ProCor survey results
The ProCor audience survey is completed, and the results have been analyzed. We received some truly interesting information as well as many valuable comments and suggestions that will help us in steering the direction of ProCor and providing they type of content our community needs. From all of us here at ProCor, thank you to everyone who participated in the survey.
(A note of caution: While some interesting data will be presented, these results aren't necessarily representative of the entire ProCor audience. It's easier for people who have constant, high speed access to the internet to participate in a survey like this, and one of our ongoing goals is to seek out those who are not likely going to complete a survey like this and make sure they're being represented as well. Also, some of the categories will include percentages that add up to more than 100% because the categories allowed for more than one response. We compared the responses to the total number of participants who finished the survey.)
The majority of respondents are public health professionals (32%), followed by physicians/physician assistants (28%), researchers (17%), professors (6%), and program/policy directors (5%). Other respondents included: Nurses, students, dentists, librarians, NGO advocates, health communications specialists, and information professionals. In terms of institution/organization affiliation, 36% of respondents work at universities or teaching hospitals.
As expected, the geographical area of focus (i.e. where someone's work is directed) was spread across the globe, however at varying degrees. The largest geographical area of focus is Africa (22%), followed by Central/South America (20%), South-East Asia (18%), Global (18%), US/Canada (14%), Western Pacific (12%), Europe (10%), and Eastern Mediterranean (2%).
The majority of respondents (87.5%) have high-speed internet access, compared to mobile phone, low-speed internet, and unknown access (4% each). Almost 48% of respondents reported viewing ProCor's content only through the listserv emails, 6% view the content on the website only, and 46% use a combination of both the listserv and website.
The ProCor community uses the information from ProCor in many different ways. Of all survey respondents, the greatest use of ProCor's information is to keep up with current news and findings (74%), followed by personal education (70%), research reference (62%), sharing information with colleagues (57%), policy/program development and use in teaching or presentation (41% each), and feed into another discussion group (20%).
The top five types of content survey respondents use ProCor for include: information on recent published online articles, facts, and news (77%); followed by journal articles, books, and references (74%); discussion of specific topics (64%); links to resources on the internet (55%); and research reviews (54%).
We are interested in expanding the cardiovascular health topics we cover, and we received many responses on what other topics people are interested in. Some of the most commonly cited topics include: lifestyle modifications, diabetic metabolism, primary prevention strategies in developing countries, RHD, and Chagas disease.
When looking at new potential ways to deliver content, no overwhelming suggestions emerged. The top three responses included HTML-formatted emails (39%), none of the suggested new methods (22%), and social media (15%). It's no surprise that none of the suggested new methods was the second highest response because of the nature of ProCor's mission. By promoting cardiovascular health in low-resource settings, many people who find ProCor useful will be limited by resources, and so a text-based or mobile phone application wouldn't necessarily be the most useful method to disseminate information if they don't have the tools in place to use such a method.
The information ProCor provides is being distributed beyond the email network and website. Almost 94% of respondents has shared information provided by ProCor with someone else, and 35% of respondents has shared information with more than 10 people in the last six months. Correspondingly, 57% of the respondents were referred to ProCor by a work colleague (the remaining respondents were introduced to ProCor through links from other websites/listservs, internet searches, schools, and conferences)
This information is helpful in determining what ProCor should focus on. The community enjoys/uses the current types of information (such as journal reviews, prevention news) extensively, and so the focus should not be on changing the current types of content but expanding on the topics covered. Neglected diseases, regional issues, policy, community-level interventions are some of the additional topics ProCor should be covering.
Although not 100% representative of the ProCor community, the geographic focus of work shows that we need to do more to engage people working in the Eastern Mediterranean, Western Pacific, and European regions. However, cardiovascular disease is a global problem, and we have to treat it as such by providing information that is relevant to all parts of the world.
You can download/view a PowerPoint presentation of this information, where you can see the survey analysis in its entirety, as well as many qualitative responses and suggestions.
http://www.slideshare.net/procor/procor-audience-survey-results
Many thanks to Fiat Vongpunsawad for leading this effort. We always welcome comments, suggestions, and questions on how we can provide a better service.
Thank you,
Benn.
(A note of caution: While some interesting data will be presented, these results aren't necessarily representative of the entire ProCor audience. It's easier for people who have constant, high speed access to the internet to participate in a survey like this, and one of our ongoing goals is to seek out those who are not likely going to complete a survey like this and make sure they're being represented as well. Also, some of the categories will include percentages that add up to more than 100% because the categories allowed for more than one response. We compared the responses to the total number of participants who finished the survey.)
The majority of respondents are public health professionals (32%), followed by physicians/physician assistants (28%), researchers (17%), professors (6%), and program/policy directors (5%). Other respondents included: Nurses, students, dentists, librarians, NGO advocates, health communications specialists, and information professionals. In terms of institution/organization affiliation, 36% of respondents work at universities or teaching hospitals.
As expected, the geographical area of focus (i.e. where someone's work is directed) was spread across the globe, however at varying degrees. The largest geographical area of focus is Africa (22%), followed by Central/South America (20%), South-East Asia (18%), Global (18%), US/Canada (14%), Western Pacific (12%), Europe (10%), and Eastern Mediterranean (2%).
The majority of respondents (87.5%) have high-speed internet access, compared to mobile phone, low-speed internet, and unknown access (4% each). Almost 48% of respondents reported viewing ProCor's content only through the listserv emails, 6% view the content on the website only, and 46% use a combination of both the listserv and website.
The ProCor community uses the information from ProCor in many different ways. Of all survey respondents, the greatest use of ProCor's information is to keep up with current news and findings (74%), followed by personal education (70%), research reference (62%), sharing information with colleagues (57%), policy/program development and use in teaching or presentation (41% each), and feed into another discussion group (20%).
The top five types of content survey respondents use ProCor for include: information on recent published online articles, facts, and news (77%); followed by journal articles, books, and references (74%); discussion of specific topics (64%); links to resources on the internet (55%); and research reviews (54%).
We are interested in expanding the cardiovascular health topics we cover, and we received many responses on what other topics people are interested in. Some of the most commonly cited topics include: lifestyle modifications, diabetic metabolism, primary prevention strategies in developing countries, RHD, and Chagas disease.
When looking at new potential ways to deliver content, no overwhelming suggestions emerged. The top three responses included HTML-formatted emails (39%), none of the suggested new methods (22%), and social media (15%). It's no surprise that none of the suggested new methods was the second highest response because of the nature of ProCor's mission. By promoting cardiovascular health in low-resource settings, many people who find ProCor useful will be limited by resources, and so a text-based or mobile phone application wouldn't necessarily be the most useful method to disseminate information if they don't have the tools in place to use such a method.
The information ProCor provides is being distributed beyond the email network and website. Almost 94% of respondents has shared information provided by ProCor with someone else, and 35% of respondents has shared information with more than 10 people in the last six months. Correspondingly, 57% of the respondents were referred to ProCor by a work colleague (the remaining respondents were introduced to ProCor through links from other websites/listservs, internet searches, schools, and conferences)
This information is helpful in determining what ProCor should focus on. The community enjoys/uses the current types of information (such as journal reviews, prevention news) extensively, and so the focus should not be on changing the current types of content but expanding on the topics covered. Neglected diseases, regional issues, policy, community-level interventions are some of the additional topics ProCor should be covering.
Although not 100% representative of the ProCor community, the geographic focus of work shows that we need to do more to engage people working in the Eastern Mediterranean, Western Pacific, and European regions. However, cardiovascular disease is a global problem, and we have to treat it as such by providing information that is relevant to all parts of the world.
You can download/view a PowerPoint presentation of this information, where you can see the survey analysis in its entirety, as well as many qualitative responses and suggestions.
http://www.slideshare.net/procor/procor-audience-survey-results
Many thanks to Fiat Vongpunsawad for leading this effort. We always welcome comments, suggestions, and questions on how we can provide a better service.
Thank you,
Benn.
Reply to this message
© 2013 ProCor | Privacy Policy