Abstract
Aims and methodTo describe the process for reader feedback on the Royal College of Psychiatrists' online public information leaflets, to report the findings of a retrospective analysis of feedback received over a 14-month period, and to discuss the value of feedback, particularly in relation to the Information Standard quality mark introduced by the Department of Health.ResultsWe received 38 700 completed feedback forms during the period under analysis. We derived scores from the feedback forms, which enabled us to identify those that should be prioritised for review. Written comments from readers highlighted specific areas of the leaflets that required further work.Clinical implicationsThe development of our public mental health information can be guided using feedback from our readers.
Highlights
We derived scores from the feedback forms, which enabled us to identify those that should be prioritised for review
The introduction of the Information Standard quality mark should lead to an improvement in the reliability of patient information among participating organisations
Because the Spearman’s correlation between the modalities on the feedback form is high (0.72-0.96), we could simplify the form and use a single score, such as the five-star rating system used by Amazon.com
Summary
During the period under analysis there were 3 378 000 visits to the College website by 2 247 000 people from more than 222 countries. Leaflets with fewer than 20 completed feedback forms were excluded to ensure that average scores for each leaflet were based on a significant number of responses. The modalities are measured on a scale of 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest) These figures show that the main leaflets are by far the most popular. During the period under analysis, the most popular leaflet was on cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT), attracting over 385 000 readers During this time, Google ranked this leaflet in first place on a search for ‘CBT’ or ‘cognitive behavioural therapy’. The lowest scoring leaflets are about issues that attract controversy in the public domain This controversy may partly account for their higher than average share of negative free-text feedback, as described . The constructive criticisms are useful in helping us to identify specific ways in which to improve the leaflets (Box 1)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
