International Ophthalmology

, Volume 39, Issue 4, pp 783–789 | Cite as

Patient perceptions regarding the use of smart devices for medical photography: results of a patient-based survey

  • Akshay Gopinathan NairEmail author
  • Nayana A. Potdar
  • Suchit Dadia
  • Simranjeet Aulakh
  • Mohammad Javed Ali
  • Chhaya A. Shinde
Original Paper



To assess patient perceptions regarding medical photography and the use of smart devices, namely mobile phones and tablets for medical photography.


A questionnaire-based survey was conducted among 280 consecutive adult patients who presented to the oculoplastics clinic at a tertiary eye care centre. The responses were tabulated and analysed.


Of the 280 patients surveyed, 68% felt that medical photography had a positive impact on their understanding of their illnesses and 72% felt that the use of smartphones for medical photography was acceptable. Respondents below the age of 40 years were more likely to approve of the use of mobile phones for photography as compared to those over 40. Most patients (74%) preferred a doctor to be the person photographing them. While a majority approved of doctors and trainee physicians having access to their photographs, they felt non-physician healthcare personnel should not have access to clinical photographs. Also, 72% of the respondents felt that the patient’s consent should be taken before using their photographs. It was noted that patient identification and breach of confidentiality could be some of the potential issues with using smart devices as cameras in the clinic.


Clinical photography in general and, specifically, using smart devices for clinical photographs have gained acceptance among patients. The outcomes of this study may be utilized to create policy guidelines for the use of smart devices as photography tools in the clinics. The findings of this survey can also help to create standardized, uniform patient consent forms for clinical photography.


Clinical photography Mobile phones Camera iPad Tablet Consent Ethics 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

None of the authors have any conflicting interests pertaining to this manuscript to disclose.

Human and animals participants

No intervention was performed on human participants or animals in this project. This study was carried out in line with the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the Ethics Research Committee.

Informed consent

All subjects having participated in the study provided written informed consent prior to participation in the questionnaire.


  1. 1.
    Mukherjee B, Nair AG (2012) Principles and practice of external digital photography in ophthalmology. Indian J Ophthalmol 60:119–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Nair AG, Santhanam A (2016) Clinical photography for periorbital and facial aesthetic practice. J Cutan Aesthet Dermat 9:115–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hsieh C, Yun D, Bhatia AC, Hsu JT, Ruiz de Luzuriaga AM (2015) Patient perception on the usage of smartphones for medical photography and for reference in dermatology. Dermatol Surg 41:149–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Khanna V, Sambandam SN, Gul A, Mounasamy V (2015) “WhatsApp”ening in orthopedic care: a concise report from a 300-bedded tertiary care teaching center. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 25:821–826CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Adeyemo WL, Mofikoya BO, Akadiri OA, James O, Fashina AA (2013) Acceptance and perception of Nigerian patients to medical photography. Dev World Bioeth 13:105–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hacard F, Maruani A, Delaplace M, Caille A (2013) Patients’ acceptance of medical photography in a French adult and pediatric dermatology department: a questionnaire survey. Br J Dermatol 169:298–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lau CK, Schumacher HHA, Irwin MS (2010) Patients’ perception of medical photography. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 63:e507–e511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Leger MC, Wu T, Haimovic A, Kaplan R, Sanchez M, Cohen D, Leger EA, Stein JA (2014) Patient perspectives on medical photography in dermatology. Dermatol Surg 40:1028–1037CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Natarajan S, Nair AG (2015) Outsmarted by the smartphone! Indian J Ophthalmol 63:757–758CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chan N, Charette J, Dumestre DO, Fraulin FO (2016) Should ‘smart phones’ be used for patient photography? Plast Surg (Oakv) 24:32–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Stevenson P, Finnane AR, Soyer HP (2016) Teledermatology and clinical photography: safeguarding patient privacy and mitigating medico-legal risk. Med J Aust 204:198–200e1CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Akshay Gopinathan Nair
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    Email author
  • Nayana A. Potdar
    • 3
  • Suchit Dadia
    • 3
  • Simranjeet Aulakh
    • 3
  • Mohammad Javed Ali
    • 4
  • Chhaya A. Shinde
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Ophthalmic Plastic Surgery and Ocular OncologyAdvanced Eye Hospital and InstituteNavi MumbaiIndia
  2. 2.Aditya Jyot Eye HospitalMumbaiIndia
  3. 3.Lokmanya Tilak Municipal Medical College and General HospitalMumbaiIndia
  4. 4.Govindram Seksaria Institute of DacryologyL V Prasad Eye InstituteHyderabadIndia

Personalised recommendations