ArticleOphthalmology and therapy2024
Evaluation of Patient Experiences with PocDoc, a Web-Based Eye Screening Tool.
Article in Ophthalmology and therapy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThe efficacy of diagnostic and monitoring tools in ophthalmology is significantly influenced by patient engagement levels. This presents a notable challenge, especially in the context of developing tools designed for telemedicine applications. Ensuring consistent patient engagement is therefore crucial for the accurate and reliable utilization of these technologies. This study assesses patient perceptions and experiences after using a purpose-built web application, called PocDoc.
methodsA cross-sectional questionnaire-based survey was conducted among 440 patients recruited from general and specialist eye clinics between March 2022 and October 2023, both before and after using the PocDoc app.
resultsPre-test findings revealed that 86.8% of patients thought that a remote eye monitoring application would have use, while 70.9% anticipated frequent usage. Only 16.4% found it overly complex, and 55.2% perceived it as easy to use. Additionally, 34.5% foresaw the need for technical support, while 72.5% believed they would quickly grasp its use. In the post-test questionnaire, 63.3% of patients still expressed intent for frequent PocDoc usage. The perception of complexity decreased to 20.4%, with 79.3% finding it easy to use. The belief in the need for technical support decreased to 36.5%, while 89.9% felt confident in mastering the application quickly. Moreover, 77.3% found the application's functions well-integrated, and 64.6% were very confident using PocDoc.
conclusionsResults suggest patient receptivity to web-based applications, confirming their viability for specific patient groups. Overall, our study contributes to the growing body of evidence indicating that greater exposure to digital health tools can significantly influence patient acceptance and perceived ease of use, an insight that has important implications for the implementation and design of these technologies in clinical settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.