You are using an outdated browser. Please upgrade your browser to improve your experience and security.

Skip to main
DONATE Reach A Counselor Meet Friends

Characterizing Methods Used by LGBTQ+ Young People in Non-Fatal Suicide Attempts

Content Note: This research brief discusses suicide attempts in detail. If you or someone you know needs help or support, The Trevor Project’s counselors are available 24/7 at 1-866-488-7386, via chat at TheTrevorProject.org, or by texting START to 678678.
Donate

Key Findings

  • Over a quarter (27%) of LGBTQ+ young people who attempted suicide last year used a highly lethal method.
  • 44% of LGBTQ+ young people who attempted suicide in the past year had done so more than once.
  • Nearly half (46%) of LGBTQ+ young people ages 13-17 who attempted suicide in the past year did so by poisoning/overdose.
  • Transgender and nonbinary young people were less likely to access medical care after a suicide attempt than their cisgender peers (30% vs. 46%).

Background

Suicide remains a significant public health challenge among adolescents and young adults in the United States, and is the second leading cause of death among individuals between the ages of 10 and 34.1 LGBTQ+ young people are particularly impacted, reporting suicide attempts at more than three times the rate of  their cisgender and heterosexual counterparts.2 Numerous factors are associated with this increased risk of suicide among LGBTQ+ young people, many of which are linked to experiences of stigma, discrimination, and mistreatment.3 Though factors associated with suicide ideation and attempts among LGBTQ+ young people are now well established,4,5 little is still known about the methods LGBTQ+ young people use when attempting suicide.

All suicide attempts are a risk to life and well-being, but some methods are more prevalent or lethal than others. Nationally, intentional poisoning or overdose makes up the most common method for suicide attempts,6 but firearms – despite their relative rarity among attempts – account for over half of all suicide deaths in the United States because of their high fatality rate.7 While most people who attempt suicide by poisoning or overdose will survive, nearly 90% of all suicide attempts involving a firearm are fatal.8 Furthermore, among adolescents, suicide deaths from firearms increased between 1999 and 2020, making this highly lethal form of suicide attempt of particular concern.9

Different suicide methods necessitate different types of prevention and intervention. A key element of the 2024 National Strategy for Suicide Prevention is to reduce access to lethal means for people at risk of suicide.10 Interventions that reduce access to highly lethal means or reduce the lethality of available means among people at risk are associated with reductions in suicides.11 Putting time and space between people and suicide attempts requires understanding which methods people have access to and are most likely to use.

Adolescents employ different suicide methods based on their age, sex, and race/ethnicity.9 However, much less is known about variation by sexual orientation and gender identity. Though the National Violent Death Reporting System (NVDRS) has allowed for the systematic collection of sexual orientation and gender identity since 2013, over 80% of cases in the system are missing this data.12 One analysis which used NVDRS data to explore factors associated with suicide method was able to reliably identify less than 500 LGBT people in NVDRS over a four year period, even though over 100,000 suicide victims were included in NVDRS during that same interval.13 Even with these limited data, however, researchers have identified distinct suicide risk profiles for LGBTQ+ youth and young adults, noting that the greatest disparities occur at younger ages.14 Yet despite knowing that suicide methods vary by demographic characterstics, that these methods carry different risk of injury and death, and that LGBTQ+ young people are more likely to attempt suicide, little is known about methods LGBTQ+ young people use during suicide attempts.

Information about suicide deaths are crucial, but so too are data about non-fatal attempts. Not only does the likelihood of surviving a suicide attempt depend greatly on the method used, non-fatal attempts themselves are a powerful risk factor for subsequent death by suicide.15,16 Information about non-fatal attempts can be leveraged in prevention opportunities before an attempt results in death. To fill this critical knowledge gap and facilitate tailored suicide prevention and intervention, this research brief uses data from The Trevor Project’s 2025 U.S. National Survey on the Mental Health of LGBTQ+ Young People to characterize methods of non-fatal suicide attempts used by LGBTQ+ young people.

Results

Ten percent (n = 1,596) of LGBTQ+ young people reported attempting suicide in the past year. Among them, 44% had attempted suicide two or more times in the past year. The median age at which LGBTQ+ young people first attempted suicide was 13.

Methods used in most recent non-fatal suicide attempt
The most common method used in the most recent non-fatal suicide attempt by LGBTQ+ young people was poisoning/drug overdose (42%), followed by cutting/stabbing (25%), and hanging/strangulation (20%). A smaller percentage reported attempts involving vehicles (6%), jumping from a high place (4%), and firearms (3%). Just over a quarter (27%) of LGBTQ+ young people who attempted suicide used a method classified as highly lethal – firearms, hanging/strangulation, or jumping from a high place – in their most recent non-fatal attempt.8

Suicide Methods Used by LGBTQ+ Young People chart

Demographic characteristics associated with non-fatal suicide attempt methods
Suicide attempt methods also differed by demographic characteristics. Younger LGBTQ+ young people were more likely than older LGBTQ+ youth to have attempted suicide using poisoning/drug overdose (46% vs. 39%) and hanging/strangulation (25% vs. 16%), while older LGBTQ+ young people were more likely to report cutting/stabbing (27% vs. 22%) and use of a vehicle (9% vs. 3%). Those who used firearms were older (median age of 15) at their first attempt than those who used other methods.

There were also differences by sexual orientation and gender identity. Gay youth were more likely to report cutting/stabbing (32%), while transgender girls/women (7%) and cisgender boys/men (6%) were the most likely to have used a firearm. See Data Tables below for more detailed information.

Mental health diagnoses and non-fatal suicide attempt methods
The most common suicide attempt method, poisoning/drug overdose, also differed by mental health diagnosis. LGBTQ+ young people with diagnoses of post-traumatic stress disorder (49% vs. 39%), major depressive disorder (48% vs. 36%), bipolar disorder (52% vs. 41%), anxiety disorder (47% vs. 37%), or an eating disorder (53% vs. 40%) were more likely to report poisoning/drug overdose than those without each respective diagnosis.

Engagement with medical care after suicide attempt
One-third (33%) of LGBTQ+ young people who attempted suicide in the past year reported engaging with medical care (outpatient, emergency, or inpatient care) as a result of their suicide attempt. However, this rate differed by suicide attempt method, with only 19% of LGBTQ+ young people who attempted suicide by hanging / strangulation having accessed a form of medical care afterwards. Likelihood of receiving medical care after a suicide attempt also varied by participant characteristics. Those 13 to 17 years old were less likely than those 18 to 24 years old to access medical care after a suicide attempt (27% vs. 39%). White LGBTQ+ young people were less likely to access medical care after an attempt than LGBTQ+ young people of color (30% vs. 37%). Transgender and nonbinary young people were less likely to have accessed medical care after a suicide attempt than their cisgender peers (30% vs. 46%).

LGBTQ+ Young People who Accessed Medical Care after a Suicide Attempt chart

Looking Ahead

This research brief addresses a critical gap by examining methods used during non-fatal suicide attempts by LGBTQ+ young people, a vulnerable population known to face elevated suicide risk but whose method-specific patterns have remained largely obscured by the limitations of existing data. Our findings build upon existing research that shows that suicide methods used by adolescents vary by demographic characteristics.9 For the LGBTQ+ young people in our sample, these methods varied by age, sexual orientation, and gender identity.

The ability to understand the circumstances in which LGBTQ+ young people attempt suicide is critical to developing responsive suicide prevention programs. Data concerning suicide attempts and deaths, including methods used, has been instrumental in developing tailored suicide prevention programs for various groups, including older Americans, victims of intimate partner violence, veterans, and American Indians/Alaskan natives.17 Poisoning/drug overdose and hanging/strangulation were used by over half of the LGBTQ+ young people who attempted suicide in the last year, which is concerning given evidence that individuals who have attempted using these methods are at heightened risk of dying by suicide in a future attempt.18,19 Because attempts involving highly lethal methods are less likely to be survived, these data should not be interpreted as estimates of the distribution of methods across all suicide attempts. Firearm attempts, in particular, are likely to be underrepresented given their high fatality rate; even so, cisgender boys/men and transgender girls/women were more likely to use this highly lethal method when attempting suicide.

We also found that poisoning/drug overdose was more common among LGBTQ+ young people with several mental health diagnoses than among those without each respective diagnosis. We caution against overinterpretation of this finding because the cross-sectional nature of the survey does not allow us to determine the timing or direction of these associations, and that this finding only reflects non-fatal attempts. However, it does align with previous research which suggests that risk of suicide death can vary by mental health diagnosis;20 future research should explore the extent to which this is true among LGBTQ+ populations. Such information could help mental health professionals and crisis interventionists more effectively work with LGBTQ+ young people at risk of suicide.

We also identified a need to bolster the support LGBTQ+ young people receive immediately after non-fatal suicide attempts. Medical evaluation and stabilization is important not only to treat injuries, but also because there is evidence that even brief interventions in health care settings can reduce suicidal ideation and the likelihood of future suicide attempts.21 However, only a third of LGBTQ+ young people in our sample engaged with any form of medical care after their recent suicide attempt. Less than 20% of those who attempted suicide by hanging/strangulation engaged with medical care, despite the fact that this highly lethal method is also likely to result in injury among those who survive the attempt. LGBTQ+ young people under 18 years old were less likely to access medical care following a suicide attempt. Younger people may face additional barriers to seeking care, including reliance on parents or caregivers and concerns about disclosing their sexual orientation or gender identity. Transgender and nonbinary young people were also less likely than their cisgender peers to engage with medical care following a suicide attempt, though this may reflect national changes in policies that have made the health care environment increasingly antagonistic towards their medical needs.22

There are important limitations to this analysis. Though diverse, this sample is not representative of all LGBTQ+ young people in the United States. Our study can complement but it cannot replace systems designed to generate representative data at the population level. Yet sexual orientation or gender identity has been removed from over 360 federal data collection efforts since January 2025.23 We also reiterate that all presented data only reflect non-fatal suicide attempts; survey research is not equipped to assess information about those who have died by suicide. This means we are still missing crucial information about LGBTQ+ young people who use the methods most likely to result in death. Still, one in four LGBTQ+ young people in this sample who attempted suicide employed a highly lethal method. Even with its limitations, the data we present here about non-fatal suicide attempts among nearly 1,600 LGBTQ+ young people represents the single largest sample of LGBTQ+ young people and methods used in a recent suicide attempt. We highlight these limitations to draw attention to the need to bolster existing systems that collect data on suicide attempts and suicide deaths to routinely obtain and record sexual orientation and gender identity.12,24,25

Finally, concerns are sometimes raised that asking young people directly about suicide may increase distress, suicidal ideation, or even increase the risk of a future suicide attempt. However, multiple reviews of peer-reviewed research show that assessing suicide risk and behaviors does not cause harm, and in some circumstances may actually reduce suicidal ideation and promote help-seeking.26-28 The data provided by LGBTQ+ young people in clinical and public health data collection systems will be crucial to the development of responsive population-level suicide prevention strategies.

The Trevor Project is committed to supporting all LGBTQ+ young people. Our free, 24/7 crisis services are committed to making sure that all LGBTQ+ young people receive high-quality crisis care that addresses the unique challenges they face. Our education team equips school professionals with the tools needed to support LGBTQ+ youth across diverse identities and experiences. Our TrevorSpace platform is a safe and supportive online space for LGBTQ+ young people to connect with peers, find support in a moderated community, and share experiences related to mental health in a safe environment.

You can read more research from The Trevor Project that explores risk and protective factors associated with suicide risk among LGBTQ+ young people, such as The Relationship Between Firearms, Mass Shootings and Suicide Risk among LGBTQ+ Young People, Self-Injury and its Relationship to Suicide Attempts Among LGBTQ Young People, Acceptance from Adults is Associated with Lower Rates of Suicide Attempts Among LGBTQ Young People, and Personal Growth and Mental Health Among LGBTQ+ Young People. Additionally, The Trevor Project provides resources for both LGBTQ+ young people and their allies, such as How Can You Help At-Risk LGBTQ+ Young People?, Warning Signs of Suicide, and Preventing Suicide Among LGBTQ+ Young People.

Data Tables

Demographic Characteristics of LGBTQ+ Young People Who Attempted Suicide in the Past Year, by Suicide Attempt Method (n = 1,596)

Demographic Characteristics of LGBTQ+ Young People Who Attempted Suicide in the Past Year, by Suicide Attempt Method table

Methods

Sample
Data were collected through The Trevor Project’s 2025 U.S. National Survey on the Mental Health of LGBTQ+ Young People. A total of 16,667 LGBTQ+ young people between the ages of 13 to 24 who were recruited via ads on social media, posts from various LGBTQ+ “influencers,” state and national organizations that serve LGBTQ+ young people, and The Trevor Project’s direct outreach efforts (e.g., e-mail listservs). This brief utilizes data from 1,596 LGBTQ+ young people who had attempted suicide in the past year.

Measures
Demographics (i.e., age, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity) were collected by asking participants to select a single category from a provided list.3 Suicide attempt in the past year was assessed using items from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Youth Risk Behavior Survey.29

The method used in the most recent suicide attempt was assessed using an item informed by the Suicide Attempt Self-Injury Interview,30 and asked participants “Which method did you use in your most recent suicide attempt?” Response options included, “Poisoning/Overdose,” “Hanging/Strangulation,” “Firearm,” “Cutting/Stabbing,” “Jumping from a high place,” “Vehicle-related (e.g., car crash, stepping into traffic),” and “Other (please specify).” Those who selected “Other” or declined to answer were considered missing.

To assess mental health diagnoses, participants were asked, “Has a health professional ever diagnosed you with any of the following conditions? Please select all that apply.” The list included: attention-deficit / hyperactivity disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder, major depressive disorder, bipolar disorder, an anxiety disorder, schizophrenia, obsessive-compulsive disorder, autism/autism spectrum, an eating disorder, and a dissociative disorder.

Engagement with medical care following a suicide attempt was assessed by asking, “What was the outcome of your most recent suicide attempt?” Response options included, “No medical attention required/I did not seek medical attention,” “Outpatient treatment only,” “Emergency room treatment,” “Hospital admission for less than 24 hours,” and “Hospital admission for 24 hours or more.” Those who selected the first option were considered not to have engaged in medical care, while those who selected any of the remaining response options were considered to have engaged in medical care.

Analysis
Chi-square tests were used to examine differences between groups. Unless otherwise noted, all analyses are statistically significant at p<0.05, meaning reported differences would be expected to arise in analysis less than 5% of the time if there were no true difference (i.e., the null hypothesis should not have been rejected). Percentages in tables may not add up to 100 because of rounding.

References

  2. 1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2026). WISQARS Leading Causes of Death Visualization Tool: 11 leading causes of death, United States. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. Retrieved July 27, 2026, from https://wisqars.cdc.gov/lcd/? o=LCD&y1=2024&y2=2024&ct=11 &cc=ALL&g=00&s=0&r=0&ry=3&e=0&ar= lcd1age&at=groups&ag=lcd1age&a1=0&a2=199
  4. 2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2024). Youth Risk Behavior Survey data summary & trends report: 2013–2023. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. https://www.cdc.gov/yrbs/dstr/pdf/YRBS-2023-Data-Summary-Trend-Report.pdf
  6. 3. Nath, R., Matthews, D. D., Hobaica, S., DeChants, J. P., Eden, T. M., Taylor, A. B., & Suffredini, K. (2026). 2025 U.S. National Survey on the Mental Health of LGBTQ+ Young People. The Trevor Project. https://doi.org/10.70226/EKGT3197
  8. 4. De Lange, J., Baams, L., van Bergen, D. D., Bos, H. M., & Bosker, R. J. (2022). Minority stress and suicidal ideation and suicide attempts among LGBT adolescents and young adults: A meta-analysis. LGBT Health, 9(4), 222–237. https://doi.org/10.1089/lgbt.2021.0106
  10. 5. Hatchel, T., Polanin, J. R., & Espelage, D. L. (2021). Suicidal thoughts and behaviors among LGBTQ youth: Meta-analyses and a systematic review. Archives of Suicide Research, 25(1), 1–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/13811118.2019.1663329
  12. 6. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2026). WISQARS Fatal and Nonfatal Injury Report: Self-harm all causes nonfatal emergency department visits and rates per 100,000. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. Retrieved July 28, 2026, from https://wisqars.cdc.gov/reports/? o=NFI&y1=2024&y2=2024&d=0 &i=2&m=3000&g=00&me=&s=0&r=0&ry=2&e=0&a=5Yr& g1=10&g2=20&a1=0&a2=199&r1=MECH&r2 =NONE&r3=NONE&r4=NONE&adv=true
  14. 7. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2026, February 20). National Center for Health Statistics: Suicide and self-harm injury. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/suicide.htm
  16. 8. Cai, Z., Junus, A., Chang, Q., & Yip, P. S. (2022). The lethality of suicide methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Affective Disorders, 300, 121–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2021.12.054
  18. 9. Ormiston, C. K., Lawrence, W. R., Sulley, S., Shiels, M. S., Haozous, E. A., Pichardo, C. M., Stephens, E. S., Thomas, A. L., Adzrago, D., Williams, D. R., & Williams, F. (2024). Trends in adolescent suicide by method in the US, 1999–2020. JAMA Network Open, 7(3), e244427. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.4427
  20. 10. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2024). 2024 National Strategy for Suicide Prevention. https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/national-strategy-for-suicide-prevention.pdf
  22. 11. Hawton, K., Knipe, D., & Pirkis, J. (2024). Restriction of access to means used for suicide. The Lancet Public Health, 9(10), e796–e801. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-2667(24)00157-9 
  24. 12. Clark, K. A., & Blosnich, J. R. (2024). Limitations of sexual orientation and gender identity information as reported in the National Violent Death Reporting System. LGBT Health, 11(3), 173–177. https://doi.org/10.1089/lgbt.2022.0297
  26. 13. Patten, M., Carmichael, H., Moore, A., & Velopulos, C. (2022). Circumstances of suicide among lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals. Journal of Surgical Research, 270, 522–529. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2021.08.029
  28. 14. Ream, G. L. (2019). What’s unique about lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) youth and young adult suicides? Findings from the National Violent Death Reporting System. The Journal of Adolescent Health, 64(5), 602–607. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2018.10.303
  30. 15. Bostwick, J. M., Pabbati, C., Geske, J. R., & McKean, A. J. (2016). Suicide attempt as a risk factor for completed suicide: Even more lethal than we knew. American Journal of Psychiatry, 173(11), 1094–1100. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2016.15070854 
  32. 16. Harris, E. C., & Barraclough, B. (1997). Suicide as an outcome for mental disorders. A meta-analysis. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 170(3), 205–228. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.170.3.205
  34. 17. Powell, V., Barber, C. W., Hedegaard, H., Hempstead, K., Hull-Jilly, D., Shen, X., Thorpe, G. E., & Weis, M. A. (2006). Using NVDRS data for suicide prevention: Promising practices in seven states. Injury Prevention, 12(Suppl. 2), ii28–ii32. https://doi.org/10.1136/ip.2006.012443
  36. 18. Jamison, E. C., & Bol, K. A. (2016). Previous suicide attempt and its association with method used in a suicide death. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 51(5, Suppl. 3), S226–S233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2016.07.023
  38. 19. Runeson, B., Tidemalm, D., Dahlin, M., Lichtenstein, P., & Långström, N. (2010). Method of attempted suicide as predictor of subsequent successful suicide: National long term cohort study. BMJ, 341, c3222. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c3222
  40. 20. Yeh, H. H., Westphal, J., Hu, Y., Peterson, E. L., Williams, L. K., Prabhakar, D., Frank, C., Autio, K., Elsiss, F., Simon, G. E., Beck, A., Lynch, F. L., Rossom, R., Lu, C. Y., Owen-Smith, A., Waitzfelder, B., & Ahmedani, B. K. (2019). Diagnosed mental health conditions and risk of suicide mortality. Psychiatric Services, 70(9), 750–757. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.201800346
  42. 21. Homan, S., Marciniak, M. A., Michel, S., Bertram, A. M., Rühlmann, C., Pethő, A., Kirchhofer, L., Biele, L., Segerer, R., Homan, P., Olbrich, S., O’Connor, R. C., & Kleim, B. (2026). Effectiveness of brief interventions and contacts after suicide attempt: A systematic review and meta-analysis. EClinicalMedicine, 93, 103824. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2026.103824
  44. 22. Movement Advancement Project. (2026). Healthcare Laws and Policies: Bans on Best Practice Medical Care for Transgender Youth. https://mapresearch.org/citation/transgender-youth-medical-care-bans/
  46. 23. Bouton, L., & Redfield, E. (2026). Removal of sexual orientation and gender identity measures in federal data collection: January 2025 to January 2026. The Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law. https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Federal-SOGI-Data-Collection-Feb-2026.pdf
  48. 24. Blosnich, J. R., & Boyer, T. L. (2022). Concordance of data about sex from electronic health records and the National Death Index: Implications for transgender populations. Epidemiology, 33(3), 383–385. https://doi.org/10.1097/EDE.0000000000001460
  50. 25. Blosnich, J. R., Butcher, B. A., Mortali, M. G., Lane, A. D., & Haas, A. P. (2022). Training death investigators to identify decedents’ sexual orientation and gender identity: A feasibility study. The American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology, 43(1), 40–45. https://doi.org/10.1097/PAF.0000000000000705
  52. 26. Blades, C. A., Stritzke, W. G., Page, A. C., & Brown, J. D. (2018). The benefits and risks of asking research participants about suicide: A meta-analysis of the impact of exposure to suicide-related content. Clinical Psychology Review, 64, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2018.07.001
  54. 27. Dazzi, T., Gribble, R., Wessely, S., & Fear, N. T. (2014). Does asking about suicide and related behaviours induce suicidal ideation? What is the evidence? Psychological Medicine, 44(16), 3361–3363. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291714001299
  56. 28. Polihronis, C., Cloutier, P., Kaur, J., Skinner, R., & Cappelli, M. (2022). What’s the harm in asking? A systematic review and meta-analysis on the risks of asking about suicide-related behaviors and self-harm with quality appraisal. Archives of Suicide Research, 26(2), 325–347. https://doi.org/10.1080/13811118.2020.1793857
  58. 29. Mpofu, J. J., Underwood, J. M., Thornton, J. E., Brener, N. D., Rico, A., Kilmer, G., Harris, W. A., Leon-Nguyen, M., Chyen, D., Lim, C., Mbaka, C. K., Smith-Grant, J., Whittle, L., Jones, S. E., Krause, K. H., Li, J., Shanklin, S. L., McKinnon, I., Arrey, L., Queen, B. E., & Roberts, A. M. (2023). Overview and methods for the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System—United States, 2021. MMWR Supplements, 72(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.su7201a1
  60. 30. Linehan, M. M., Comtois, K. A., Brown, M. Z., Heard, H. L., & Wagner, A. (2006). Suicide Attempt Self-Injury Interview (SASII): development, reliability, and validity of a scale to assess suicide attempts and intentional self-injury. Psychological Assessment, 18(3), 303-312. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.18.3.303 

The Trevor Project. (2026). Characterizing Methods Used by LGBTQ+ Young People in Non-Fatal Suicide Attempts. https://doi.org/10.70226/GYCN7083

For more information please contact: [email protected]

© The Trevor Project 2026

Download the Research Brief Return to Research Briefs Page