Abstract

Background/Aims: This study set out to compare patient experiences and attitudes toward virtual reality (VR) versus in-office ophthalmic functional testing, as well as their eye exam visit preferences. Methods: A total of 64 patients undergoing a comparative clinical trial including VR and in-office versions of 24-2 visual field perimetry, Pelli–Robson contrast sensitivity, ETDRS visual acuity, Ishihara plates, and Amsler Grid tests were given a survey that included Likert-scaled questions regarding overall experience, speed, and comfort of broad VR testing versus in-office tests, as well as binary modality preference, like or dislike of various exam modality aspects, ease of understanding each test, distance traveled to their appointment, visit frequency, and remote care preferences. Results: In terms of overall experience, 59 (93.7%) participants rated VR as “Liked” or “Very Much Liked” compared to 38 (60.3%) for in-office tests (χ2 p < 0.0001). Regarding comfort, 59 (93.7%) and 38 (60.3%) participants at least “Liked” VR and in-office tests, respectively (χ2 p < 0.0001). For speed, 60 (95.2%) and 36 (57.1%) participants at least “Liked” VR and in-office tests, respectively (χ2 p < 0.0001). Accordingly, 11 (17.5%) patients liked all aspects of in-office tests, while 54 (85.7%) patients said the same for VR (χ2 p < 0.0001). Overall, 33 (52.4%) patients disliked something about in-office tests, while 20 (31.7%) said the same for VR (χ2 p < 0.0001). There were no differences in ability to understand tests between the two modalities. We noted a variable distribution of distance traveled and visits per year in our population, yet there was also a strong preference for implementing more remote eye testing options. Conclusions: Development and implementation of virtual reality analogs to in-office, functional ophthalmic exams can improve patient experience and facilitate remote care delivery.

IPC Classification

Keywords