Patient preferences for portable versus table-mounted visual field devices in rural Alabama: a mixed methods study within a telemedicine setting
Antwi-Adjei, E. K.; Datta, S.; Girkin, C. A.; Owsley, C.; Rhodes, L. A.; Fifolt, M.; Racette, L.
Show abstract
PurposeTo evaluate patient satisfaction and preferences for portable versus table-mounted visual field (VF) devices in a rural telemedicine setting and identify influencing factors. MethodsWe conducted a sequential explanatory mixed methods study at three Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) within the Alabama Screening and Intervention for Glaucoma and eye Health through Telemedicine (AL-SIGHT) study. Participants completed VF testing with table-mounted Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA), tablet-based Melbourne Rapid Fields (MRF), and virtual reality (VR)-based VisuALL perimeters. Participants rated satisfaction, comfort, ease of use, and future testing preference. Chi-square tests assessed differences in device preferences. Twelve participants completed semi-structured interviews to explore reasons underlying preferences. Qualitative data were analyzed in NVivo 14 using reflexive thematic analysis. ResultsAmong 271 respondents (mean age 60.4 years; 62.4% women), 50.6% preferred VR-based, 35.1% tablet-based, and 14.4% table-mounted for future testing ({chi}{superscript 2} (2) = 53.52, p<0.001, Cramers V = 0.31). Satisfaction was highest for VR-based (56.9% very satisfied), followed by tablet-based (49.4%), and HFA (38.0%). VR-based perimeter was most frequently selected as the most comfortable (55.7%; {chi}{superscript 2} (2) = 63.33, p<0.001, V = 0.34) and easiest to use (54.6%; {chi}{superscript 2} (2) = 71.96, p<0.001, V = 0.36). Preferences did not vary significantly across demographic variables (all p>0.05). Qualitative themes identified four key drivers: comfort and physical experience, visual experience, ease of use and interaction, and psychological and motivational factors. Portability and community suitability were valued. ConclusionRural underserved patients strongly preferred portable visual field devices, particularly VR-based, over table-mounted HFA. Comfort, ergonomic flexibility, immersive visual experience, and simplicity of interaction were central determinants of preference. Portable perimetry may enhance patient-centered glaucoma monitoring within telemedicine programs and access in resource-limited settings.
Matching journals
The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- What do blind people "see" with retinal prostheses? Observations and qualitative reports of epiretinal implant users 96%
- Factors Affecting Guardians’ Decision Making on Clinic-based Purchase of Children’s Spectacles in Nigeria 94%
- Evaluating user experience with immersive technology in simulation-based education: a modified Delphi study with qualitative analysis 94%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Use of assistive technology to assess distal motor function in subjects with neuromuscular disease 93%
- Theory of radiologist interaction with instant messaging decision support tools: a sequential-explanatory study 93%
- Benefits and Challenges of Using Virtual Primary Care During the COVID-19 Pandemic: From Key Lessons to a Framework for Implementation 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- VisualR: a novel and scalable solution for assessing visual function using virtual reality 94%
- Validating a Clinical Decision Support System for Palliative Care using healthcare professionals’ insights 92%
- How suitable are clinical vignettes for the evaluation of symptom checker apps? A test theoretical perspective 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Prevalence, incidence and risk factors for myopia among urban and rural children in southern China: protocol for a school-based cohort study 93%
- Barriers and facilitators to implementing core osteoarthritis treatments in China: a mixed-method study 92%
- Doctors of chiropractic working with or within integrated health care delivery systems: a scoping review protocol 92%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.