ABSTRACT
Refraction is an important part of a comprehensive eye examination, and when performed remotely through information and communication technology or when its results are transmitted for remote analysis, this procedure is called tele-refraction. Uncorrected refractive errors are the main reason for consultation in primary eye care, and an increasing number of eye care providers offer tele-refraction services in response to the global demand. Even so, very little literature exists on how the correction of refractive errors can be managed through tele-eye care. The objectives of this review are to examine the integration of tele-refraction in different eye care models and to report the existing findings regarding patient satisfaction towards tele-refraction and the efficacy of tele-refraction. Searches were undertaken on Medline, Embase, EBM Reviews, CINAHL and Web of Science to identify relevant articles. All original studies describing a clinical tele-refraction service and its outcomes were included. Out of 1322 articles, 15 were retained for analysis and have shown that tele-refraction has been provided for general eye care (n = 10; 67%), refractive-only examinations (n = 3; 20%) or disease-specific screening (n = 2; 13%). Ten (67%) had a hybrid telemedicine modality. Given the small number of included studies and the lack of outcomes comparing refractive errors between face-to-face and remote refraction, it is concluded that the current scientific literature does not reflect the increasing availability of tele-refraction in clinical practice. More studies on remote refraction should be conducted to better understand its efficacy, cost-effectiveness and impacts on patient satisfaction and management.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank and acknowledge the role of Patrice Dupont, reference librarian at the Health Library of the Universite de Montreal, for his assistance in the elaboration of the search strategies and for providing advice regarding the scoping review process.”
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Supplemental data
Supplemental data for this article can be accessed here.