Comprehensive Primary Eye Care: A Comparison Between an In-Person Eye Exam and a Tele-Eye Care Exam

IF 1.4 Q3 OPHTHALMOLOGY Clinical Optometry Pub Date : 2024-01-01 DOI:10.2147/opto.s436659
Nicolas Blais, B. Tousignant, Jean-Marie Hanssens
{"title":"Comprehensive Primary Eye Care: A Comparison Between an In-Person Eye Exam and a Tele-Eye Care Exam","authors":"Nicolas Blais, B. Tousignant, Jean-Marie Hanssens","doi":"10.2147/opto.s436659","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Proper access to primary eye care is essential in addressing vision impairment, and tele-eye care examinations are a promising solution that could facilitate this access in many rural or remote areas. Even though remote eye exams are becoming increasingly frequent, comprehensive tele-eye care exams are still limited by the lack of published data. The aim of this study is to compare a comprehensive tele-eye care exam with a gold standard in-person primary eye care exam with an emphasis on refractive measurements, ocular health assessment, confidence level of the eye care providers and patient satisfaction. Methods: Sixty-six participants underwent two comprehensive eye exams performed by two eye care providers. One was a gold standard in-person exam, while the other was a remote exam performed by an eye care provider through videoconference. An overall patient satisfaction survey and a questionnaire for visual comfort with a trial frame from each modality were completed and the eye care providers scored their confidence level for each test. Exam results and diagnoses were compared between both modalities. Results: Tele-refraction has a good to excellent agreement with in-person subjective refraction in terms of sphero-cylindrical power and best corrected visual acuity. There was no statistically significant difference for visual comfort between both modalities. The agreement between in-person and remote exams for ocular health assessment ranged from fair to almost perfect, but there was a low prevalence of ocular pathologies within the study sample. The confidence level of the eye care providers and patient satisfaction were statistically higher in-person. Conclusion: Tele-eye care appears to be statistically and clinically non-inferior to in-person eye exams, especially for refraction, but the low prevalence of ocular pathologies somewhat limits the comparison of its efficacy for ocular health assessment. More studies on comprehensive tele-eye care exams are needed.","PeriodicalId":43701,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Optometry","volume":"8 9","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Optometry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/opto.s436659","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Proper access to primary eye care is essential in addressing vision impairment, and tele-eye care examinations are a promising solution that could facilitate this access in many rural or remote areas. Even though remote eye exams are becoming increasingly frequent, comprehensive tele-eye care exams are still limited by the lack of published data. The aim of this study is to compare a comprehensive tele-eye care exam with a gold standard in-person primary eye care exam with an emphasis on refractive measurements, ocular health assessment, confidence level of the eye care providers and patient satisfaction. Methods: Sixty-six participants underwent two comprehensive eye exams performed by two eye care providers. One was a gold standard in-person exam, while the other was a remote exam performed by an eye care provider through videoconference. An overall patient satisfaction survey and a questionnaire for visual comfort with a trial frame from each modality were completed and the eye care providers scored their confidence level for each test. Exam results and diagnoses were compared between both modalities. Results: Tele-refraction has a good to excellent agreement with in-person subjective refraction in terms of sphero-cylindrical power and best corrected visual acuity. There was no statistically significant difference for visual comfort between both modalities. The agreement between in-person and remote exams for ocular health assessment ranged from fair to almost perfect, but there was a low prevalence of ocular pathologies within the study sample. The confidence level of the eye care providers and patient satisfaction were statistically higher in-person. Conclusion: Tele-eye care appears to be statistically and clinically non-inferior to in-person eye exams, especially for refraction, but the low prevalence of ocular pathologies somewhat limits the comparison of its efficacy for ocular health assessment. More studies on comprehensive tele-eye care exams are needed.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
综合初级眼科护理:亲自眼科检查与远程眼科检查的比较
简介要解决视力障碍问题,适当获得初级眼科保健服务至关重要,而远程眼科保健检查是一种很有前途的解决方案,可为许多农村或偏远地区提供便利。尽管远程眼科检查越来越频繁,但由于缺乏公开数据,全面的远程眼科检查仍然受到限制。本研究旨在比较综合远程眼科检查和黄金标准的亲自初级眼科检查,重点是屈光测量、眼部健康评估、眼科保健提供者的信心水平和患者满意度。方法66 名参与者接受了由两名眼科医疗人员进行的两次全面眼科检查。其中一次是金标准的现场检查,另一次是由眼科医疗服务提供者通过视频会议进行的远程检查。受试者填写了患者总体满意度调查表和每种检查方式试镜框视觉舒适度调查表,眼科医疗服务提供者对每项检查的可信度进行了评分。两种模式的检查结果和诊断结果进行了比较。结果:远程屈光与现场主观屈光在球镜-圆柱度和最佳矫正视力方面的一致性良好到极佳。两种屈光方式在视觉舒适度方面没有明显的统计学差异。亲自检查和远程检查在眼部健康评估方面的一致性从一般到几乎完美不等,但研究样本中眼部病变的发生率较低。据统计,眼科保健提供者的信心水平和患者的满意度均高于亲自检查。结论:从统计学和临床角度来看,远程眼科护理似乎并不逊于亲自进行的眼科检查,尤其是屈光检查,但眼部病变的低流行率在一定程度上限制了其眼部健康评估功效的比较。需要对综合远程眼科护理检查进行更多的研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical Optometry
Clinical Optometry OPHTHALMOLOGY-
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
5.90%
发文量
29
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: Clinical Optometry is an international, peer-reviewed, open access journal focusing on clinical optometry. All aspects of patient care are addressed within the journal as well as the practice of optometry including economic and business analyses. Basic and clinical research papers are published that cover all aspects of optics, refraction and its application to the theory and practice of optometry. Specific topics covered in the journal include: Theoretical and applied optics, Delivery of patient care in optometry practice, Refraction and correction of errors, Screening and preventative aspects of eye disease, Extended clinical roles for optometrists including shared care and provision of medications, Teaching and training optometrists, International aspects of optometry, Business practice, Patient adherence, quality of life, satisfaction, Health economic evaluations.
期刊最新文献
Knowledge, Attitude, and Perception of African Optometrists on Fellowship of the American Academy of Optometry (AAO): A Cross-Sectional Survey. A Novel Optometry-Led Decision-Making Community Referral Refinement Scheme for Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration Screening. Comparison of Samfilcon A and Balafilcon A Bandage Contact Lenses in Reducing Postoperative Symptoms After Pterygium Surgery. How Can We Better Inform Patients of the Importance of Contact Lens Compliance?: Current Perspectives. Comparison of the Diagnosis and Management of Demodex Blepharitis Between Eye Care Practitioners in India and Australasia - A Survey-Based Comparison.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1