Openly accessible

Utilisation and perceptions towards smart device visual acuity assessment in Australia: a mixed methods approach

Keel, S, Scheetz, J, Holloway, Edith, Han, X, Yan, W, Mueller, A and He, M 2019, Utilisation and perceptions towards smart device visual acuity assessment in Australia: a mixed methods approach, BMJ Open, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 1-7, doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-024266.

Attached Files
Name Description MIMEType Size Downloads
holloway-utilisationandperceptions-2019.pdf Published version application/pdf 228.70KB 26

Title Utilisation and perceptions towards smart device visual acuity assessment in Australia: a mixed methods approach
Author(s) Keel, S
Scheetz, J
Holloway, EdithORCID iD for Holloway, Edith orcid.org/0000-0002-1343-9982
Han, X
Yan, W
Mueller, A
He, M
Journal name BMJ Open
Volume number 9
Issue number 3
Article ID e024266
Start page 1
End page 7
Total pages 7
Publisher BMJ
Place of publication London, Eng.
Publication date 2019-03-23
ISSN 2044-6055
2044-6055
Summary Objectives: To investigate mobile health product use in Australia and societal and clinician perceptions towards smartphone based visual acuity (VA) assessment tools. Design: Quantitative analysis of a cross-sectional survey delivered to the general public and thematic analysis of in-depth interviews of eye health clinicians. Setting: Online survey within Australia and face-to-face in-depth interviews of clinicians. Participants: 1016 adults were recruited via Survey Monkey Audience, social media (Facebook and Twitter), Rotary Australia and Lions Clubs Australia. Six clinicians were recruited from private and public settings in Melbourne, Australia. Primary and secondary outcome measures: The study assessed socio-demographic characteristics, history of mobile health product use and perceived advantages and potential drawbacks of smartphone based VA assessment tools. Results: A total of 14.4% of the study population had previously used a mobile-based health product. After adjusting for covariates, younger age (p=0.001), male gender (p=0.01) and higher income (>$45 000) were associated with increased likelihood of having used a mobile health product (p=0.005). Seventy-two per cent of participants would use an automated smartphone based VA assessment tool, provided that the accuracy was on par to that of human assessors. Convenience (37.3%) and cost-savings (15.5%) were ranked as the greatest perceived advantages. While test accuracy (50.6%), a lack of personal contact with healthcare providers (18.3%) and data security (11.9%) were the greatest concerns. Themes to emerge from clinician qualitative data included the potential benefits for identifying refractive error in patients, as well as the ability to self-monitor vision. Concerns were raised over the potential misuse of self-testing vision apps and the inability to detect pathology. Conclusion: Our findings suggest that a substantial proportion of the Australian population do not use mobile health products. Furthermore, there remains notable concerns, including test accuracy and data privacy, with smartphone-based VA assessment tools by both clinicians and the public.
Language eng
DOI 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-024266
Indigenous content off
Field of Research 1103 Clinical Sciences
1117 Public Health and Health Services
1199 Other Medical and Health Sciences
HERDC Research category C1 Refereed article in a scholarly journal
Copyright notice ©2019, Author(s) (or their employer(s))
Free to Read? Yes
Use Rights Creative Commons Attribution non-commercial licence
Persistent URL http://hdl.handle.net/10536/DRO/DU:30136728

Document type: Journal Article
Collections: Faculty of Health
School of Psychology
Open Access Collection
Connect to link resolver
 
Unless expressly stated otherwise, the copyright for items in DRO is owned by the author, with all rights reserved.

Every reasonable effort has been made to ensure that permission has been obtained for items included in DRO. If you believe that your rights have been infringed by this repository, please contact drosupport@deakin.edu.au.

Versions
Version Filter Type
Citation counts: TR Web of Science Citation Count  Cited 0 times in TR Web of Science
Scopus Citation Count Cited 0 times in Scopus
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Access Statistics: 31 Abstract Views, 26 File Downloads  -  Detailed Statistics
Created: Mon, 11 May 2020, 13:05:53 EST

Every reasonable effort has been made to ensure that permission has been obtained for items included in DRO. If you believe that your rights have been infringed by this repository, please contact drosupport@deakin.edu.au.