Service Quality and Residents’ Preferences for Facilitated Self-Service Fundus Disease Screening: Cross-Sectional Study (Preprint)
Authors: Lin Senlin , Ma Yingyan , Jiang Yanwei , Li Wenwen , Peng Yajun , Yu Tao , Xu Yi , Zhu Jianfeng , Lu Lina , Zou Haidong 
Published: April 2024

BACKGROUND

Fundus photography is the most important examination in eye disease screening. A facilitated self-service eye screening pattern based on the fully automatic fundus camera was developed in 2022 in Shanghai, China; it may help solve the problem of insufficient human resources in primary health care institutions. However, the service quality and residents’ preference for this new pattern are unclear.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare the service quality and residents’ preferences between facilitated self-service eye screening and traditional manual screening and to explore the relationships between the screening service’s quality and residents’ preferences.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional study in Shanghai, China. Residents who underwent facilitated self-service fundus disease screening at one of the screening sites were assigned to the exposure group; those who were screened with a traditional fundus camera operated by an optometrist at an adjacent site comprised the control group. The primary outcome was the screening service quality, including effectiveness (image quality and screening efficiency), physiological discomfort, safety, convenience, and trustworthiness. The secondary outcome was the participants’ preferences. Differences in service quality and the participants’ preferences between the 2 groups were compared using chi-square tests separately. Subgroup analyses for exploring the relationships between the screening service’s quality and residents’ preference were conducted using generalized logit models.

RESULTS

A total of 358 residents enrolled; among them, 176 (49.16%) were included in the exposure group and the remaining 182 (50.84%) in the control group. Residents’ basic characteristics were balanced between the 2 groups. There was no significant difference in service quality between the 2 groups (image quality pass rate: <i>P</i>=.79; average screening time: <i>P</i>=.57; no physiological discomfort rate: <i>P</i>=.92; safety rate: <i>P</i>=.78; convenience rate: <i>P</i>=.95; trustworthiness rate: <i>P</i>=.20). However, the proportion of participants who were willing to use the same technology for their next screening was significantly lower in the exposure group than in the control group (<i>P</i>&lt;.001). Subgroup analyses suggest that distrust in the facilitated self-service eye screening might increase the probability of refusal to undergo screening (<i>P</i>=.02).

CONCLUSIONS

This study confirms that the facilitated self-service fundus disease screening pattern could achieve good service quality. However, it was difficult to reverse residents’ preferences for manual screening in a short period, especially when the original manual service was already excellent. Therefore, the digital transformation of health care must be cautious. We suggest that attention be paid to the residents’ individual needs. More efficient man-machine collaboration and personalized health management solutions based on large language models are both needed.