An Evaluation Guide and Decision Support Tool for Journey Maps in Healthcare and Beyond
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The journey map concept evolved out of the service design field and is still relatively new in the healthcare landscape [1]. Journey maps are visualizations that effectively highlight organizational issues and allow stakeholder groups to be depicted by interest or function for a comparative visual analysis [2]. There are five journey map approaches: 1) Mental (Cognitive) Model Map, 2) Customer Journey Map, 3) Experience Map, 4) Service Blueprint Map, 5) Spatial Map. The objective of this article is three-fold: 1) quantify and delineate the journey mapping visualization techniques utilized from the phase 1 scoping review [2], 2) create a Journey Map Evaluation Guide, 3) create a Journey Map Decision Support Tool to facilitate a standardized method for journey map selection. For those less familiar with journey mapping, this framework can serve as a decision-making tool to facilitate the most effective choice among the different journey mapping visualization approaches. The tools presented in this study can provide a mechanism to standardize the assessment, classification and utilization of journey maps in the healthcare sector and industries abound.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it