Clinician & research questionnaire

A short (~8–12 min) questionnaire to shape SimHealth’s feasibility pilot: workflow, safety boundaries, governance, and measurement.
For clinicians, researchers, services, and institutions (not for patients).

Start questionnaire Back to Clinicians

Purpose and boundaries

SimHealth is being developed as a supervised, two-sided programme: a clinician portal for governance and oversight, and a structured patient experience designed to support “between-session” risk moments within agreed clinical boundaries. This questionnaire collects professional input to refine feasibility, safety design, and clinical usability before any wider pilot.

We’re especially looking for guidance on: what a supervised “urge session” should include, what clinicians need to see for oversight, and which feasibility measures matter most (engagement patterns, abort points, safety signals, and clinician workload).

This project is in development. It is not emergency care, not a substitute for clinical judgement, and is not presented as a certified medical device. Hosting and governance are being planned to align with GDPR principles and relevant French health-data expectations, with final decisions following DPIA and partner review.

Please keep responses non-identifying. Do not include patient names, dates of birth, contact details, or case-specific narratives. For sensitive discussions (governance, partnerships, or risk scenarios), use the Contact page.

Professional context

This helps us interpret your feedback and understand local constraints.

Your primary role

If “Other”, specify below.

If other, please specify (optional)

Country / jurisdiction

Type in the box to filter; then select from the list.

Primary practice setting (optional)

Current tools and workflow

We’re mapping what already works in real services — and where the “between-session gap” still bites.

Which tools or approaches do you currently use to support patients between sessions?

If “Other”, use the next field to specify.

If other, please specify (optional)

What aspects of your current approach work well?

Where do current tools or approaches fall short in practice?

Engagement, accessibility, continuity

Focused on adoption: burden, accessibility, and what keeps people engaged safely.

Which factor matters most for maintaining engagement between sessions?

If other, please specify (optional)

Do the tools you currently use account for accessibility or cognitive differences (e.g. ADHD; visual impairment; cognitive load)?

Accessibility includes visual contrast; pacing; clarity; attention load; and reading effort.

How valuable would an interface that adapts to individual patient needs (e.g. pacing; visual contrast; attention load) be in your practice?

Supervised digital support and pilot readiness

Feasibility-first: safety signals, clinician burden, and what “good” looks like in a supervised pilot.

In which situations could supervised digital support add the most value?

What minimum indicators would you expect from a well-run, supervised pilot?

What risks would need to be carefully mitigated before wider use?

Are there any features, claims, or uses you would consider unacceptable?

Data and governance (high level)

High-level only here. Formal governance is handled through pilot documentation (DPIA, agreements, oversight).

What types of data collection would be acceptable in a supervised pilot?

What governance or oversight would your organisation expect before participation?

Optional contact and follow-up

Optional. You can submit anonymously. Email is only needed if you want follow-up (clarification, pilot planning) or project updates.

Name (optional)

Organisation (optional)

Email (optional)

Only required if you consent to follow-up or email updates.

Back