Developing A Comprehensive Framework for Digital Public Health Interventions: The Case of DigiPHrame
Although Digital Public Health (DiPH) interventions have seen significant development during the COVID-19 pandemic, their sustainability has proven weak after the pandemic subsided. Is it possible to find a systematic approach that ensures comprehensive consideration of factors such as usability, social needs, and integration from the very beginning of intervention development?
Introduction
Digital public health (DiPH) interventions have become critical tools for addressing modern challenges such as aging populations, the increasing financial cost in healthcare, rising mortality and morbidity of communicable and non-communicable diseases [1–5]. These technologies have demonstrated their value in public health by supporting emergency responses through digital contact tracing and real-time data platforms, aiding policymakers and public education efforts [5–7]. Beyond COVID-19, their application can address current public health challenges, such as infectious disease surveillance, chronic disease management, and health system strengthening. However, many DiPH technologies fail due to poor usability, data security issues, and system integration challenges, as existing frameworks often prioritize clinical outcomes over public health needs, resulting in ineffective and underutilized interventions [5, 6, 8–10].
Figure. DigiPHrame domains for developing and evaluating DiPH interventions
DigiPHrame: A Comprehensive Framework
To address these challenges, Jahnel et al. introduced Digital Public Health Framework (DigiPHrame), a holistic framework designed for the development and evaluation of DiPH interventions [5]
. DigiPHrame incorporates ethical, social, and legal perspectives alongside technical and usability considerations, ensuring alignment with public health needs. Its adaptability allows developers and evaluators to apply the framework across all stages of intervention development.
The framework’s development involved a rigorous process. It began with a review and summary of 68 scientific articles, followed by feedback from 105 experts across diverse fields such as public health, sociology, and law. With subsequent meetings and workshops, the framework with 12 domains was finalized.
DigiPHrame was applied to evaluate Germany’s Corona-Warn-App (CWA), a digital intervention launched during the COVID-19 pandemic and withdrawn after the pandemic. Key findings revealed that initial versions of the CWA lacked accessibility features, such as multilingual support, limiting usability for diverse populations. Implementation challenges included delays in integrating essential features like vaccination certificates. Environmental factors, such as public trust and smartphone compatibility, significantly influenced adoption.
Discussion and Recommendations
A robust DigiPHrame is indispensable for both health professionals and patients as end-users of the interventions. It could provide guidelines for selecting, implementing, and evaluating digital tools, ensuring evidence-based practices and reducing variability in care. That helps health professionals avoid ad-hoc solutions and ensures interventions are reliable and effective. Additionally, a comprehensive DigiPHrame addresses data security comprehensively, ensuring adherence to regulations such as GDPR or HIPAA, and reinforcing trust of patients and healthcare staffs in data privacy and ethical standards.
Developing and evaluating digital public health (DiPH) interventions necessitates an approach that proactively integrates key elements such as usability, accessibility, ethical considerations, and system integration from the very beginning. DigiPHrame emphasizes critical areas that both health professionals and digital health enterprises must prioritize to enhance the sustainability and effectiveness of their interventions. The importance of this comprehensive approach was evident in Germany’s Corona-Warn-App (CWA), where initial neglect of features like multilingual support and timely integration of essential functionalities such as vaccination certificates significantly impacted user engagement and intervention success.
Health professionals should actively engage early in the intervention design phase to ensure alignment with real-world health and social needs. They can bridge gaps between technological development and public health objectives, advocating for inclusive design and usability testing that involves diverse population segments. To facilitate this, it is essential to establish regular communication channels between developers and health professionals, adopt co-design methods that empower them to contribute directly to solution development, and offer appropriate incentive mechanisms to encourage sustained engagement. Technology suppliers developing digital public health solutions must prioritize flexibility in design, anticipating evolving health requirements and societal contexts. Moreover, integrating robust ethical and privacy standards from the beginning builds user trust, an essential factor influencing public acceptance and intervention adoption.
We recommend establishing multidisciplinary collaboration teams — including health professionals, tech developers, sociologists, ethicists, and legal experts — to guide digital interventions from conceptualization through deployment. Regular usability assessments and continuous stakeholder feedback loops are crucial for early identification of potential barriers. Startups should also ensure system interoperability and compatibility with various devices and platforms, facilitating broad accessibility and reducing technological disparities.
DigiPHrame offers a comprehensive and flexible framework for DiPH interventions, effectively addressing key limitations in current approaches. Its application to the CWA demonstrates its capacity to enhance the effectiveness, inclusivity, and long-term viability of digital public health solutions on a global scale. By adopting frameworks like DigiPHrame, digital interventions are better positioned to remain sustainable, impactful, and adaptable in the face of evolving public health challenges.
Literature
- Chen C, Ding S, Wang J. Digital health for aging populations. Nat Med. 2023;29:1623–30. doi:10.1038/s41591-023-02391-8.
- Romero Y, Tittenbrun Z, Trapani D, Given L, Hohman K, Cira MK, et al. The changing global landscape of national cancer control plans. The Lancet Oncology 2024. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(24)00405-4.
- Rosen JM, Kun L, Mosher RE, Grigg E, Merrell RC, Macedonia C, et al. Cybercare 2.0: meeting the challenge of the global burden of disease in 2030. Health Technol (Berl). 2016;6:35–51. doi:10.1007/s12553-016-0132-8.
- Rahimi-Ardabili H, Magrabi F, Coiera E. Digital health for climate change mitigation and response: a scoping review. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2022;29:2140–52. doi:10.1093/jamia/ocac134.
- Jahnel T, Pan C-C, Pedros Barnils N, Muellmann S, Freye M, Dassow H-H, et al. Developing and Evaluating Digital Public Health Interventions Using the Digital Public Health Framework DigiPHrame: A Framework Development Study. J Med Internet Res. 2024;26:e54269. doi:10.2196/54269.
- Budd J, Miller BS, Manning EM, Lampos V, Zhuang M, Edelstein M, et al. Digital technologies in the public-health response to COVID-19. Nat Med. 2020;26:1183–92. doi:10.1038/s41591-020-1011-4.
- Murray CJL, Alamro NMS, Hwang H, Lee U. Digital public health and COVID-19. Lancet Public Health. 2020;5:e469-e470. doi:10.1016/S2468-2667(20)30187-0.
- Wang Q, Su M, Zhang M, Li R. Integrating Digital Technologies and Public Health to Fight Covid-19 Pandemic: Key Technologies, Applications, Challenges and Outlook of Digital Healthcare. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2021. doi:10.3390/ijerph18116053.
- Borghouts J, Eikey E, Mark G, Leon C de, Schueller SM, Schneider M, et al. Barriers to and Facilitators of User Engagement With Digital Mental Health Interventions: Systematic Review. J Med Internet Res. 2021;23:e24387. doi:10.2196/24387.
- Zeeb H, Pigeot I, Schüz B. Digital Public Health – ein Überblick. [Digital public health-an overview]. Bundesgesundheitsbl. 2020;63:137–44. doi:10.1007/s00103-019-03078-7
Further reading:
