Preferences towards digital health technologies: a scoping review

Aimée Kingsada (), Silvana Briones-Piedrafita, Thomas Rapp () and Jonathan Sicsic ()
Additional contact information
Aimée Kingsada: LEM - Lille économie management - UMR 9221 - UA - Université d'Artois - UCL - Université catholique de Lille - ULCO - Université du Littoral Côte d'Opale - Université de Lille - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, LIRAES (URP_ 4470) - Laboratoire Interdisciplinaire de Recherche Appliquée en Economie de la Santé - UPCité - Université Paris Cité
Silvana Briones-Piedrafita: UAM - Universidad Autónoma de Madrid = Autonomous University of Madrid
Thomas Rapp: LIRAES (URP_ 4470) - Laboratoire Interdisciplinaire de Recherche Appliquée en Economie de la Santé - UPCité - Université Paris Cité, LIEPP - Laboratoire interdisciplinaire d'évaluation des politiques publiques (Sciences Po) - Sciences Po - Sciences Po
Jonathan Sicsic: LIRAES (URP_ 4470) - Laboratoire Interdisciplinaire de Recherche Appliquée en Economie de la Santé - UPCité - Université Paris Cité, LIEPP - Laboratoire interdisciplinaire d'évaluation des politiques publiques (Sciences Po) - Sciences Po - Sciences Po

Sciences Po Economics Publications (main) from HAL

Abstract: Background Digital Health Technologies (DHTs) are expanding rapidly, offering new opportunities to support care delivery. Their adoption, however, depends on how well they match patients' needs and expectations. Accurately assessing patient preferences is challenging due to diverse user profiles and varying methods used to measure preferences. A synthesis of current evidence is needed to clarify what patients value in DHTs. Objectives This study synthesizes evidence on patient preferences for DHTs—including eHealth, telehealth, telemedicine, and mHealth—and examines the methods used to elicit these preferences, highlighting opportunities to improve adoption and design. Methods We conducted a scoping review of literature published from 2000 to 2026 following PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Searches were performed in PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus, and Web of Science. Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts, and full texts for eligibility. Data were charted and narratively synthesized, with study characteristics categorized by methodology (qualitative, quantitative, mixed methods) and preference elicitation techniques. Results Of 2,419 records identified, 115 underwent full-text screening and 85 met all inclusion criteria: 27 qualitative studies (31.76%), 45 quantitative studies (52.95%), and 13 mixed-methods studies (15.29%). Quantitative studies primarily applied attribute-based methods (e.g., Discrete Choice Experiments, Conjoint Analysis, Best-Worst Scaling), and six studies used the Contingent Valuation method to estimate total willingness-to-pay for DHTs. Qualitative studies employed thematic analysis, deductive, inductive, and immersion–crystallization approaches. Across studies, patients consistently emphasized cost, privacy, convenience, and personalization of DHTs as key concerns. Only a few studies estimated the relative importance of the attributes or the marginal willingness to pay for the device's features. Considerable heterogeneity in preferences was observed by DHT type, patients' health condition and age. Conclusions Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-method approaches provide complementary insights into how patients perceive and value DHTs. Patients consistently seek personalized, easy-to-use, secure, and affordable solutions, which is particularly important for older adults managing chronic conditions. Given the diversity of patient preferences, it is essential to consider these differences when developing digital health technologies to ensure they effectively support patients and address their needs.

Keywords: Scoping Review PRISMA-ScR; Digital Health Technology; Patient preferences; Discrete choice experiment (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2026-06-03
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Published in Health Economics Review, 2026, ⟨10.1186/s13561-026-00792-2⟩

There are no downloads for this item, see the EconPapers FAQ for hints about obtaining it.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:hal:spmain:hal-05669829

DOI: 10.1186/s13561-026-00792-2

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in Sciences Po Economics Publications (main) from HAL
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Contact - Sciences Po Department of Economics ().