Audit of the annual reports of directors of public health: production methods.

OBJECTIVE

An audit of production methods used for the Directors of Public Health (DsPH) Annual Report of the health of their local population.

DESIGN

Postal questionnaire survey.

SETTING AND SUBJECTS

23 Departments of Public Health in the West Midlands Region.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Costs and problems relating to different production techniques used.

RESULTS

The majority of DsPH favoured reports with figures and graphs. This led to most DsPH using in-house desktop publishing or employing external graphic designers. Those using the former technique had more problems related to computers and felt they spent too much medical time working on the document. However, they also valued the relative low cost, editorial freedom and the ability to correct mistakes easily. Departments which employed external graphic designers generally paid more, but appreciated the extra time made available by delegating the work. They also felt that the expertise was valuable in document design. However, inaccuracies were cited as being more difficult to correct.

CONCLUSIONS

Perhaps the best way of producing an annual report is to amalgamate the two commonest production techniques (i.e. external graphic design and in-house desktop publishing).