Patient preferences for portable versus table-mounted visual field devices in rural Alabama: A mixed methods study within a telemedicine setting

PURPOSE: To evaluate patient satisfaction and preferences for portable versus table-mounted visual field (VF) devices in a rural telemedicine setting and identify influencing factors. METHODS: We 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. RESULTS: Among 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 (χ2 (2) = 53.52, p < 0.001, Cramér's 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%; χ2 (2) = 63.33, p < 0.001, V = 0.34) and easiest to use (54.6%; χ2 (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. CONCLUSION: Rural 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.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
PLoS ONE
Published
2026-10-26
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0348821
Primary Topic
Glaucoma and retinal disorders
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Patient preferences for portable versus table-mounted visual field devices in rural Alabama: A mixed methods study within a telemedicine setting

Christopher A. Girkin, Lyne Racette, Lindsay A. Rhodes, Ellen Konadu Antwi-Adjei et al.
PLoS ONE
Glaucoma and retinal disorders
article

Patient preferences for portable versus table-mounted visual field devices in rural Alabama: A mixed methods study within a telemedicine setting

Christopher A. Girkin, Lyne Racette, Lindsay A. Rhodes, Ellen Konadu Antwi-Adjei, Matthew M. Fifolt, Cynthia J. Owsley, Sourav Datta
article en

Abstract

PURPOSE: To evaluate patient satisfaction and preferences for portable versus table-mounted visual field (VF) devices in a rural telemedicine setting and identify influencing factors. METHODS: We 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. RESULTS: Among 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 (χ2 (2) = 53.52, p < 0.001, Cramér's 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%; χ2 (2) = 63.33, p < 0.001, V = 0.34) and easiest to use (54.6%; χ2 (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. CONCLUSION: Rural 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.

PLoS ONEVol. 21(10)
University of Alabama at Birmingham (US)
EyeSight Foundation of Alabama, Research to Prevent Blindness, American Association of University Women, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Openalex Percentile: Top 9%
Glaucoma and retinal disorders
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Laika access coming soon