The number of studies on digital health technologies (DHTs) for remote treatment and patient self-management is increasing. Existing health technology assessment (HTA) frameworks for DHTs, which guide researchers in generating evidence suitable for HTA, do not cover all domains of the commonly used EUnetHTA Core Model, and DHT-specific considerations have not been informed by a large stakeholder preference study. Our aim was to develop a stakeholder prioritized, literature-informed checklist of DHT-specific considerations that aligns with the EUnetHTA model.

We conducted two systematic reviews to identify: (i) DHT evaluation frameworks published to March 2020 for content; and (ii) primary research on DHTs published from 1 January 2015 to 20 March 2020.

Stakeholder prioritization of issues was performed using a best-worst scaling preference study among a broad cross-section of patients, carers, health professionals, and the general population in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the UK. Systematic review issues were prioritized and adapted for use as a practical checklist.

DHT evaluation content was recommended by the 44 identified frameworks for 28 of the 145 issues in the EUnetHTA model and for 22 new DHT-specific issues. A coverage assessment of 112 clinical studies of remote treatment and self-management DHTs for patients with cardiovascular disease or diabetes revealed that less than half covered DHT-specific content in all but one domain, or traditional HTA content in clinical effectiveness and ethical analysis. The preference survey of 1,251 stakeholders identified broad agreement on the 12 most important DHT attributes, six of which were related to safety. The most important attribute was “helps health professionals respond quickly when changes in patient care are needed”, which is not a focus of existing DHT HTA frameworks.

The review identified mismatches in the content generated by DHT clinical studies and that required for DHT-specific HTAs. These findings informed the development of an extended checklist comprising 22 stakeholder-prioritized DHT-specific considerations, which are aligned with the EUnetHTA model and will help ensure the planning of DHT-specific research generates evidence suitable for HTA.

Health service providers are currently making decisions on the public funding of digital health technologies (DHTs) for managing chronic diseases with limited understanding of stakeholder preferences for DHT attributes. This study aims to understand the community, patient/carer, and health professionals’ preferences to help inform a prioritized list of evaluation criteria.

An online best–worst scaling survey was conducted in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the United Kingdom to ascertain the relative importance of twenty-four DHT attributes among stakeholder groups using an efficient incomplete block design. The attributes were identified from a systematic review of DHT evaluation frameworks for consideration in a health technology assessment. Results were analyzed with multinomial models by stakeholder group and latent class.

A total of 1,251 participants completed the survey (576 general community members, 543 patients/carers, and 132 health professionals). Twelve attributes achieved a preference score above 50 percent in the stakeholder group model, predominantly related to safety but also covering technical features, effectiveness, ethics, and economics. Results from the latent class model supported this prioritization. Overall, connectedness with the patient’s healthcare team seemed the most important; with “Helps health professionals respond quickly when changes in patient care are needed” as the most highly prioritized of all attributes.

It is proposed that these prioritized twelve attributes be considered in all evaluations of DHTs that manage chronic disease, supplemented with a limited number of attributes that reflect the specific perspective of funders, such as equity of access, cost, and system-level implementation considerations.

As health services increasingly make investment decisions in digital health technologies (DHTs), a DHT-specific and comprehensive health technology assessment (HTA) process is crucial in assessing value-for-money. Research in DHTs is ever-increasing, but whether it covers the content required for HTA is unknown.

To summarize current trends in primary research on DHTs that manage chronic disease at home, particularly the coverage of content recommended for DHT-specific and comprehensive HTA.

Medline, Embase, Econlit, CINAHL, and The Cochrane Library (1 January 2015 to 20 March 2020) were searched for primary research studies using keywords related to DHT and HTA domains. Studies were assessed for coverage of the most frequently recommended content to be considered in a nine domain DHT-specific HTA previously developed.

A total of 178 DHT interventions were identified, predominantly randomized controlled trials targeting cardiovascular disease/diabetes in high- to middle-income countries. A coverage assessment of the cardiovascular and diabetes DHT studies (112) revealed less than half covered DHT-specific content in all but the health problem domain. Content common to all technologies but essential for DHTs was covered by more than half the studies in all domains except for the effectiveness and ethical analysis domains.

Although DHT research is increasing, it is not covering all the content recommended for a DHT-specific and comprehensive HTA. The inability to conduct such an HTA may lead to health services making suboptimal investment decisions. Measures to increase the quality of trial design and reporting are required in DHT primary research.

A growing number of evaluation frameworks have emerged over recent years addressing the unique benefits and risk profiles of new classes of digital health technologies (DHTs). This systematic review aims to identify relevant frameworks and synthesize their recommendations into DHT-specific content to be considered when performing Health Technology Assessments (HTAs) for DHTs that manage chronic noncommunicable disease at home.

Searches were undertaken of Medline, Embase, Econlit, CINAHL, and The Cochrane Library (January 2015 to March 2020), and relevant gray literature (January 2015 to August 2020) using keywords related to HTA, evaluation frameworks, and DHTs. Included framework reference lists were searched from 2010 until 2015. The EUNetHTA HTA Core Model version 3.0 was selected as a scaffold for content evaluation.

Forty-four frameworks were identified, mainly covering clinical effectiveness (n = 30) and safety (n = 23) issues. DHT-specific content recommended by framework authors fell within 28 of the 145 HTA Core Model issues. A further twenty-two DHT-specific issues not currently in the HTA Core Model were recommended.

Current HTA frameworks are unlikely to be sufficient for assessing DHTs. The development of DHT-specific content for HTA frameworks is hampered by DHTs having varied benefit and risk profiles. By focusing on DHTs that actively monitor/treat chronic noncommunicable diseases at home, we have extended DHT-specific content to all nine HTA Core Model domains. We plan to develop a supplementary evaluation framework for designing research studies, undertaking HTAs, and appraising the completeness of HTAs for DHTs.