JMIR Publications

ABSTRACT

Background:

Access to eye care is a persistent challenge due to the high global burden of visual impairment and barriers towards receiving eye care such as transportation and cost. Conventional ophthalmic equipment is immobile and unsuitable for bedside or community use, limiting timely diagnosis and care delivery. Portable ophthalmic devices, such as handheld slit-lamps and fundus cameras, offer the potential to extend diagnostic capabilities to non-clinical settings and improve accessibility of eye care. How eye-care professionals perceive portable device utility, and integration into daily practice or telemedicine-based workflows is critical to best capitalize on the potential of these devices.

Objective:

This study examined eye-care professionals’ perceptions and experiences with portable ophthalmic devices, focusing on their roles in both clinical and non-clinical settings.

Methods:

A mixed methods approach was used, combining qualitative interviews and a supplemental quantitative assessment. Thirty-one practicing eye-care professionals (16 ophthalmologists, 15 optometrists; 16 female, 15 male) with 2-45 years of clinical experience (mean 20.5 years) participated. Semi-structured interviews were conducted in person or via videoconferencing. The interview included open-ended qualitative questions on current and past use, benefits, and desired features of portable devices, along with quantitative ratings of device attributes on a 1-10 scale. Transcripts were coded in NVivo using thematic analysis and descriptive statistics were calculated for the quantitative data.

Results:

Participants described portable devices as essential in settings where conventional equipment is impractical, including hospital rooms, emergency departments, nursing homes, and outreach. They emphasized utility for patients with mobility challenges and cognitive impairments. Key benefits included earlier disease detection and support for screening and referrals. Challenges involved image quality and device stabilization. Quantitative ratings of portable device attributes showed highest scores for speed (mean [SD] 7.4 [1.8]) and ease of use (7.3 [1.7])

Conclusions:

Portable ophthalmic devices expand access to eye care beyond standard clinics and accommodate patients underserved by traditional equipment. Addressing technical and usability challenges and enhancing training opportunities will strengthen their integration into routine and outreach care.