Suicide and the Internet: Changes in the accessibility of suicide-related information between 2007 and 2014
Abstract
Background Following the ongoing concerns about cyber-suicide, we investigate changes between 2007 and 2014 in material likely to be accessed by suicidal individuals searching for methods of suicide. Methods 12 search terms relating to suicide methods were applied to four search engines and the top ten hits from each were categorised and analysed for content. The frequency of each category of site across all searches, using particular search terms and engines, was counted. Results Key changes: growth of blogs and discussion forums (from 3% of hits, 2007 to 18.5% of hits, 2014); increase in hits linking to general information sites - especially factual sites that detail and evaluate suicide methods (from 9%, 2007 to 21.7%, 2014). Hits for dedicated suicide sites increased (from 19% to 23%), while formal help sites were less visible (from 13% to 6.5%). Overall, 54% of hits contained information about new high-lethality methods. Limitations We did not search for help sites so cannot assess the balance of suicide promoting versus preventing sites available online. Social media was beyond the scope of this study. Conclusions Working with ISPs and search engines would help optimise support sites. Better site moderation and implementation of suicide reporting guidelines should be encouraged.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Morch et al. found fewer websites devoted to suicide on the Darknet via the Tor browser (4%), compared with the Surface Web (23.1%).
“Morch et al. [33] found fewer websites devoted to suicide on the Darknet via the Tor browser (4%), compared with the Surface Web (23.1%) [34]”
From Social media, internet use and suicide attempts in adolescents (2019) · cites this paper as [34]
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 46 · Cited by 80
- Authors
- Biddle, L., Derges, J., Mars, B., Heron, J., Donovan, J. L., Potokar, J., Piper, M., Wyllie, C., & Gunnell, D.
- Affiliations
- University of Bristol (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Derges, Jane
- Venue
- Journal of Affective Disorders
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2016-01
- Volume
- 190
- Pages
- 370-375
- ISSN
- 0165-0327 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2145572739
- Cited by
- 80
- References
- 46
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 1
- FWCI
- 9.92
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Affective Disorders (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Explore Bristol Research (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute for Health and Care Research (NF-SI-0512-10068)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Suicide and Self-Harm Studies
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health via Writing
- Keywords
- suicide methods, search engine results, suicide prevention resources, internet accessibility, suicide reporting guidelines
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Suicide, Time Factors, Internet, Information Dissemination, Information Seeking Behavior
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review