ArticleBMC psychiatry2026
Experiences of personal recovery in the context of unmoderated online communities centered around self-harming and suicidal behavior: a secondary qualitative analysis.
Article in BMC psychiatry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundParticipation in online communities centered around self-harming and suicidal behavior is a complex phenomenon characterized by potentially harmful social dynamics, though it may also involve support. While previous studies have explored peer support within these communities, less is known about how engagement may influence personal recovery and the functions these communities serve. Therefore, this study explored experiences of personal recovery in the context of participating in unmoderated online communities centered around self-harming and suicidal behavior.
methodsThis qualitative deductive-inductive secondary analysis re-examined interview data originally collected to explore peer support exchanges within online communities centered around self-harm and suicidal behavior, using reflexive thematic analysis informed by the CHIME-D (Connectedness, Hope, Identity, Meaning, Empowerment, and Difficulties) framework to examine personal recovery in this context. The dataset consisted of semi-structured interviews with twelve women and one non-binary participant (aged 21-49 years) from all five Danish regions, all with lived experience of psychiatric disorders and previous psychiatric admissions.
resultsParticipants described how engagement supported personal recovery through mutual recognition, reciprocity, and shared experience. They also described tensions between their own experiences of these communities as meaningful recovery spaces and professionals' predominantly risk-oriented interpretations, contributing to stigma and concealment. Recovery was experienced as complex and ambivalent, involving not only support but also ongoing attachment, emotional burden, and difficulty disengaging. Participants also described challenges related to moral responsibility towards others, exposure to distressing content, and balancing recovery with ongoing participation. Examining recovery in digital self-harm networks highlights important nuances in understanding the roles and functions these networks may serve.
conclusionsApplying the CHIME-D framework provided a nuanced understanding of how online communities centered around self-harming and suicidal behavior may contribute to personal recovery, advancing our understanding of the functions they serve and what motivates participation. The findings highlight recovery as a non-linear process shaped by both supportive and challenging dimensions of online engagement and underscore the importance of recognizing these communities as meaningful, though double-edged, contexts for recovery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.