Value frameworks for digital health technologies: a comparative analysis

Clinical Snapshot

Key Findings

• P Value: Not applicable - no statistical analysis

• Effect Size: Not applicable - qualitative synthesis

• Primary Outcome: Six core value domains identified across DHT evaluation frameworks

• Nnt Or Sensitivity: Heat map analysis showing variable inclusion of indicators across frameworks

• Confidence Interval: Not applicable - narrative review

Clinical Application

Framework provides practical structure for DHT evaluation but requires local adaptation Relevant to TGA digital health regulation and PBS consideration of digital therapeutics, though Australian-specific frameworks not included in analysis Healthcare organizations, policymakers, and clinicians evaluating digital health technologies

Abstract

AIMS: This study aimed to review and compare existing value frameworks for digital health technologies (DHTs) and identify common domains to guide their evaluation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted across PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar, along with citation and website searches, was conducted in August 2025. English-language publications that provided guidance on evaluating value of DHTs were included. A narrative review approach was employed to synthesize findings and identify key value domains and indicators. RESULTS: From an initial pool of 1,132 articles, four met the inclusion criteria and formed the basis of the review, supplemented by additional frameworks from relevant organizations. Six core value domains were identified: technical and security aspects, data rights and governance, clinical characteristics, economic characteristics, health inequalities, and user preferences. Five value frameworks from the United Kingdom (UK) National Health Service, Digital Therapeutic Alliance, World Bank, Institute for Clinical and Economic Review-Peterson Health Technology Institute, and UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence were compared across these domains. A heat map analysis demonstrated variation in the inclusion of indicators, reflecting differing stakeholder priorities and perspectives. LIMITATIONS: Limitations include potential bias, subjectivity, and limited scope inherent in a narrative review, although elements of PRISMA were applied to reduce risks. Non-English frameworks and those specific to certain technologies were excluded. Additionally, frameworks for both DHTs and digital therapeutics were considered together. CONCLUSION: Six core value domains are consistently emphasized across value frameworks. However, variations across value frameworks highlights the influence of stakeholder needs and priorities. Further research is needed to refine these frameworks and support consistent and informed decision-making in DHTs adoption and implementation. Digital health technologies (DHTs) are increasingly used in healthcare, but their value is assessed in variable ways. We reviewed published studies to identify common elements. Six key areas emerged: technical and security aspects, data rights and governance, clinical and economic characteristics, health inequalities, and user preferences. While some areas are consistently included, others vary across frameworks. Our findings suggest that more consistent approaches could support clear decisions about adopting digital health tools.

References

1. 1.Choi, B. M., Lee, J. K., Erstad, B., Edwards, C., McBride, A., & Abraham, I. (2026). Value frameworks for digital health technologies: a comparative analysis. Journal of Medical Economics. https://doi.org/10.1080/13696998.2026.2652777