We now have a lot of material on the site so can be difficult for people to find what they want quickly. We have added a "Can't find what you are looking for?" section to our home page which says: Please try our Site Map or our Search page. If that fails please contact peter@healthyskepticism.org There is a problem that many of the publications listed on our site are organised by publication date rather than topic. If we had the resources then we would put them in a database to enable searches by key word.
We will consider adding to our 2004 survey a question about whether our subscribers are visiting our site more or less frequently than the sites of other like minded organisations so as to find out how well we are doing by comparison. Nonetheless the information gained this year will provide a useful baseline for future comparison.
Our
new publication AdWatch
will build on the strengths of the paper MaLAM letters that are remembered so
fondly.
AdWatch
will be regular and will give subscribers ways to get involved. We
are still deciding on the details. If you would like to get involved in the
design or the ongoing production of AdWatch then your contribution will be most
welcome. Please contact jon@healthyskepticism.org
5. Which of the following
statements is most accurate about your plans for visiting the Healthy
Skepticism website: Number
Paid Subscribers Free subscribers
I am unlikely to visit the
Healthy Skepticism website again 0 1
I would only
visit the Website in
the future if notified of significant improvements to the site 0 5
I only visit the website
when I am
notified of new International editions 11 16
I
don't read International editions often but I do visit the
website for other material 6 13
I
read International editions often and also visit the
website for other material 10 21
Conclusions
The site is now good enough that subscribers will return for new information.
Brief E-mail messages are very important for bringing people to our website.
Our recent trend towards communicating more frequently will continue.
6.
How would you rank each aspect of the Healthy Skepticism website?
1 = excellent
5 = poor
|
Mean rank |
||
| Paid Subscribers | Free subscribers | |
| Relevant | 1.5 | 1.9 |
| Informative | 1.6 | 1.8 |
| Easy to find material | 2.1 | 2.4 |
| Up to date | 2.1 | 2.2 |
Conclusions
We are
struggling to keep the website up-to-date. If anyone with webmaster skills would
like to help we would be delighted to hear from them. Just half an hour a week
would make a big difference. Please contact diane@healthyskepticism.org
If you have any
further comments on our website, please make them
in the box below:
7.
How would you rank each aspect of the Healthy Skepticism International
News editions? Mean rank
Conclusions If you have any further
comments about Healthy Skepticism International News, please make them in the
box below:
8.
How would you rank the importance of Healthy Skepticism's many current activities?
1 = excellent
5 = poor
Paid Subscribers
Free subscribers
Relevant
1.7
1.8
Informative
1.6
1.8
Well written
1.8
1.9
Timely
1.9
2.2
It is encouraging that, on the whole, our subscribers and members rank the
content of our International Editions favourably. We need to work on making the International News editions more timely.
(Most are
listed below). We asked
subscribers to rank them
separately according to the importance you place on them.
1 = high, 5 = low
Paid Subscribers
Free subscribers
Mean rank
Rank of ranks
Mean rank
Rank of ranks
International editions
1.52
1
1.67
5
Website
1.55
2
1.53
3
Information
source for journalists
1.66
3
1.97
10
Information
source for people and non-government organisations doing similar work
1.70
4
1.52
2
Publications in medical journals
1.74
5
1.79
7
Information
source for government agencies
1.85
6
1.82
8
Information
source for students
1.88
7
1.88
9
Information
source for patients
1.9
8
2.09
12
Producing
educational materials
1.96
9
1.74
6
Writing
policy recommendations
2.11
10
1.56
4
Doing
research ourselves
2.18
11
1.45
1
Supervising research by postgraduates
2.30
12
2.03
11
Supervising
research by undergraduates
2.48
13
2.26
13
Lectures
2.74
14
2.46
14
Conclusions
This was a very difficult question to answer but the results are helpful for
decisions about priorities. Responses indicated that our work on providing
information is considered to be very important. However none of the activities
were rejected by a majority of subscribers. The rankings by Paid vs Free
Subscribers are little different except for Free subscribers giving a much
higher rating for producing research, policy recommendations and educational
materials and a lower rating for providing an
information source for journalists.
Lectures were given a low rating but Part A of this report confirmed our impression that they are one the most effective ways we have of gaining Paid Subscribers without whom it would very difficult to do any of the other activities.
We asked subscribers: Is there anything not on that list that you would like us to do?
Paid subscribers wrote:
I think all these activities are important, because they all reach different people, so not one is more important than another.
I would have to say I think all of these activities are important, the time allocated to each may depend on current demands and may be difficult to anticipate
List very long - did not further try to sort out.
More than enough
They are all important! Given our limited resources we should be concentrating on the areas that have the most impact - reaching the most people, influencing policy makers and influencing the way doctors are trained.
Free subscribers wrote:
Drawing immediate attention to critical alerts on drugs.
Enter into a dialogue with the many doctors, pharmacists and others working in the industry whose job is to maintain promotional standards. Talking with us could further the cause of improved promotional standards - if the mutual distrust can be overcome.
Guidelines on critical assessment of websites and webpages; Assessing and evaluating complementary and alternative medicine claims (especially herbal medicines)
I haven't reviewed any of the above sections
If you want busy people like me to interact with you then please try to make it quicker, easier and more simple
Increased consciousness raising for medical students! - ?target medical students publications / conferences?
It may look as though I didn't chose rankings but all of those I ranked a # 1 as important.
It's great that you help people internationally. I don't know how limited your resources are. I find your website invaluable and would like you to keep that updated.
Vaccine safety and effectiveness
Conclusions If you have any further
comments about our priorities, please make them in the box below:
9.
Please list any other philanthropic or cause related organisations that you support. Conclusions 10. Please list any professional associations that you
are a member of:
Conclusions If you have any further
comments about links with other organisations, please make them in the box below:
Finally we asked subscribers if they
had any comments, suggestions
or questions about Healthy Skepticism. Paid Subscribers wrote: Although not an "active"
member, I enjoy Peter Mansfield's comments. I do like the trend towards including
more research in Healthy Skepticism's work. But I must confess I miss the
old days when we saw direct letters to pharmaceutical companies challenging
their advertising. Are these absent because the MaLAM Australia newsletter
could no longer be published? Are these still being written but not finding
a venue for publication? I wonder if the range of activities is
over-ambitious, so that there is not enough time to do the core activities.
What are the core activities? I would suggest international editions and
website, and many of the other functions are then fulfilled by this, eg
journalists, govt and public can look at website. Academic activities
(publishing, supervising) are worthy, but not necessarily what paid
subscribers should support (because academic institutions should do this).
Providing information through website is fine, but maybe if staff time is
involved in doing searches etc, a fee should be charged? Just needs more work. Thank you and keep up the
good work Whilst there is certainly a great need
for Skepticism about many health issues and promotions in the
"West" there is an even greater need for a viable and informed an
vigorous "watchdog" on issues in the developing world. It is
important to keep a good balance Free Subscribers wrote: A very useful site - if it can be kept
free for those unable to afford hard currency rates that would be great.
Particularly like the theory bits - very useful for teaching purposes. Best wishes! Cant afford any of those subs even when I
will be working. Guidance on setting up a similar
organisation in South Africa would be welcome. I am sure that in earlier years there were
more letters to send to companies etc than now? Am I wrong?? I became a paying subscriber so that you
can continue your work. I guess I never have subscribed because as
a part-time GP there are so many organisations wanting money from me, and so
much free information (OVERLOAD), it's hard to know where to start. On the
other hand, this is where the pharm. companies have the advantage, because
their info is 'free', and it's hard to compete with that. I rely on government
sponsored mailouts to get most of my info (eg; Australian National Prescribing
Service, Australian Drug Reaction Advisory Committee), so healthyskepticism
lobbying them is a good way to get info across to info-burdened GPs like me. I have supported you since nearly the
beginning and have over the years tried to persuade others in my circle to do
so also with scant success. Keep up the good work! Keep up the great work!!!! Nowadays I worry about HS's independence
particularly from Government pressures, 15 years or more ago I worried about
independence from Pharmaceutical Industry Pressures. It is a fine line to
tread and HS has to be forever vigilant. Conclusions Subscribers miss the MaLAM letters. We do
too. The main reasons why we had to stop them were given in December 2000 see Changes
MaLAM International News 2000;18:11/12. As mentioned before we are developing
a new publication: AdWatch which is being designed to fill the gap. One issue
on the design agenda is the balance of focus on wealthier vs poorer countries. As
we understand it the Australian Government's current policy regarding funding
any work on improving prescribing is to only fund the National Prescribing
Service. The NPS prefer us to work for it for free on projects it controls but
it has given us some small contracts. We have offered to help the NPS to
improve the quality of their work but we have not received a positive
response. That has lead us to move to academic activities as a way to
gain funding for advancing Our
Aims. Currently the main funding for Healthy Skepticism's work is Peter
Mansfield's PhD scholarship. However
we remain open to working with any government funded agency in any country as
long as the work will advance Our Aims. We have
shown that we are willing to shrink to whatever size is determined by our
subscriber support base rather than compromise Our
Aims so as to get funding. Overview We are pleased that the responses to our
questions on the website were generally positive because it is our primary
means of providing information. What next? In devising strategies to increase our
membership we need to think particularly about how to attract subscribers from
countries other than Australia. We need to continue to find ways for non
Australian residents to be involved, both in running the organisation and in
supporting and contributing to our activities. The median age of the subscribers who
responded is 46. Our future success depends on us
earning the support of younger members and our membership strategies will need
to take account of this. Consequently we are very keen to listen to
ideas from younger people, including medical and pharmacy students. Subscribers found out about us from a
variety of sources, the most frequent being through colleagues and the
website. From time to time we will ask our subscribers to help us
promote Healthy Skepticism. We will do our best to keep the website
'fresh' and endeavour to make it more effective for promoting membership of
Healthy Skepticism. A number of people first read about us in
a journal article and we will continue to do all we can to maintain our
presence in a range of journals. We were particularly pleased by the
very positive unsolicited endorsement we received in the Lancet late last year.
We were interested in the response to our
question on membership fees. As an organisation we have to juggle the
problem of relying on subscription fees as our main source of income on the
one hand, with wanting membership to be accessible on the other. The
survey has shown that at least some people would be prepared to pay a higher
subscription fee. We will not lose sight of the importance of being
accessible - one solution might be to enable our paying supporters to elect a
fee level that they consider appropriate and can afford. We will get
back to you on this. The Healthy Skepticism Management Group is
currently developing a business plan, we are in the process of establishing
two new publications, Adwatch and a Subscribers' Update and we are about to
embark on a membership drive. The responses to this survey have been
most informative and will shape our planning. Thank you for your feedback. We will
continue to keep you informed of our plans and invite you to provide feedback
at any time. If you have any further comments, please
make them in the box below:
There are a range of views about priorities. Some want more focus whilst
others want us to take on even more. Given our limited resources anyone who
wants to influence our priorities may have greater impact than they might expect
just by offering to help us work on the topic that they care about. Please
contact peter@healthyskepticism.org
That invitation also includes the drug company staffer who wants us to enter
into "dialogue". We think we have been in dialogue with drug company
staff for most of the last 20 years but understand that he or she could be referring
to a different type of dialogue. We are open to new ideas for pursuing Our
Aims.
Our subscribers tend to be "part of the solution" by
joining cause related organisations. Almost all mentioned at least one other
organisation and many mentioned three or more. The most frequently
mentioned were Amnesty International, Médecins Sans Frontières and Oxfam. We
are keen to investigate ways of forging links with any of other organisations
supported by our subscribers so as to advance shared aims and increase our
membership. Your suggestions would be appreciated. Please use the
comment box below section 10 or contact rosie@healthyskepticism.org
Not surprisingly our Paid Subscribers/Members and Free Subscribers are
also members of Professional Associations appropriate to their profession.
As with the cause related organisations we are keen to investigate ways of
forging links with any of these associations to promote our aims and increase
our membership and value your suggestions.
Have tried to get my workplace to subscribe but have been knocked back so I'm
quite a failure!
The various organisations I support are becoming a burden but I guess I should
be shamed into coughing up the subscription fee again soon.
As I do not own a computer & my only access is at work & I am not yet
very computer literate I am unable to answer all the questions properly. Sorry
about this but I feel strongly that like minded people CAN make a difference
& I think you have been doing a great job over the years & the website
should make a big difference to your coverage.
Keep UP the GOOD WORK !!
We will keep up the good work but we do need to focus in on the highest
priorities. We also need to improve communication with our subscribers because
much of our current situation has not been understood. We need to remember
that many supporters do not find computers easy to use and many more suffer
information overload.
The survey has provided useful information about our most supportive subscribers. The
response rate is too low to enable us to make generalisations about
subscribers who did not respond. Overall we received mostly positive feedback, particularly in light of the fact that
our paid subscriber numbers (and hence our income) are currently very low.
Where questions asked respondents to rank aspects of Healthy Skepticism, paid
subscribers responded slightly more positively than free subscribers.
Healthy Skepticism is run almost entirely by volunteers and most of our
funding comes from subscriptions. We are far more likely to make a difference
if we have a larger membership, not the least because with more income we can
be more active. Thus knowing more about the views of our
members/subscribers is essential.