Toward Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence for Users’ Digital Well-Being: Systematic Review, Synthesis, and Future Directions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: As information and communication technologies and artificial intelligence (AI) become deeply integrated into daily life, the focus on users' digital well-being has grown across academic and industrial fields. However, fragmented perspectives and approaches to digital well-being in AI-powered systems hinder a holistic understanding, leaving researchers and practitioners struggling to design truly human-centered AI systems. OBJECTIVE: This paper aims to address the fragmentation by synthesizing diverse perspectives and approaches to digital well-being through a systematic literature review. Using the stimulus-organism-response framework as a guiding lens, this study aims to develop a comprehensive model for designing human-centered AI systems that promote digital well-being. METHODS: A systematic review of 240 multidisciplinary publications was conducted to explore the intersection of AI, digital well-being, and human-centered design. The analysis involved identifying key themes, frameworks, and approaches, with the stimulus-organism-response model serving as an overarching perspective to organize findings and inform the model development. RESULTS: The review led to the development of a human-centered artificial intelligence model for digital well-being, a conceptual framework that consolidates current knowledge on designing AI systems to support digital well-being and positively influence human behavior. The proposed model integrates insights from cross-disciplinary research, providing a structured understanding of how AI system features (stimuli) affect users' internal states such as perceptions and emotions (organisms) and lead to attitudinal or behavioral changes (responses). Additionally, this paper highlights emerging challenges and opportunities, including ethical considerations, scalability, and practical guidelines for applying the model in long-term research and practice. CONCLUSIONS: This study contributes to advancing the field by presenting an overarching framework for fostering digital well-being through human-centered AI systems. By addressing gaps in the fragmented literature and proposing a unifying model, the findings offer insights for researchers and practitioners. The human-centered artificial intelligence for digital well-being model serves as a foundation for future exploration and practical application in creating intelligent computing systems that improve users' digital well-being in everyday life.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.033 | 0.092 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".