Around one in six adolescents worldwide report having self-harmed at some point in their lives. In England, an NHS mental health survey of 2,370 children and young people found that more than one in three young adults aged 17 to 24 had self-harmed.
Typically, responses to self-harm focus on the individual – diagnosis, treatment and risk management. Mental health support is clearly essential, but a large and growing body of global research points to wider, social factors contributing to self-harm.
Young people across different cultures describe self-harm less as a symptom of a specific “mental illness” and more as a response to unbearable pressures often linked to intense social challenges, relationship difficulties and changes as they develop into adulthood. These issues are raised in India, Pakistan and China.
Even if these social drivers are well acknowledged, there is a lack of alignment between how distress is understood and how it is addressed. This mismatch has real consequences. Responses to youth self-harm that prioritise the individual may reduce immediate danger. However, approaches that prevent distress from arising in the first place and address the wider context that might inadvertently maintain it are also needed.
Social worlds
In research, young people who self-harm often speak of shame and humiliation, family conflict, parental criticism and harsh discipline, social exclusion and overwhelming educational expectations. Some describe feeling unable to express distress or challenge authority safely. Others talk about feeling silenced, believing that if they tried to explain their pain directly, they would not be heard.
In research carried out in Ghana, young people linked self-harm to powerlessness within families, early adult responsibilities and harsh punishment, often framing it as a form of protest or communication. In research in Brazil, adolescents emphasised low family support, school disengagement, and difficulties in expressing their emotions as factors driving self-harming.
Despite differences in culture and context, a consistent pattern emerges. Young people understand self-harm within their everyday social worlds. Distress is described by young people as socially produced and linked to relationships, not simply as something that originates within the individual.
SeventyFour/Shutterstock
Self-harm becomes a way of regulating overwhelming emotions, expressing protest or making suffering visible when other options feel unavailable.
Research I carried out in Rwanda reinforces this perspective. In interviews with young people, parents and healthcare providers, self-harm was widely understood as emerging from poverty, family conflict, school pressure and community responses, such as stigma and gossip.
Importantly, these explanations were not confined to young people themselves. Across the findings, parents and healthcare professionals also described the young people’s distress as shaped by family relationships, material hardship, and wider social responses. Nevertheless, services across most of the world continue to focus primarily on individual risk assessment and treatment.
School-based programmes, for example, often focus on screening, awareness and referral rather than on reducing the pressures young people describe as driving distress. Clinical services tend to see young people once self-harm has already escalated, by which point social problems may be deeply entrenched. Schools could explore reducing daily pressures linked to risk, including academic pressure, bullying, weak sense of belonging and a lack of trusted adult support, by reviewing assessment load and exam messaging, strengthening connectedness, and improving pastoral support.
Even well-intentioned support may inadvertently reinforce silence if it makes young people feel unable to talk about their feelings and needs. This was particularly clear in our research in Rwanda, where in some cases support was only to communicate that self-harm is dangerous and should be stopped, rather than also recognising it as a signal of unmet needs.
That silence matters because, in my research, lack of emotional support and lack of space for expression were part of the conditions linked to self-harm.
Support for parents is particularly limited, but the need is high. Many parents report significant distress owing to their child’s self-harm, and challenges navigating economic strain, social change and limited support for their young person.
Recognising self-harm as socially structured distress shifts attention upstream. It invites attention on how families respond to conflict and emotion, how schools manage competition and failure, and how communities handle shame and exclusion.
It also highlights the role of wider inequalities in shaping vulnerability, including poverty, expectations placed on young people because of their gender, and limited access to supportive services. This does not deny the importance of mental health care. Young people still need access to compassionate, confidential support.
This perspective is not entirely new. What remains striking is how little it has transformed mainstream policy and practice. As long as self-harm is treated primarily as an individual clinical problem, responses will continue to be limited. There has long been recognition that clinical treatment sits within a broader social ecology. However, integration of this into our intervention approach remains an ongoing project.
Prevention and treatment require environments in which distress can be expressed without fear of punishment or stigma, and where young people have some meaningful say over the conditions shaping their lives.
Some promising work already points in this direction. Participatory approaches that involve young people in designing interventions show higher acceptability and relevance. These might be on a variety of levels, from one-to-one therapy, school support and prevention campaigns, or awareness raising in the community, for example. Community-based programmes that engage families, teachers and peers can help reduce shame and isolation. Interventions grounded in local social realities, rather than “risk models” developed elsewhere that may not fit local contexts, are more likely to resonate with young people’s experiences.
Listening carefully to how young people explain their distress does not offer a quick fix. It does offer a fuller response. If we are serious about reducing youth self-harm, we need to take the social environments shaping young people’s lives seriously, not only as sites of harm, but as places where prevention, treatment and support begin.
