Send the claim and the source
The fastest report includes a page URL, the exact passage, and what evidence should change it.
Editorial contact
Corrections, questions about the site, press inquiries. This form goes to our editorial inbox.
Looking for clinical care? The patient inquiry form is the right place for that.
Not a clinical inbox
Symptoms, medication changes, refills, crisis messages, and patient issues belong in care channels, not editorial mail.
Give context and deadline
For interviews, quotes, reuse, or syndication, include the outlet, use, topic, and timing.
Report friction readers can see
Broken sources, inaccessible images, overlapping text, bad links, and confusing pages all belong here.
What belongs here
This page is for the public education side of psychiatry.help. Use it for factual corrections, source questions, broken links, author or attribution questions, press inquiries, or feedback about how an article explains a topic. If we got something wrong, if a source broke, or if a page feels outdated or unclear, tell us here.
This is not a clinical inbox. Do not send symptoms, medication changes, refill requests, crisis messages, or personal medical details here. If you want care through LiveWell, use the patient inquiry form. If there is immediate danger, call 988, call emergency services, or go to an ER.
This form is not an end-to-end encrypted patient portal. For editorial or press questions, use the form below. For clinical details, use a clinical channel instead.
Corrections
Include the page URL, the sentence or section you are concerned about, and the source or evidence you think should change it. We'd rather fix it than argue about it.
Source questions
If a citation is broken, blocked, or hard to verify, send the page URL and the citation label. We will either restore the source, replace it with a more durable one, or revise the claim if the support is not strong enough.
Press and reuse
For interviews, quotes, syndication, or permission questions, tell us who you are, where the work would appear, and the deadline. We do not provide personal medical advice through press or editorial channels.
How correction requests are reviewed
A useful correction request gives us something specific to check. Send the article URL, the claim or passage, and the reason you think it is wrong, incomplete, outdated, or overstated. If you have a source, include the source. If you are reporting lived experience or a clinical pattern, say that clearly so we do not treat it like a formal citation. Both can matter, but they play different roles.
When a correction is straightforward, we update the page. When the issue is more complicated, we may revise the wording, add a caveat, swap a citation, narrow a claim, or mark the article for a deeper editorial review. We do not promise to adopt every suggested edit. We do promise to take accuracy seriously, especially when a page could influence medication expectations, risk tolerance, stigma, or whether someone seeks care.
What we need for source questions
Source questions are different from general disagreement. If a link is broken, blocked by a publisher, points to the wrong page, or no longer supports the sentence next to it, send the page URL and the citation label or nearby heading. That lets us check the exact claim instead of hunting through the whole article.
Some sources are primary research, some are regulatory labels, some are clinical guidelines, and some are public health explainers. They should not all carry the same weight. If a page is using a weak source for a strong claim, that is worth flagging. If a page needs a better source because the topic has changed, that is worth flagging too. Don't just say "prove it." Point out where the source does not back up the claim.
What not to send here
Do not send private clinical details through this form. The editorial inbox is not a patient portal, not a refill line, not a crisis service, and not a place to ask whether you should start, stop, split, combine, or change medication. Those questions need care that can see your actual history.
If you are a current patient, use the channel your care team gave you. If you want to become a patient, use the patient inquiry form. If you are in immediate danger or might hurt yourself or someone else, use emergency help now. This boundary exists because mixing public editorial work with clinical messages makes both worse.
Press, reuse, and attribution
For press questions, include the outlet, the topic, the deadline, whether you need a written quote or an interview, and the specific article or topic that prompted the request. For reuse or syndication, include where the material would appear, whether it would be edited, and whether it would be used commercially.
Short quotations with clear attribution are usually simple. Republishing full articles, modifying clinical education pages, or using site content in advertising needs a clearer permission conversation. We also reserve the right to decline uses that make public education look like personal medical advice, product endorsement, or emergency guidance.
What happens after you send it
The message goes to the editorial inbox. We read for urgency, specificity, and whether the issue affects factual accuracy, safety framing, source quality, attribution, or site function. Some messages need a reply. Some simply lead to a quiet page update. Some are kept as signals for future articles because the same question keeps surfacing.
If you need a reply, say so and include a working email address. If you are reporting a broken feature, include the device, browser, page URL, and what happened. Screenshots help when the issue is visual. The more concrete the report is, the less likely it is to sit in the vague pile.
How we prioritize reports
Reports move faster when they affect safety, accuracy, access, or trust. A broken source on a medication-risk claim matters more than a typo. A confusing crisis boundary matters more than a preference about tone. A page that sends people toward the wrong form, wrong care path, or wrong level of urgency gets treated as a site-function problem, not just an editorial suggestion.
We also look for patterns. One unclear paragraph may be a local fix. The same question showing up across several pages may mean the site needs a stronger guide, a cleaner internal link, a better citation pattern, or a recurring maintenance check. A useful report helps us decide whether to fix one sentence, one page, or the system around it.
Privacy and clinical boundaries
We try to keep this form simple because it is not meant to collect protected health information. Even if you include private medical details, the message does not become a clinical visit, a therapeutic relationship, or a secure patient portal exchange. The editorial team may not have enough context, authority, or identity verification to act on personal care questions.
For that reason, the safest message here is about the website, not your care. If your note requires someone to know your diagnosis, your medication history, your safety risk, your legal situation, or your current symptoms, use a clinical channel instead. That boundary protects you, and it protects the accuracy of the public education work.
Editorial independence
Corrections and source questions are handled as editorial issues, not marketing requests. A page may mention a medication, therapy style, lab, device, clinic workflow, or outside resource because it helps explain the topic. That does not mean every mention is an endorsement, and it does not mean a company can buy a stronger claim.
If you have a conflict of interest connected to a requested change, say so. Clinicians, researchers, companies, advocates, and patients can all point out real problems, but the relationship to the topic matters. Transparency makes a message easier to evaluate and keeps the page from being quietly pulled toward someone else's agenda.
Accessibility and site problems
You can also use this form for site problems that make the education harder to use: broken internal links, missing image descriptions, confusing headings, forms that do not submit, pages that load poorly, text that overlaps on a phone, or citations that a normal reader cannot reach. Include the page URL and what you were trying to do.
Visual reports are especially useful when they include the device, browser, and a short description of what looked wrong. A page can look fine in code but still be a pain to read. If something makes the site harder to read, navigate, or trust, it belongs in the editorial queue.
How updates show up on the site
Small fixes may be made silently, especially typos, broken links, formatting problems, and source swaps that do not change the meaning of an article. Larger changes may affect the wording, the caveats, the conclusion, or the way a risk is framed. Those changes take more review because the page has to stay useful without overstating certainty.
If a report reveals a broader problem, one message can lead to more than one update. A broken citation pattern may trigger a source audit. A confusing paragraph may show that related articles need clearer language. A repeated question may become a full guide instead of a private email answer. That is part of how the site gets better over time.