While clinical trials in digital mental health have proliferated in recent years, limited research has evaluated the informativeness of these trials. The concept of informativeness has several important domains, including team expertise, methodological quality, ethical and equitable conduct, and pathways for translation. Trials that are uninformative, due to deficits in one or more of these domains, are unlikely to influence policy or practice. This presentation will outline a Wellcome-commissioned project that created a framework for assessing the informativeness of clinical trials of digital mental health interventions, which was driven by existing literature and refined through Delphi methods with four diverse stakeholder groups, including those with Lived Experience. The framework was then used to determine the informativeness of recent clinical trials in digital mental health and examine factors relating to trial informativeness. This presentation will provide the audience with an introduction to the concept of ‘informativeness’ and how informativeness can be preserved across all phases of research, including dissemination. It will discuss the strengths and limitations of definitions of informativeness, identify approaches for applying this methodology to evaluate clinical trials in other areas of health and medicine, and deliberate on the aspects of informativeness that may be general or specific. Interactive discussions will also examine which aspects of informativeness may be most valued by different stakeholder groups, including policy makers, clinicians, consumers, researchers and methodologists.