Prcis: Participant surveys taken after using tablet-based and smart visual function analyzer (SVFA) perimetry tests suggest that patients may prefer novel perimetry tests over traditional visual field machines.
Purpose: Compare patient experience using the IMOvifa SVFA and the tablet-based Melbourne Rapid Fields visual field (VF) tests to the Humphrey Field 24-2 Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm Standard.
Patients and methods: Prospective observational cohort study on adult participants with diagnoses of glaucoma suspect, ocular hypertension, or glaucoma. Participants attended 2 study visits ~3 months apart. During the first visit, participants were trained to use the 2 novel perimeters, took 1 test on both new devices and the Humphrey Field Analyzer, then were surveyed. Participants received tablets and performed weekly tablet VF tests at home between study visits. At the final study visit, participants re-took the VF tests and completed the same surveys.
Results: Eighty-one participants were surveyed twice. At the baseline survey, participants preferred the SVFA (71.7%) and tablet tests (69.2%) over the Humphrey VF. Most were willing to perform weekly monitoring at home on the SVFA (69.1%) and tablet (75.4%). Participants generally had a "very good" overall experience when testing on the SVFA (71.6%) and tablet (90.1%). At the final visit, fewer participants were willing to test on the tablet daily (23.5% to 9.9%; P = 0.02 for change) and more were willing to test monthly (18.5% to 33.3%; P = 0.03 for change).
Conclusion: Users reported a preference for novel VF devices. Overall participant experience using these devices was positive, supporting the feasibility of home monitoring of VFs from an experience perspective.
Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.