Purpose: To compare the effect of audiovisual and verbal instructions on patient performance while performing automated Humphrey visual field testing. Methods: This was a prospective study. A total 120 patients divided into groups of 40 each were recruited from the glaucoma outpatient department (OPD). All patients were aged 35–75 years with no previous experience of performing HFA. Patients with hearing impairment, any other cognitive impairment, and best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) ≤6/36 on Snellen's visual acuity were excluded. The first two groups were given strict (conservative) and lenient (liberal) verbal instructions. The instructions were adapted from those listed in the manufacturer's instruction. and the third group was shown a standard video depicting in detail how perimetry was to be performed. A questionnaire was given to each patient before and after the test to assess the patient's performance. Results: Patients diagnosed with glaucoma during testing in each group were 29 (72.50%), 30 (75.0%), and 33 (82.5%) in the video instructed, strictly verbal, and leniently verbal groups, respectively. The overall mean deviation (MD) in the right eye (RE) was of − 3.38 (−4.9 to 1.9) and in the left eye (LE) was − 3.96 (−6.4 to − 1.9). Reliable field was slightly higher for the video instructed group (47.5%) and lowest for the strictly verbal group (22.5%) (P = 0.033). A higher number of patients were very motivated in the video instructed group (27%) (P = 0.041). Post-test questionnaires showed that 40% of patients felt they have performed the test with 100% accuracy in video group with less guessing. A higher number of patients in the video instructed group (85%) felt instruction was helpful in performing the test (P = 0.001). Conclusion: The video groups were more motivated and had better confidence to perform the test with less anxiety and stress and with probably better understanding of the procedure due to visual effects enhancing their understanding.
[1]
J. Craig,et al.
Anxiety in visual field testing
,
2015,
British Journal of Ophthalmology.
[2]
M. Gordijn,et al.
Factors that influence standard automated perimetry test results in glaucoma: test reliability, technician experience, time of day, and season.
,
2012,
Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.
[3]
D. P. Castro,et al.
Learning effect of standard automated perimetry in healthy individuals.
,
2008,
Arquivos brasileiros de oftalmologia.
[4]
J. Diamond,et al.
Effect of a patient training video on visual field test reliability
,
2003,
The British journal of ophthalmology.
[5]
M. Wall,et al.
Effect of instructions on conventional automated perimetry.
,
2000,
Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.
[6]
C. Johnson,et al.
A prospective three-year study of response properties of normal subjects and patients during automated perimetry.
,
1993,
Ophthalmology.
[7]
R. P. Mills,et al.
Continuous visual field test supervision may not always be necessary.
,
1999,
Ophthalmology.
[8]
J. Wild,et al.
Fatigue effects during a single session of automated static threshold perimetry.
,
1994,
Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.
[9]
A. Sommer,et al.
Reliability of visual field results over repeated testing.
,
1991,
Ophthalmology.