Was the content of the site useful to you? Please rate on a scale from 1 to 5:
	1	(not at all useful)
	2
	3
	4
	5	(very useful)

Please rate the clarity of the information you obtained:
	1 - very badly written - not understandable
	2
	3
	4
	5 - very well written - totally understandable

On a scale from 1 to 5 please rate to which point the site made clear what sources of information were used to compile the content:
	1	(no sources of evidence for the information are mentioned)
	2
	3
	4
	5	(the sources of evidence are very clear)

On a scale from 1 to 5 please rate whether it was clear when the information was produced:
	1	(no, no dates existed on any text or answer or source of information)
	2
	3
	4
	5	(yes, there were dates on every text of information I was given from the site)

Please rate to what point you thought the information was balanced and unbiased?
	1	(the information is completely unbalanced or biased)
	2
	3
	4
	5	(the information is completely balanced and unbiased)

Please rate to what point you thought the information covered your questions in depth:
	1	(no, I was left with many questions unanswered)
	2
	3
	4
	5	(yes, it had all the necessary details)

Did you think the site satisfactorily provided links for additional information?
	1	(no, it provided no links at all or no links were useful)
	2
	3
	4
	5	(yes, it provided many useful links)

Were the aims of the site clear to you? Please rate on a scale from 1 to 5:
	1	(no, the site does not include any indication of its aims)
	2
	3
	4
	5	(yes, the site has clear aims)

Do you think the site achieves its aims? Please rate on a scale from 1 to 5:
	1	(none of the information you were expecting from the aims has been provided)
	2
	3
	4
	5	(all the information expected from the description of the aims has been provided)

Who do you think has the ownership of this site?

Please rate how easy/difficult to navigate the site was (navigation=finding your way on the web site):
	1 - very difficult
	2
	3
	4
	5 - very easy

Please rate the mechanism of feedback (interactivity) of this site:
	1	(not at all satisfactory-very difficult to ask questions and obtain extra information)
	2
	3
	4
	5	(very satisfactory-very easy to ask questions and obtain extra information)

Based on the answers to all of the above questions, rate the overall quality of the site as a source of information about mental health:
	1	(very bad)
	2
	3
	4
	5	(very good)

What is more important for you when seeking a medical information on the internet? (you can click more than one options)
	Quick information
	Anonymity
	Ability to find information from various sources
	Currency of the information
	Objectivity
	Understandability
	Detailed information
	Ability to ask an expert

How old are you?
	Less than 16
	16-20
	21-25
	26-30
	31-40
	More than 41

Which country do you come from?

Are you currently employed?
	Yes, full time.
	Yes, part time.
	No, I am unemployed.
	No, I am on pension.
	No, I am disabled to work.
	I am economically inactive (student, housewife).

How often do you visit web4health?
	Only once
	It is the second time
	Few times
	Quite often
	Almost daily

Any other comments or suggestions?