Background: Glaucoma is a chronic progressive optic neuropathy requiring lifelong monitoring and treatment. Traditional face-to-face clinic visits can pose challenges including long waiting times, transportation difficulties, and increasing service demands. Tele-glaucoma and virtual glaucoma clinics have emerged as innovative service delivery models aimed at improving access, efficiency, and patient satisfaction. Purpose: To synthesize and critically appraise evidence on patient satisfaction and experiences with tele‑glaucoma and virtual glaucoma clinic models, and to identify factors influencing their acceptability. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science was conducted using predefined terms related to tele‑glaucoma, virtual eye care, and patient‑reported experiences in glaucoma. Reference lists of included articles were hand‑searched. Eligible studies evaluated satisfaction, perceptions, or experiences of adults with glaucoma, ocular hypertension, or glaucoma‑suspect status receiving care through tele‑glaucoma, virtual clinics, remote monitoring, shared medical appointments, or related digital interventions. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using design‑appropriate tools. Results: Of 225 records identified, seven primary studies specifically assessed tele‑glaucoma or virtual glaucoma services within a broader review of 27 studies on glaucoma care satisfaction. All were conducted in high‑income settings (United Kingdom, United States, Finland) and were mainly cross‑sectional surveys, clinical audits, or pilot projects. Interventions included full virtual clinics with technician‑led testing and asynchronous specialist review, small‑scale tele‑glaucoma pilots, shared medical appointments, educational interventions, and appointment/SMS reminder systems. Across studies, satisfaction with tele‑glaucoma and virtual models was high (typically >85%), with many patients rating care as equivalent or superior to traditional clinics and expressing willingness to reuse or recommend services. Key positive drivers were convenience, structured scheduling, confidence in trained non‑physician staff, and clear specialist oversight. Negative themes included inadequate explanation of results and prognosis, limited direct physician interaction, and communication concerns. Conclusions: Tele‑glaucoma and virtual glaucoma clinics are generally well accepted and can achieve satisfaction comparable to in‑person care when supported by robust education, clear communication pathways, and reliable technician‑led data collection with visible specialist involvement. Further research using standardized outcome measures and more diverse settings is needed to optimize patient‑centred tele‑glaucoma models.