health-related stigma on help-seeking? A systematic review of quantitative and qualitative studies. Psychol Med 2015; 45: 11–27.

50.

Bracken-Roche

Bell

Racine

. The ‘vulnerability’ of psychiatric research participants: why this research ethics concept needs to be revisited. Can J Psychiat 2016; 61: 335–339.

51.

Slade

. The contribution of mental health services to recovery. J Ment Health 2009; 18: 367–371.

52.

Gelinas

Pierce

Winkler

, et al. Using social media as a research recruitment tool: ethical issues and recommendations. Am J Bioeth 2017; 17: 3–14.