Purpose To evaluate patient satisfaction and preferences for portable versus table-mounted visual field (VF) devices in a rural telemedicine setting and identify influencing factors.

Methods We conducted a sequential explanatory mixed methods study at three Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) within the Alabama Screening and Intervention for Glaucoma and eye Health through Telemedicine (AL-SIGHT) study. Participants completed VF testing with table-mounted Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA), tablet-based Melbourne Rapid Fields (MRF), and virtual reality (VR)-based VisuALL perimeters. Participants rated satisfaction, comfort, ease of use, and future testing preference. Chi-square tests assessed differences in device preferences. Twelve participants completed semi-structured interviews to explore reasons underlying preferences. Qualitative data were analyzed in NVivo 14 using reflexive thematic analysis.

Results Among 271 respondents (mean age 60.4 years; 62.4% women), 50.6% preferred VR-based, 35.1% tablet-based, and 14.4% table-mounted for future testing (χ² (2) = 53.52, p<0.001, Cramér’s V = 0.31). Satisfaction was highest for VR-based (56.9% very satisfied), followed by tablet-based (49.4%), and HFA (38.0%). VR-based perimeter was most frequently selected as the most comfortable (55.7%; χ² (2) = 63.33, p<0.001, V = 0.34) and easiest to use (54.6%; χ² (2) = 71.96, p<0.001, V = 0.36). Preferences did not vary significantly across demographic variables (all p>0.05). Qualitative themes identified four key drivers: comfort and physical experience, visual experience, ease of use and interaction, and psychological and motivational factors. Portability and community suitability were valued.

Conclusion Rural underserved patients strongly preferred portable visual field devices, particularly VR-based, over table-mounted HFA. Comfort, ergonomic flexibility, immersive visual experience, and simplicity of interaction were central determinants of preference. Portable perimetry may enhance patient-centered glaucoma monitoring within telemedicine programs and access in resource-limited settings.

I have read the journal's policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following disclosures: E.K. Antwi-Adjei, None S. Datta, None C.A. Girkin, Heidelberg Engineering (F), Topcon (F) C. Owsley, Johnson & Johnson (C), Sanofi (C) L.A. Rhodes, IdentifEye Health (C) M. Fifolt, None L. Racette, Olleyes, Inc. (C). These relationships do not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

Yes

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

The protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, and all procedures adhered to the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki.

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.

Yes

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.