Systematic Review of Surveys Used to Evaluate Patient and Provider Perspectives on Teleophthalmology.

IF 1.6 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Telemedicine reports Pub Date : 2025-08-11 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1177/26924366251365510
Teresa E Fowler, Gianluca De Leo
{"title":"Systematic Review of Surveys Used to Evaluate Patient and Provider Perspectives on Teleophthalmology.","authors":"Teresa E Fowler, Gianluca De Leo","doi":"10.1177/26924366251365510","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Telemedicine has become an important mechanism for delivering health care in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. While some medical subspecialties were able to rapidly integrate telecare into their workflow, ophthalmology is one field in which telemedicine has not been as widely adopted. In this systematic review, we analyze published studies assessing patient and provider viewpoints on telemedicine for eye care. Our aim is to understand how adoption of teleophthalmology is being studied and whether definitive conclusions regarding patient and provider perspectives on telecare can be drawn from published literature.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed a systematic PubMed search for studies utilizing surveys to assess patient and provider perspectives regarding remote eye care. Articles were excluded if they were irrelevant to teleophthalmology, did not assess patient or eye care provider perspectives regarding teleophthalmology, assessed specific platforms or aspects of eye care, were reviews without primary data, or if the survey used was not available. The questionnaires from the included articles were analyzed for validation status, subspecialty, question wording, and response format.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The PubMed search returned 92 articles, 22 of which were included in the final dataset after exclusions. Only four studies utilized externally validated questionnaires, although several additional studies were based on validated items. Survey length, wording, and response formatting varied across the studies. These 22 studies contained responses from 3,796 patients and 2,388 eye care professionals, but the lack of standardization between the surveys makes high power conclusions impossible.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>The results of this review demonstrate a need to develop a standardized and validated survey instrument specifically for assessing teleophthalmology to identify barriers to widespread implementation.</p>","PeriodicalId":94218,"journal":{"name":"Telemedicine reports","volume":"6 1","pages":"195-215"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12411898/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Telemedicine reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/26924366251365510","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Telemedicine has become an important mechanism for delivering health care in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. While some medical subspecialties were able to rapidly integrate telecare into their workflow, ophthalmology is one field in which telemedicine has not been as widely adopted. In this systematic review, we analyze published studies assessing patient and provider viewpoints on telemedicine for eye care. Our aim is to understand how adoption of teleophthalmology is being studied and whether definitive conclusions regarding patient and provider perspectives on telecare can be drawn from published literature.

Methods: We performed a systematic PubMed search for studies utilizing surveys to assess patient and provider perspectives regarding remote eye care. Articles were excluded if they were irrelevant to teleophthalmology, did not assess patient or eye care provider perspectives regarding teleophthalmology, assessed specific platforms or aspects of eye care, were reviews without primary data, or if the survey used was not available. The questionnaires from the included articles were analyzed for validation status, subspecialty, question wording, and response format.

Results: The PubMed search returned 92 articles, 22 of which were included in the final dataset after exclusions. Only four studies utilized externally validated questionnaires, although several additional studies were based on validated items. Survey length, wording, and response formatting varied across the studies. These 22 studies contained responses from 3,796 patients and 2,388 eye care professionals, but the lack of standardization between the surveys makes high power conclusions impossible.

Discussion: The results of this review demonstrate a need to develop a standardized and validated survey instrument specifically for assessing teleophthalmology to identify barriers to widespread implementation.

Abstract Image

用于评估患者和提供者对远视医学观点的调查的系统回顾。
背景:在2019冠状病毒病大流行之后,远程医疗已成为提供卫生保健的重要机制。虽然一些医学专科能够迅速将远程医疗整合到他们的工作流程中,但眼科是远程医疗尚未被广泛采用的一个领域。在这篇系统综述中,我们分析了已发表的研究,评估了患者和提供者对眼科远程医疗的看法。我们的目的是了解远程眼科的采用是如何被研究的,以及是否可以从已发表的文献中得出关于远程医疗的患者和提供者观点的明确结论。方法:我们进行了系统的PubMed检索研究,利用调查来评估患者和提供者对远程眼科护理的看法。如果文章与远程眼科无关,没有评估患者或眼科保健提供者对远程眼科的看法,没有评估眼科保健的特定平台或方面,没有原始数据的综述,或者使用的调查不可用,则将其排除。对纳入文章的问卷进行验证状态、亚专业、问题措辞和回答格式的分析。结果:PubMed检索返回92篇文章,其中22篇在排除后被纳入最终数据集。只有四项研究使用了外部验证的问卷,尽管还有几项研究基于验证的项目。不同研究的调查长度、措辞和回答格式各不相同。这22项研究包含了来自3796名患者和2388名眼科护理专业人员的反馈,但调查之间缺乏标准化,因此无法得出强有力的结论。讨论:本综述的结果表明,需要开发一种标准化和有效的调查工具,专门用于评估远视技术,以确定广泛实施的障碍。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
8 weeks
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信