Table 1.
Responses of different types of respondents to the items on the internet-administered survey instrument about use of social media in suicide prevention efforts
| Researchers (n=10) % |
Organizations (n=10) % |
Users %(n/N) |
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
A.
GENERAL ITEMS (% who ‘agree’ or ‘strongly agree’) | |||
| Social media has the potential to be a useful tool for delivering suicide prevention activities | 100% | 82% | 87%(47/54) |
| Social media is a useful way for people to communicate with others about their suicidal feelings | 60% | 73% | 70%(38/54) |
| Social media provides an opportunity to intervene early if someone expresses suicidal thoughts or feelings | 70% | 82% | 85%(46/54) |
| Social media is a useful way for people who have felt suicidal to support others | 70% | 73% | 82%(44/54) |
| Social media is a useful way for people who have been bereaved by suicide to share their experiences | 60% | 82% | 87%(47/54) |
| Social media is a useful way for people who have been bereaved by suicide to support others | 60% | 82% | 85%(46/54) |
| Social media is a useful way for people who feel suicidal to seek/receive professional help | 60% | 64% | 56%(30/54) |
|
B.
USE OF DIFFERENT SOCIAL MEDIA FOR SUICIDE PREVENTION (% who believe media has ‘moderate’ or ‘high’ potential for suicide prevention) | |||
| Social networking sites (e.g. Facebook) | 70% | 100% | 82%(41/50) |
| Blogs and micro-blogs (e.g. Twitter) | 60% | 91% | 72%(36/50) |
| Content communities (e.g. YouTube) | 50% | 73% | 66%(33/50) |
| Collaborative projects (e.g. Wikipedia) | 20% | 27% | 34%(17/50) |
| Virtual game worlds (e.g. World of Warcraft) | 40% | 18% | 16%(8/50) |
| Virtual social worlds (e.g. Second Life) | 50% | 18% | 16%(8/50) |
|
C.
IMPORTANCE OF SOCIAL MEDIA FOR SUICIDE PREVENTION (% who believe different social media are ‘important’ or ‘very important’) | |||
| To promote activities, services, events or training programs | 100% | 82% | 86%(43/50) |
| Awareness raising | 90% | 73% | 82%(41/50) |
| The provision of information/resources | 100% | 100% | 94%(47/50) |
| The provision of tools for suicide prevention (e.g. risk assessment tools) | 50% | 64% | 88%(44/50) |
| For advocacy purposes | 90% | 73% | 76%(38/50) |
| To allow users to share experiences | 60% | 82% | 67%(33/49) |
| To share inspirational quotes/messages | 40% | 46% | 62%(31/50) |
| To allow users to support each other | 70% | 100% | 80%(40/50) |
| For fundraising purposes | 40% | 55% | 62%(31/50) |
| For volunteer recruitment | 60% | 36% | 64%(32/50) |
| For the provision of professional support or treatment | 50% | 73% | 64%(32/50) |
|
D.
POTENTIAL RISKS OF USING SOCIAL MEDIA FOR SUICIDE PREVENTION (% who consider each possibility a ‘moderate risk’ or ‘high risk’) | |||
| Site visitors at risk of suicide may expect support that the organization is not able to provide via social media | 60% | 73% | 79%(38/48) |
| Site visitors may inadvertently harm other visitors at risk of suicide | 80% | 46% | 83%(40/48) |
| Site visitors may deliberately harm other visitors at risk of suicide | 70% | 46% | 71%(34/48) |
| Site visitors may develop unhealthy relationships with other visitors to the site | 60% | 46% | 69%(33/48) |
| Incorrect information related to suicide might be spread via the site | 80% | 46% | 65%(31/48) |
| Interaction between people at risk of suicide via social media may normalise or encourage the behaviour | 50% | 36% | 67%(32/48) |
| Site administrators lack the skills to operate safe and effective interventions online | 80% | 82% | 73%(35/48) |
| People may use social media to seek information regarding methods of suicide | 80% | 64% | 60%(29/48) |