Our website it is committed to providing objective and trustworthy information and guidance on all aspects of physiotherapy.
In all instances, we strive to ensure that content is evidence-based, in other words, that it is founded on the best scientific knowledge currently available.
The following sections set out our editorial principles, standards and processes:
Physio.co.uk content will be accurate, balanced and transparent. Information given will be judged against the best available scientific evidence. Where content contains conjecture or opinion, this will be clearly indicated.
Impartiality and diversity of opinion:
Physio.co.uk will be objective, impartial and even-handed. Where views differ and no scientific consensus can be found it will reflect all significant strands of opinion and state the uncertainty clearly.
Physio.co.uk is accountable to its users and will deal fairly with them. It will be open in admitting mistakes and encourages a culture of learning via user feedback. Its editorial processes will be transparent.
Serving our users:
Physio.co.uk will put its users' interests first when sourcing and developing content. It will consult widely with relevant professional bodies, charities and other interest groups but serving our users will remain paramount.
Taste and decency:
All content on Physio.co.uk will be suitable for a general audience and will not include material that might reasonably be deemed offensive.
Physio.co.uk views its users' privacy as paramount and, barring legal order, will not divulge any correspondence or personal information it may hold about them without their prior and explicit permission.
Physio.co.uk is privately funded. We reserve the right to carry contextual advertising and/or accept payment from affiliate advertising.
Staff interests and independence
Physio.co.uk has a dedicated team of editors. They operate independently of the site's marketing and commercial functions and have a clear mandate to produce accurate, balanced and transparent information.
Where content is produced by outside organisations or individuals, Physio.co.uk requires that such agents make a similar disclosure of outside interests.
All editorial staff are qualified physiotherapists. In addition to their professional qualifications they are given professional development training to ensure editorial standards are met.
Phase 1 - Research
The evidence-based knowledge that informs all Physio.co.uk content is derived from peer-reviewed scientific research and from the direct experience of clinicians, other health professionals, patients and the wider public.
In pulling together this knowledge to provide users with a rounded and balanced package of material on a particular subject, Physio.co.uk requires its physiotherapists to consult the following resources:
- Practising physiotherapists, doctors and other clinicians with direct and current experience in dealing with or treating the health issue under investigation,
- National charities with a recognised expertise and specialist interest,
- Patients and ordinary members of the wider public who may be directly affected by a topic or issue,
- The Cochrane Collaboration an international network of people helping healthcare providers, policy makers, patients, their advocates and carers, make well-informed decisions about human health care
- The Chartered Society of Physiotherapy
- The Department of Health
- The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) provides guidance, sets quality standards and manages a national database to improve people's health and prevent and treat ill health.
Phase 2 - Production
Once a piece of content has been researched and drafted, it is edited by a senior member of the Physio.co.uk editorial team. It is checked for:
- Common factual errors
- Adherence to house style
- Overall presentation
Phase 3 - Clinical check and sign-off
All content requires signing off by an appropriately qualified and experienced clinician before it can be published on the Physio.co.uk website.
Review of content
Physio.co.uk' content is reviewed systematically. Comments from users on published content are considered on a day-by-day basis as they arrive, and content reviewed and amended immediately if necessary.