Exploring Patient Journey Mapping and the Learning Health System: Scoping Review (Preprint)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND Journey maps are visualization tools that can facilitate the diagrammatical representation of stakeholder groups by interest or function for comparative visual analysis. Therefore, journey maps can illustrate intersections and relationships between organizations and consumers using products or services. We propose that some synergies may exist between journey maps and the concept of a learning health system (LHS). The overarching goal of an LHS is to use health care data to inform clinical practice and improve service delivery processes and patient outcomes. OBJECTIVE The purpose of this review was to assess the literature and establish a relationship between journey mapping techniques and LHSs. Specifically, in this study, we explored the current state of the literature to answer the following research questions: (1) Is there a relationship between journey mapping techniques and an LHS in the literature? (2) Is there a way to integrate the data from journey mapping activities into an LHS? (3) How can the data gleaned from journey map activities be used to inform an LHS? METHODS A scoping review was conducted by querying the following electronic databases: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Ovid), IEEE Xplore, PubMed, Web of Science, Academic Search Complete (EBSCOhost), APA PsycInfo (EBSCOhost), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), and MEDLINE (EBSCOhost). Two researchers applied the inclusion criteria and assessed all articles by title and abstract in the first screen, using Covidence. Following this, a full-text review of included articles was done, with relevant data extracted, tabulated, and assessed thematically. RESULTS The initial search yielded 694 studies. Of those, 179 duplicates were removed. Following this, 515 articles were assessed during the first screening phase, and 412 were excluded, as they did not meet the inclusion criteria. Next, 103 articles were read in full, and 95 were excluded, resulting in a final sample of 8 articles that satisfied the inclusion criteria. The article sample can be subsumed into 2 overarching themes: (1) the need to evolve service delivery models in health care, and (2) the potential value of using patient journey data in an LHS. CONCLUSIONS This scoping review demonstrated the gap in knowledge regarding integrating the data from journey mapping activities into an LHS. Our findings highlighted the importance of using the data from patient experiences to enrich an LHS and provide holistic care. To satisfy this gap, the authors intend to continue this investigation to establish the relationship between journey mapping and the concept of LHSs. This scoping review will serve as phase 1 of an investigative series. Phase 2 will entail the creation of a holistic framework to guide and streamline data integration from journey mapping activities into an LHS. Lastly, phase 3 will provide a proof of concept to demonstrate how patient journey mapping activities could be integrated into an LHS.
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 | 0.025 | 0.125 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.022 | 0.030 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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".