Abstract
Purpose :
Visual field (VF) testing is critical to establishing a diagnosis of glaucoma and other ocular conditions affecting the visual pathway. Recent advances in technology allow VF testing to be performed on portable devices, which could increase accessibility to care in underserved areas. Patient preferences for these devices, however, have not yet been assessed. This study aimed to compare patient preferences for table-mounted and two portable perimetric devices.
Methods :
Patients were recruited from the Alabama Screening and Intervention for Glaucoma and eye Health through Telemedicine (AL-SIGHT) study. Patients who had taken VF tests on a table-mounted device (Humphrey Field Analyzer, Carl Zeiss Meditec), on a tablet (Melbourne Rapid Fields, M&S Technologies), and using virtual reality (VR) goggles (VisuALL, Olleyes) were included. Patients rated their satisfaction with each instrument using a 4-point Likert-type scale ranging from very dissatisfied to very satisfied. Patients were also asked which device they would choose at the next visit if they could only select one and which device they found more comfortable and easiest to use. Devices were compared using the Chi-square test.
Results :
Of the 266 participants (60.2 ±12 years), 62.8% were females, 66.5% identified as White and 30.8% identified as Black. Overall, 57.6% of patients were very satisfied with the VR, 50.4% for the tablet, and 38.3% for the table-mounted device (P<0.001). Most patients (50.4%) selected the VR device if they could only choose one test at the next visit, compared to 35.7% for the tablet, and 13.9% for the table-mounted device (P<0.001). A majority of patients reported that the VR was more comfortable (55.3%), in contrast to the tablet (26.3%), and the table-mounted device (18.4%) (P<0.001). Similarly, participants rated the test easier to take on the VR device (54.9%) compared to the tablet (33.1%) and the table-mounted device (12.0%) (P<0.001).
Conclusions :
Our findings showed that patients preferred portable devices compared to the traditional table-mounted perimeter. In this underserved area, VR goggles were the preferred way to perform perimetry. Patient acceptability of this device, in addition to its portability and lower cost, position it as a promising device in resource-limited settings.
This abstract was presented at the 2024 ARVO Annual Meeting, held in Seattle, WA, May 5-9, 2024.