This Reader's Survey was important for us, and we would like to share the results and some of our thoughts derived from the survey.
We are entering the Internet age well and truly in 2002, and coping with change, and the resulting stresses, are going to be the predominant issues.
Health professions, including pharmacy, are very conservative, and in the Internet stakes they are quite a distance behind compared with other types of businesses.

Some time in 2001, Computachem e-newsletter began a transformation to Computachem E-Magazine, as some of the authors began to dig deeper and analyse issues beyond the simple reporting of news.

In February 2002, we will have completed this transition.

The publication will become a monthly one (supported by this survey) to enable the writers to research their material properly. We will become more interactive utilising an array of "tools" to facilitate many tasks.

We were the first Internet pharmacy publication in Australia, and we still remain so. As pharmacies become more Internet oriented, we will be well placed to deliver change management information and other resources to assist pharmacists in their transition to a fully integrated environment.

Pharmacists generally are wishing the actual and pending changes would go away.
They are not, and you will have to engage all the processes you have been avoiding, or you simply will not be able to sustain a business/professional role.

Many of the articles published over the last two years already give valuable insights, and should be continually utilised as a resource.

It is our wish at Computachem to form an alliance with each reader.
We want you to lose your reticence and interact with us in as many ways as we are able to construct.
It is only in the sharing of ideas that we can move forward in a more united role, and make some of the hard decisions that will involve abandoning many of the business formats, and political structures that have served Pharmacy so well over the years, but are now becoming a hinderance.
The keyword is innovation.

The results of our survey were as follows:

QUESTION 1.
After receiving the newsletter, what of the following reactions do you identify with?

Question	Percentage of Respondents
I look forward to receiving it.	39 percent
I read all, or a majority of articles in each edition	22 percent
I read only one or two articles in each edition	72 percent
I use it for occasional references	17 percent
I find it educational	61 percent
I find some points of view expressed difficult to align with	11 percent
I find every edition irritates me in some way	11 percent
I find that with each edition, I do gradually modify my point of view	22 percent

It is obvious that we have to put more work into the content side of things.
With only 39 percent of readers who look forward to receiving it, there is a bit of ground to make up.
Type of content may be the answer, for further down we have polled subject preferences, and we may have to provide more of the subjects that have scored in the high range.
This attitude is reinforced when 72 percent of respondents only read one or two articles per edition, suggesting they are following a particular subject or a particular writer.
As reference material, we polled 17 percent, which may be subject related or to the method of archiving. More work needed here.
The last three questions were interrelated.
Alignment of "point of view" scored 11 percent, as did the "irritation" factor, and these were probably identical respondents.
However, 22 percent of respondents found that each edition modified their point of view, which is encouraging.
The object of the newsletter is to take people out of their "comfort zone", lay bare a problem and present one or more versions of a solution. It is obvious that we will have some disagreement, but this is only to be expected.
We don't want you to shut down when you experience this "irritation" factor.
Give us your views loudly and clearly.
These responses may also illustrate that about 89 percent of readers substantially agree with what we are writing about.

QUESTION 2.
What reading procedures do you follow?

Question	Percentage of Respondents
I read the email summary only	10 percent
I read the email summary and follow the links to selected articles only	80 percent
I read the email summary and follow the email article index to the article index on site	20 percent
I print out selected articles to read later	35 percent
I print out all the articles	0 percent
I read the articles on the website location only	10 percent

These questions on reading habbits were related to design and navigation.
We were surprised that more people did not make greater use of the article index on site, because navigation is faster by this method.
However, as noted in question 1, with most readers following selected subjects or authors, then the quickest link is obviously from the email.
I think there is an argument for leaving both methods intact, because if we can succeed in raising more interest through specific content, then the site index would become more used.
A reasonable number of respondents (35 percent) print out selected articles, while none print out the complete newsletter.
We have had some difficulties in arranging a suitable print format, with some words being lost along the edge of each article, when printing from the browser. A more printer-friendly version will be incorporated in a new design.

QUESTION 3.
In relation to the articles presented and the subject matter;

Question	Yes	No
Are there too many articles per edition?	12 percent	88 percent
Are the articles too long?	6 percent	88 percent
Is there sufficient variety of subject matter?	71 percent	29 percent
Is the subject matter interesting?	82 percent	18 percent
Do the authors write to an adequate depth?	82 percent	18 percent

In the area of the actual articles, we are obviously doing some things right.
Readers do not think there are too many articles per edition, even though most only read one or two. Again, this is deduced to relate to the subject matter.
The length of the articles does not worry 88 percent of our readers.
Some of our authors have suggested that some of the articles were too long and that reader interest may flag because of this.
Others have favoured longer articles which involves more research and more problem solving.
This means moving out of a newsletter format and into a magazine format, which we are now proposing to do.
Readers (71 percent) find sufficient variety of subject matter, but because of previous responses, their focus is narrow. This problem is addressed further along the survey.
Most readers (82 percent) find the subject matter interesting, and the same percentage state that the authors write to an adequate depth in each article.
So maybe we only have to refine some aspects polled in this section of the survey.

QUESTION 4.
Please rate your overall impression of our publication (layout and design, well written material, timeliness, quality of content and usefulness of content) in relation to other communications you are receiving.

	Excellent	Good	Average	Poor
Against similar Australian web/email newsletters.	20 percent	20 percent	55 percent	0 percent
Against overseas web/email newsletters	5 percent	30 percent	45 percent	0 percent
Against similar material in other pharmacy print media	10 percent	40 percent	20 percent	5 percent
Against similar material in national magazines e.g The Bulletin	5 percent	55 percent	25 percent	5 percent
Against similar material in major daily newspapers	20 percent	45 percent	25 percent	0 percent

If we are going to move into the "excellent" range of perceptions in this area, we obviously have to do a lot more work.
In combining the " good to excellent" responses, we poll 40 percent against similar Australian publications, 35 percent against overseas publications, 50 percent against pharmacy print media, 60 percent against national magazines and 65 percent against major daily newspapers.
The problem is, I am unaware of what Australian and overseas web/email newsletters we were compared with, so if anyone can suggest a model we can look at, it would be appreciated.
We anticipated a response, more or less, in the reverse order to what was received.

QUESTION 5.
Please select the following reader preferences that you identify with.

Preference	Yes	No	Undecided
I would prefer to receive the newsletter monthly, rather than twice a month.	65 percent	30 percent	5 percent
I prefer to access and read the newsletter during business hours	65 percent	35 percent	0 percent
I prefer to access and read the newsletter at home	35 percent	40 percent	10 percent
I would prefer to receive the complete newsletter by HTML format via email	45 percent	30 percent	15 percent
I would prefer to receive the newsletter on CD Rom by regular mail	0 percent	85 percent	15 percent
I would prefer to receive the newsletter in hard copy format by regular mail	20 percent	70 percent	10 percent
I would be happy to pay for CD Rom or hard copy	10 percent	70 percent	15 percent

To provide all the quality features expected by our readers, we will definitely need more time.
The majority of our readers also would prefer to receive our publication monthly, rather than fortnightly.
While a monthly publication may take away some of the immediacy provided by a twice a month publication, we believe that with the extra time afforded to our writers, we will gain more readership per article.
So we will be moving to a monthly publication, which was our "gut feel" anyhow.
As most readers (65 percent) prefer to access and read the publication at work, we are competing against many other pressures over the working day. This means a quality improvement on our part is a better competitive strategy for a reader's time. This gives more time for readers to absorb material.
The preference to HTML format is a requisite for a significant number of readers (45 percent), so this will be factored in to a new design.
There is obviously no support for CD Rom versions, and support is low for hard copy. When this fact is coupled with the response that there is an unwillingness to pay for these versions, it would be uneconomic to depart from a web-based format.

QUESTION 6.
Computachem Newsletter has covered a wide range of topics and sub-topics over time. Please rate the following broad topic sections in terms of your interest to read them.

Subject	Extremely Interested	High Level of Interest	Generally Interested	Not Interested
Banking & Finance	10 percent	25 percent	35 percent	30 percent
Complementary Medicine	20 percent	30 percent	25 percent	25 percent
Consultant Pharmacy	25 percent	20 percent	40 percent	15 percent
Corporate Pharmacy	20 percent	35 percent	35 percent	10 percent
E-Commerce/Mail Order	20 percent	35 percent	30 percent	5 percent
Education	20 percent	40 percent	20 percent	20 percent
The Economy	10 percent	20 percent	45 percent	25 percent
Genetically Modified Foods/Drugs	5 percent	10 percent	45 percent	25 percent
Globalisation	5 percent	40 percent	35 percent	10 percent
Hospital Pharmacy	15 percent	25 percent	40 percent	10 percent
Human Resources	5 percent	30 percent	30 percent	25 percent
Information Technology	55 percent	40 percent	5 percent	0 percent
Legal & Regulatory	15 percent	40 percent	40 percent	5 percent
Locums/Management	15 percent	25 percent	50 percent	10 percent
Marketing	40 percent	10 percent	40 percent	5 percent
Medical Practice Pharmacy	35 percent	40 percent	20 percent	5 percent
Integrated Medical Centres	25 percent	30 percent	25 percent	10 percent
Men's Issues	5 percent	25 percent	40 percent	20 percent
Pharmacy Structure	20 percent	35 percent	30 percent	5 percent
Pharmacy Politics	15 percent	55 percent	20 percent	0 percent
Privacy Issues	5 percent	15 percent	50 percent	20 percent
Retailing	15 percent	30 percent	30 percent	15 percent
Rural/Isolated Issues	10 percent	15 percent	35 percent	30 percent
Special Features e.g HCW	5 percent	35 percent	30 percent	20 percent
Student Issues	5 percent	15 percent	30 percent	40 percent

Obviously, the subject matter and the frequency of its appearance, is the most important consideration to the editor of any publication.
The above results will help us plan the number of articles per issue, the frequency of each subject type per issue, also the recruitment of future writers.
The top 3 subjects, as indicated by the above poll are:

Information Technology, Medical Practice Pharmacy, and Pharmacy Politics.

The next group, in order of polling are:

Education, Corporate Pharmacy, E-Commerce/Mail Order issues, Legal & Regulatory, Integrated Medical Centres, Pharmacy Structure, Marketing, and Complementary Medicine.

These subjects will form the primary focus of an upgraded publication, with all other subjects being slotted in on a rotating basis.
There may be a need to increase the number of subjects per edition if the frequency of publication reduces to once a month.

We were surprised at the relatively low ranking of consultant pharmacy, management and retailing.

QUESTION 7.
Certain "tools" have been added to the website over time to try and make the site more interactive and user friendly. Please comment.

The tools noted were:

1. The search engine(Do you use it or plan to use it?)
42 percent of readers polled already use it or plan to use it
2. The "Announcer" on the home page of the website (Do you use it?)
26 percent of readers polled already use it
3. "Pop-Up" author profiles (have you ever viewed them?)
89 percent of readers polled have read author profiles
4. The navigation bar at the top of the web page (Do you use it to access other parts of the site?)
74 percent of readers polled use the navigation bar
5. Article ratings poll (Would you use a rating poll, if added?)
74 percent of readers polled would use this tool if installed

It would seem that a little more work needs to be done to publicise the search engine and the "announcer".
An article ratings poll will probably be installed on the basis of the above response.
Generally, the degree of "interactivity" of readers once they reach the website is fairly high.

QUESTION 8.
Do you have any specific suggestions on new features and/or sections we could add to improve the publication?
At the same time, you may like to comment on any component of the newsletter you would like to see deleted or modified.

We had a few good suggestions here such as "shorter text lines", more "Information Technology" articles, the use of an abstract description of each article with a link to the body of the article, more "printer friendly", better formatting for ease of reading.
There was also one comment suggesting that authors should "focus on the problems/issues rather than giving their opinion". In this regard, we are reluctant to ask authors to dilute their personal comments, because it is these very comments which stimulate debate, and give our publication that "point of difference".
However, we will endeavour to provide more resource type material, and this will go toward some dilution of that "irritation" factor.
We will certainly discuss with the authors their feelings on this point.

QUESTION 9.
Please rate Computachem E-Newsletter on each of the following aspects;

Aspect	Excellent	Good	Average	Poor
Design of publication	15 percent	35 percent	45 percent	5 percent
Overall layout of publication	10 percent	35 percent	55 percent	0 percent
Writing skills	20 percent	40 percent	40 percent	0 percent
Ease of navigation	15 percent	45 percent	35 percent	0 percent
Range of topics	20 percent	40 percent	30 percent	0 percent
Depth of information	5 percent	35 percent	50 percent	0 percent
Forum design	0 percent	25 percent	50 percent	5 percent
Forum access (ease of registration and posting of comments)	0 percent	45 percent	35 percent	5 percent

The two areas that registered a "poor" rating were design of publication and the Forum. Obviously we must have a hard look at these particular aspects.
Overall, the ratings of the other aspects were not as strong as we would have liked, but as it is in our capacity to remedy these perceptions, a fresh look will be taken for the new publication.

QUESTION 10.
Do you think the Forum is a good medium for expressing opinion and sharing ideas?

The questions asked were;

1. Have you used the Forum?
15 percent of respondents have used the Forum
2. Would you prefer to remain anonymous when using the Forum?
41 percent of respondents would prefer to remain anonymous
3. Have you begun to use the Forum and found that access was difficult?
12 percent of respondents found difficult access
4. Do you think Forums are a waste of time?
59 percent do not think they are a waste of time, 12 percent think they are, and 12 percent are undecided.

Our forum usage overall is very small compared to the total number of subscribers.
Given that it is an extra charge on a busy day, we can think of no other way to solicit ideas, opinions, receive criticisms or give a voice to those pharmacists who wish to be heard on a particular issue.
We have already taken steps to make the forum anonymous, we must now look at simplifying access.
When the initiative is taken to use the forum, all access after that point is very easy. Getting used to the terms and identifying the procedures takes a little time, as do all new procedures.
The large proportion of respondents who do not think Forums are a waste of time encourage us to persist with this tool.
Perhaps we should write an actual article on the benefits and applications of Forums as one way of solving any difficulties.

QUESTION 11.
How often do you visit our publication's website?

1. All the time
0 percent responded here
2. Every day
5 percent responded here
3. A couple of times a week
5 percent responded here
4. A couple of times a month
35 percent responded here
5. Once a month
30 percent responded here
6. Less than once a month
25 percent responded here

Seventy five percent of subscribers visit the website at least once a month.
Part of the redesign process will include the addition of useful information and tools that will complement a pharmacy practice, particularly in the areas of consultant pharmacy and information technology.
We have a lot of room for improvement.

QUESTION 12.
If you have scored the newsletter reasonably well in terms of satisfaction, do you or would you....

1. Email a copy of the summary to a colleague?
67 percent said yes
2. Recommend to colleagues that they should subscribe?
67 percent said yes

Because of the high response rate here we are inclined to add a facility that will make it easier to transmit an article to a colleague or other interested person.

QUESTION 13.
What is your gender?

Given that the majority of pharmacists are female, we were wondering if we were reaching them. The answer is possibly not.

80 percent of respondents were male (20 percent female).

We are uncertain as to whether women are more hesitant to respond to surveys, polls or forums, or whether we are not reaching enough addresses.
Obviously, we will have to look at the type of content that might attract female pharmacists and whether recruiting more female authors might alter the balance a little.
As a male, I have difficulty interpreting female needs.
Can someone help me out here?

QUESTION 14
What year were you born?

The youngest respondent was 22 years of age, while the oldest was 68 years.
30 percent of respondents were aged between 20 and 29 years.
0 percent of respondents were aged between 30 and 39 years
20 percent of respondents were aged between 40 and 49 years
25 percent of respondents were aged between 50 and 59 years
25 percent of respondents were aged 60+

It is pleasing to note that the youngest age group are our largest group of respondents.
But what happens when they reach 30 years of age?
Is this the time most women drop out for family reasons?
Or are they all just too busy with mortgage and business repayments to find sufficient time for reading?
Obviously we must find out, and try to attract from this age bracket.

We have chosen to share these results with you to demonstrate our vision for what we wish to be....the best pharmacy Internet publication world-wide, dealing with change management issues.
We recognise that we have quite a way to go, and we hope to achieve our goal as interactively with our subscribers as is possible.
We also recognise that this is a new medium to most pharmacists, many only just coming to terms with Internet Technology, and the potential for dramatic change in their workplace lives.
This publication is an offer to partner you in delivering successful outcomes to all these future changes.

From all at Computachem E-Newsletter, we wish you a happy and safe Christmas and New Year festive period. We hope to make your acquaintance again in 2002

Ends

Back to Article Index
Newsletter Reader's Forum

Previous Article

Next Article

The comments and views expressed in the above article are those of the author and no other. The author welcomes any comment and interaction, directly or via the Newsletter Reader's Forum.
The newsletter archives are now fully searchable via the search engine on the left hand side of this page. If you would like to find similar articles to the above material, please enter the appropriate keyword(s). To retain context with multiple keywords or phrases, please enclose in inverted commas.
* Please contact us if you would like further information or would like us to research additional material to publish as future articles.	* Don't forget to advise of any change in your e-mail address so that your subscription may be continued without interruption.	* Letters to the editor are encouraged, or if you have material you would like published, please forward to the editor.	* Any interested persons who would like to receive this free newsletter on their desktop each fortnight, please send a single word e-mail "Subscribe"	* If you have found value in this newsletter, please share it with a friend, or alternatively, encourage a colleague to subscribe
* All Communications to: neilj@computachem.com.au
* You are invited to visit the Computachem web site and check out an organised reference site for medical or other references. Why not try (and bookmark) the Computachem Interweb Directory for an easily accessed range of medical and pharmacy links, plus a host of pharmacy relevant links. The directory also contains a very fast search engine for Internet enquiries. You may also access the Home Page at: http://www.computachem.com.au

Back to Article Index
Article Archive 2000
Article Archive 2001
Home