# Barriers to Adoption of Electronic Low Vision Aids Among Eye Care Professionals in Jordan: Descriptive Cross-Sectional Study

## TL;DR

This study explores why eye care professionals in Jordan are not widely adopting electronic low vision aids, finding that high costs and lack of training are major barriers.

## Contribution

The study identifies specific barriers and predictors of electronic low vision aid adoption in Jordan, a low- to middle-income country.

## Key findings

- High device cost, lack of training, and limited institutional support are the main barriers to adopting electronic low vision aids.
- Greater training exposure and institutional support significantly increase the likelihood of adopting electronic low vision aids.
- Only 42.2% of eye care professionals in Jordan currently use or recommend electronic low vision aids.

## Abstract

Digital, smart, and electronic low vision aids (LVAs) have expanded options for visual rehabilitation and functional independence among people with visual impairment. However, adoption of these technologies remains limited, particularly in low- and middle-income countries such as Jordan, where access, affordability, and training resources may be constrained.

To examine barriers to the adoption of electronic LVAs and identify factors associated with their use among eye care professionals in Jordan.

A descriptive cross-sectional survey was conducted among 270 eye care professionals working in hospitals, rehabilitation centers, and private clinics across Jordan. The questionnaire assessed awareness, training exposure, institutional support, and perceived barriers related to electronic LVAs. Descriptive statistics and inferential analyses were used to examine adoption patterns and predictors, with statistical significance set at P<.05.

Of the 270 participants, 156 (57.8%) were optometrists, 78 (28.9%) were ophthalmologists, and 36 (13.3%) were low vision specialists. The mean age was 36 (SD 8) years, and the mean professional experience was 12 (SD 6) years. Overall, 117 of 270 (42.2%) participants reported current use or recommendation of electronic LVAs. The most frequently reported barriers were high device cost (n=213, 79%), lack of training (n=184, 68.1%), limited institutional support (n=173, 64%), and low patient awareness (n=154, 57%). In multivariable analysis, greater training exposure (odds ratio [OR] 1.82, 95% CI 1.31‐2.53; P<.001), stronger institutional support (OR 1.48, 95% CI 1.12‐1.96; P=.008), and higher awareness scores (OR 1.35, 95% CI 1.05‐1.72; P=.02) were positively associated with aid adoption, whereas high device cost was negatively associated with aid adoption (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.27‐0.62; P<.001).

Adoption of electronic LVAs among eye care professionals in Jordan remains limited. Cost, training exposure, and institutional support are key factors influencing uptake. These findings suggest that strengthening professional training and institutional support may facilitate broader integration of electronic LVAs into low vision rehabilitation services.