Self-harm and suicidal content online, harmful or helpful? A systematic review of the recent evidence

IF 1.6 Q3 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Journal of Public Mental Health Pub Date : 2022-01-05 DOI:10.1108/jpmh-09-2021-0118
C. Brennan, Sonia Saraiva, Elizabeth Mitchell, Richard Melia, Lydia Campbell, Natalie King, A. House
{"title":"Self-harm and suicidal content online, harmful or helpful? A systematic review of the recent evidence","authors":"C. Brennan, Sonia Saraiva, Elizabeth Mitchell, Richard Melia, Lydia Campbell, Natalie King, A. House","doi":"10.1108/jpmh-09-2021-0118","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nThere are calls for greater regulation of online content related to self-harm and suicide, particularly that which is user-generated. However, the online space is a source of support and advice, including an important sharing of experiences. This study aims to explore what it is about such online content, and how people interact with it, that may confer harm or offer benefit.\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nThe authors undertook a systematic review of the published evidence, using customised searches up to February 2021 in seven databases. The authors included empirical research on the internet or online use and self-harm or suicide content that had been indexed since 2015. The authors undertook a theoretically driven narrative synthesis.\n\n\nFindings\nFrom 4,493 unique records, 87 met our inclusion criteria. The literature is rapidly expanding and not all the evidence is high quality, with very few longitudinal or intervention studies so little evidence to understand possible causal links. Very little content online is classifiable as explicitly harmful or definitively helpful, with responses varying by the individual and immediate context. The authors present a framework that seeks to represent the interplay in online use between the person, the medium, the content and the outcome.\n\n\nOriginality/value\nThis review highlights that content should not be considered separately to the person accessing it, so online safety means thinking about all users. Blanket removal or unthinking regulation may be more harmful than helpful. A focus on safe browsing is important and tools that limit time and diversify content would support this.\n","PeriodicalId":45601,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Public Mental Health","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Public Mental Health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/jpmh-09-2021-0118","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

Purpose There are calls for greater regulation of online content related to self-harm and suicide, particularly that which is user-generated. However, the online space is a source of support and advice, including an important sharing of experiences. This study aims to explore what it is about such online content, and how people interact with it, that may confer harm or offer benefit. Design/methodology/approach The authors undertook a systematic review of the published evidence, using customised searches up to February 2021 in seven databases. The authors included empirical research on the internet or online use and self-harm or suicide content that had been indexed since 2015. The authors undertook a theoretically driven narrative synthesis. Findings From 4,493 unique records, 87 met our inclusion criteria. The literature is rapidly expanding and not all the evidence is high quality, with very few longitudinal or intervention studies so little evidence to understand possible causal links. Very little content online is classifiable as explicitly harmful or definitively helpful, with responses varying by the individual and immediate context. The authors present a framework that seeks to represent the interplay in online use between the person, the medium, the content and the outcome. Originality/value This review highlights that content should not be considered separately to the person accessing it, so online safety means thinking about all users. Blanket removal or unthinking regulation may be more harmful than helpful. A focus on safe browsing is important and tools that limit time and diversify content would support this.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
网上的自残和自杀内容,有害还是有益?对最近证据的系统回顾
目的有人呼吁加强对与自残和自杀有关的网络内容的监管,尤其是用户生成的内容。然而,在线空间是支持和建议的来源,包括重要的经验分享。这项研究旨在探索这类在线内容是什么,以及人们如何与之互动,这可能会带来伤害或好处。设计/方法论/方法作者对已发表的证据进行了系统审查,使用截至2021年2月的七个数据库中的定制搜索。作者包括自2015年以来索引的关于互联网或网络使用以及自残或自杀内容的实证研究。作者进行了理论驱动的叙事综合。发现在4493个独特记录中,有87个符合我们的入选标准。文献正在迅速扩展,并非所有证据都是高质量的,很少有纵向或干预研究,因此了解可能的因果关系的证据很少。网上几乎没有什么内容可以被归类为明显有害或绝对有益的,根据个人和直接环境的不同,人们的反应也有所不同。作者提出了一个框架,试图代表个人、媒体、内容和结果之间在网络使用中的相互作用。原创/价值这篇评论强调,内容不应与访问内容的人分开考虑,因此网络安全意味着要考虑所有用户。一刀切的取消或不假思索的监管可能弊大于利。关注安全浏览很重要,限制时间和内容多样化的工具将支持这一点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Public Mental Health
Journal of Public Mental Health PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
7.10%
发文量
32
期刊最新文献
Overcoming challenges of embedding child and youth mental health research in community NHS services Psychological wellbeing and avoidance strategies as moderators between excessive social media use and academic performance among Indian college students Pain and associated functional impairment in the Danish general population: the role of mental well-being Impact of nature on the mental health and well-being of the ICU survivors: an interpretative phenomenological analysis Public mental health and wellbeing interventions delivered by allied health professionals (AHPs): mapping the evidence and identification of gaps. A systematic review
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1