Why this editorial policy exists

Mental health information changes decisions. Someone reads a page about depression at two in the morning and decides whether to tell their family. Someone reads a page about ADHD and decides whether their child needs an assessment. Someone reads a page about therapy and decides whether it is worth the money and the argument at home. Health content is not neutral reading material, and a site that publishes it carries a duty to say plainly who writes it, who checks it, what counts as evidence, and how a reader can tell us we are wrong. That is what this page does.

This is a policy document, not a description of an aspiration. Everything below is either a rule the site works to, or a standard the site holds itself to. Where the two differ, we have said which is which. If you find content on SehatYab that does not meet what is set out here, that is a defect and we want to hear about it. The route for that is in the corrections section.

Who writes SehatYab's medical content

Content on SehatYab is written by the SehatYab editorial team, working from the sources listed further down this page. Clinical content, meaning anything that describes a condition, its symptoms, its causes, how it is assessed, or how it is treated, is reviewed by a clinician on SehatYab's panel with relevant expertise before it publishes. A page about autism assessment is reviewed by someone who assesses autism. A page about medication and therapy is reviewed by a psychiatrist. Non clinical content, such as pages about booking, timings or payment, does not go through clinical review, because there is no clinical claim in it to check.

The overall editorial review is signed off by Dr. Qurrat Ulain, Consultant Psychiatrist and PMDC licensed physician. We do not publish "medically reviewed by" bylines on every article, and that is a deliberate choice: a named byline creates an impression of individual authorship and individual endorsement that would not be accurate. Content here is produced by a team and checked against a standard. The clinicians who review it are the same clinicians who see patients through SehatYab, and their qualifications, registrations and areas of practice are set out on our clinical team credentials page and on each clinician's own profile. What we will say plainly is the thing that actually matters to a reader: a clinician reads the clinical claims on a clinical page before that page goes live, and a page does not publish without that step.

The diagram below sets out the sequence content moves through. Note the branch on the left. A correction raised after publication does not get patched quietly into the page: if it touches a clinical claim, it re-enters clinical review at the same point a new draft would.

Our position on AI in content production

Drafting tools, including AI tools, may be used in producing content on this site. We are saying that plainly, because a policy page that dodged the question would be worth nothing. What matters is not whether a tool touched a draft, but what is allowed to become a published clinical claim. The rules are these.

• No clinical claim is published on the basis of an AI generated source. An AI summary is not a source. If a claim cannot be traced to something in the accepted sources column above, it does not go on the page.
• Every clinical page is read by a human clinician before publication. There is no route by which clinical content reaches this site without that step.
• Responsibility for accuracy rests with SehatYab regardless of what tools were used at any stage of drafting. A tool is not an explanation for an error, and we will not offer it as one.

Accuracy, and saying when we do not know

Where evidence on something is genuinely mixed, we say it is mixed. That is a harder thing to write than a confident answer, and it performs worse, because readers and search engines both reward certainty. We do it anyway, because presenting a contested question as settled is a way of being wrong that is very hard for a reader to detect. If a page tells you that the evidence is limited, that different clinicians take different views, or that a question has not been well studied in Pakistan, that is a deliberate statement rather than a gap in the writing.

The same applies to availability. Where a treatment, an assessment or a service is not realistically available in Pakistan, or is available only in a handful of places, we say so on the page instead of describing it as though a reader could simply go and get it. Being told about an excellent treatment you cannot access, and only finding out after three phone calls that nobody offers it, is worse than not being told.

Written for Pakistan, not adapted from elsewhere

Content on this site is written for readers in Pakistan. International guidance is used as evidence, but it is applied to what actually exists here rather than reproduced as though the surrounding system were the same. A guideline that assumes a referral pathway, an insurance model, a waiting list or a service that does not exist in Pakistan is not useful to a reader in Multan, and copying it across without saying so is a quiet form of inaccuracy. Where we describe a pathway, we describe the one a reader here can actually follow.

Urdu and Roman Urdu content

Some of our content is written in Urdu or Roman Urdu, and Urdu terms appear inside English pages where that is how the thing is actually said. Urdu content is held to the same standard as English content, and it goes through the same clinical review. It is reviewed by someone who reads the language, not machine translated from an approved English page and published on the strength of the English review. Translation is where clinical meaning most often slips, particularly around words for distress, psychosis and self harm, where the everyday Urdu term and the clinical term are not the same thing, and the everyday term often carries an insult inside it. Where no accurate Urdu term exists, we use the English term and explain it rather than reaching for the nearest colloquial word.