The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development highlights the transformative potential of digital technologies in accelerating human progress, reducing inequalities, and fostering sustainable knowledge societies. Within this context, Digital Health (DH) is recognized for enhancing healthcare systems’ effectiveness, resilience, and equity—especially in addressing environmental and climate-related challenges. While various assessment methodologies exist—such as Health Technology Assessment, Health Impact Assessment, Social Impact Assessment, and Environmental Impact Assessment—the literature lacks reviews that explore the social and environmental impacts of DH. These dimensions are critical for evaluating healthcare systems’ broader performance and alignment with long-term sustainability goals. This scoping review aims to map and synthesize existing frameworks and tools for evaluating the impact of DH, particularly in relation to social and environmental outcomes. The review is structured around the Sextuple Aim Framework, which extends the traditional Triple Aim by adding environmental impact. Following JBI methodology and PRISMA-ScR guidelines, searches were conducted in PubMed, Scopus, and the Cochrane Database. Eligible studies were published in English between 2014 and 2024 and had to address at least three of the six aims: Population Health, Experience of Care, Capital Cost, Care Team Well-Being, Health Equity, and Environmental Impact. Out of 8,243 identified records, 53 met the criteria and were included in the final review. None addressed all six aims comprehensively. Most studies focused on DH (30.19%) and m-Health (28.30%), with emerging technologies like AI and VR also represented. The most assessed aims were Experience of Care (98.11%) and Population Health (94.34%), while Environmental Impact appeared in only 11.32% of studies. Through thematic analysis, 157 unique items were identified, categorized into 17 domains, 62 topics, and 78 issues. The most developed topic was Experience of Care, particularly User Engagement and Process-related costs. In contrast, Environmental Impact was the least developed, with only two domains: carbon footprint and the clarity of environmental consequences of technologies. This review contributes to the development of a theoretical framework for evaluating the holistic impact of DH. By highlighting gaps—particularly in environmental and social dimensions—it supports more informed, balanced decision-making in DH strategies aligned with sustainability and equity principles.