Using Journey Mapping and Service Blueprinting to Design Digital Health Behavior Change Innovations: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Solutions to support disease self-management and health-related behavior changes require a deep understanding of patient experiences, needs, and challenges across the care journey. Journey mapping (JM) and service blueprinting (SB) are valuable tools for visualizing user experiences and system processes over time. This scoping review explores how JM/SBs have been applied to design digitally enabled interventions targeting health-related behaviors among patients and the public. METHODS: The JBI reviewer manual was used to guide the review. Studies were sourced from Embase, Psych Info, PubMed, Medline, Web of Science, and Scopus. Inclusion criteria required studies to describe how JM/SBs informed the design of a digitally enabled health innovation that aimed to impact health or health care-related behaviors of patients or the public. A two-level screening process and iterative data extraction were applied. RESULTS: A total of 28 studies met the inclusion criteria, with a majority published between 2019 and 2024. The JM/SBs rarely used behavioral science theory and were structured, organized, and presented in diverse ways. Most studies designed their digital health behavior change innovations by using JM/SB to identify relevant innovation touchpoints across the patient journey. Patients frequently participated in the digital health behavior change innovation design process, with JM/SBs often serving as sensemaking tools. Innovations tended to address multifaceted health service problems through multimodal, digitally enabled solutions. CONCLUSIONS: JM/SBs are emerging as versatile tools to help digital health innovations to conduct user research, engage diverse partners, identify complex problems, and ideate creative solutions. However, limited integration of behavioral science theory indicates an area for future exploration.
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 | 0.050 | 0.163 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.035 | 0.031 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".