Presentation (CTI)

OBJECTIVES: Digital Health Interventions (DHIs) are increasingly employed to address structural challenges in healthcare, including access, efficiency, and quality. However, prevailing evaluation practices continue to focus narrowly on clinical outcomes, overlooking broader dimensions of value that are essential for real-world relevance and implementation. This study systematically reviews existing value assessment frameworks and related evaluation models with three objectives: (1) to identify key value dimensions across current frameworks, (2) to compare their methodological structures and evaluative scope, and (3) to derive recommendations for a more comprehensive, multidimensional assessment of DHIs.
METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Searches in PubMed, Web of Science, and Google Scholar identified relevant studies using predefined strategies focused on DHIs and evaluation methodologies. Eligibility criteria followed the PICO framework, targeting studies that employed structured value frameworks or conceptual evaluation models. Two independent reviewers screened all records and extracted data on publication characteristics, framework typologies, value dimensions, and methodological features. A qualitative synthesis categorized the models and analyzed convergence across conceptual and procedural components.
RESULTS: From 2,104 records, 97 studies met inclusion criteria. Identified frameworks ranged from simple checklists to complex multidimensional models. Simpler tools supported structured assessments but lacked depth and integration. In contrast, comprehensive frameworks addressed broader value domains but often lacked methodological transparency or operational guidance. Four core value dimensions consistently emerged: (1) Individual impact, (2) Interactional quality, (3) System-level performance, and (4) Societal relevance. However, most frameworks failed to integrate these dimensions into composite scoring systems or decision-support tools.
CONCLUSIONS: DHI evaluation remains conceptually fragmented and methodologically inconsistent. A shift toward integrated, multidimensional frameworks is essential. Future work should focus on composite scoring logic, participatory validation, and transparent trade-off mechanisms to support informed, equitable health policy and innovation adoption.