Mental disorders affect more than one billion people worldwide and represent a major global public health challenge (World Health Organisation ²⁰²⁵). Mental disorders like anxiety and depression cause major human and economic losses. These disorders are also the second leading cause of long‐term disability. Mental disorders are conditions characterised by disturbances in emotion, cognition and behaviour. They manifest not only through psychological symptoms such as insomnia, depression and anxiety, but also significantly impair patients' quality of life across physiological, social and environmental domains (Su et al. 2022). Beyond substantial psychological distress, mental disorders are associated with serious physical health consequences and premature mortality. Global Burden of Disease studies confirm that mental disorders are among the leading causes of healthy life years lost (GBD 2021 Diseases and Injuries Collaborators ²⁰²⁴). The WHO Comprehensive Mental Health Action Plan 2013–2030 proposes two key strategies. First, implement mental health promotion and prevention strategies. Second, optimise mental health information systems (World Health Organisation ²⁰²¹). Extensive research highlights persistent challenges facing mental health systems. These challenges include resource inequity (Han et al. 2025), service fragmentation (Arjanto et al. 2025), stigma (Kreiner 2025) and treatment gaps (Vigo et al. 2025). To address the above challenges, global researchers are exploring mental health services from multiple dimensions. Digital technologies have been used to expand remote and scalable mental health interventions (Linardon et al. 2019). These interventions overcome barriers of geography and resources. Novel delivery models, including integrated care and stepped‐care approaches, have been proposed to optimise resource allocation and improve service efficiency (Kazdin 2019). Preventive psychiatry and precision‐oriented approaches have also been proposed to target specific risk groups, including children and adolescents (Fusar‐Poli et al. ²⁰²¹). Cuijpers et al. (2021) conducted a meta‐analysis examining the evidence base for new psychological therapies, exploring their underlying mechanisms. Despite these advances, a critical gap remains: mental health service evaluations have historically prioritised clinical outcomes over patients' process‐oriented experiences (Dey et al. 2025). Yet service experience quality can influence patient engagement and outcomes. This neglect manifests as three interrelated problems: stigma in clinical interactions, which reduces trust and care continuity (Defourny and van Sambeek ²⁰²⁴); fragmented service pathways, which cause repeated and disjointed patient experiences (Iversen et al. 2025); and patient voices that are often excluded from service design and decision‐making processes (Graham et al. 2025). Patient journey mapping (PJM) is a visualisation tool from service design and experience research (Howard 2014). In healthcare, PJM has been adopted to understand patient experiences, identify touchpoints and pain points and support care process improvement (Davies et al. 2023). Patient journey mapping uses a narrative timeline. This timeline covers different stages, such as problem recognition, help‐seeking, diagnosis, treatment and recovery. The tool integrates patients' behaviours, thoughts, emotions and interactions with health system touchpoints (e.g., outpatient clinics, helplines, online communities). The tool reveals pain points, service gaps and opportunities for improvement (Vesinurm et al. 2025; Ataya et al. ²⁰²⁵).

Previous reviews have synthesised patient journey mapping applications across general healthcare settings, with particular concentrations in chronic disease management and oncology (Davies et al. 2023). However, mental disorders present unique challenges—such as symptom fluctuation, stigma and fragmented service pathways—that may substantially shape how journeys are constructed and what they reveal. To our knowledge, no scoping review has systematically examined how PJM has been applied specifically to mental disorders, nor has any study consolidated the methodological approaches, visualisation formats, stage classifications, touchpoint categories and pain point dimensions across this emerging body of evidence. This gap limits researchers' ability to compare findings across studies, hinders the development of standardised methodologies, and impedes the translation of journey mapping insights into mental health service improvement.

It is important to distinguish patient journey mapping from other forms of process mapping commonly used in healthcare. Although process maps typically focus on clinical workflows, staff tasks, or operational sequences from the provider's perspective, PJM is defined by its patient‐centred orientation: the patient is the narrative protagonist, the timeline follows the patient's progression through care, and the content includes experiential dimensions such as emotions, pain points and unmet needs alongside structural interactions. However, the boundary between PJM and provider‐oriented process mapping is not always sharp. In this review, provider workflow maps were eligible for inclusion only when their primary organising structure followed patient progression through care (e.g., arrival → assessment → disposition) rather than staff task sequencing. This distinction was operationalised in the eligibility criteria (see Section 3.2).

Patient journey mapping encompasses a spectrum of approaches united by a common purpose: visualising the patient's progression through care. Maps are constructed from direct patient narratives to capture subjective experiences and unmet needs, or from clinical records, staff interviews, or literature synthesis to capture service‐level patterns, care transitions and system bottlenecks. Both approaches offer complementary insights—the former reveals what it feels like to be a patient, whereas the latter reveals what happens to patients within the system—and this review includes both, recognising that mental health service improvement requires understanding at both experiential and structural levels.

Therefore, this review presents a focused analysis of data collection methods, core mapping elements and service stages, aiming to establish a structured knowledge base and provide standardised methodological guidance for the field.

This scoping review aims to comprehensively map and synthesise international evidence on patient journey mapping in mental disorders.

A scoping review methodology was used to address the review aim. Scoping reviews are designed to summarise available evidence, clarify key concepts, identify knowledge gaps and examine the range of methodological approaches used in an emerging field (Arksey and O'Malley ²⁰⁰⁵). This approach is particularly suitable for broadly mapping the existing literature on patient journey mapping in mental disorders.

This review was conducted in accordance with the recommendations established by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA‐ScR) guidelines (Tricco et al. 2018) and followed the methodological guidelines proposed by the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI), based on the framework of Arksey and O'Malley (2005) and expanded by Peters et al. (2021).

The scoping review protocol was pre‐registered on the Open Science Framework (OSF) on Mar 30, 2026. The protocol is available at: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/CZPBU.

A total of 10 studies were included in this review. This section first presents the study selection process (Figure 1) and the characteristics of included studies (Tables 1 and 2), then synthesises the findings according to two distinct perspectives—system and provider versus patient and service user—and concludes with a summary of PJM applications in mental health care. Figure 1 presents the PRISMA flow diagram (Page et al. 2021) of the study selection process, tracing the journey from the identification of records in the selected databases to the final sample of 10 articles, following the application of eligibility criteria and the removal of duplicates. The database search covered records from inception to 1 December 2025; however, no eligible studies published prior to 2013 were identified. Notable peaks occurred in 2023 and 2025, with three studies (30%) in each year; other years showed a balanced distribution. In terms of geographical distribution, a higher concentration of research was observed in the United States (n = 2, 20%) and Australia (n = 2, 20%), followed by the United Kingdom (n = 2, 20%), with the remaining studies conducted in Ireland (n = 1, 10%), Brazil (n = 1, 10%), China (n = 1, 10%) and Canada (n = 1, 10%). The relatively small number of included studies warrants explanation. Three factors likely contributed to this modest yield. The emerging nature of PJM in healthcare research means that the methodology has only recently been adopted; in this review, no eligible studies published prior to 2013 were identified, and the majority of included studies (8 of 10) were published in 2023 or later, indicating that PJM in mental disorders is a particularly recent field of inquiry. The application of PJM to mental disorders is even more recent compared to other fields such as oncology or chronic disease management, where PJM is more established. Terminological variation across disciplines may have further contributed to the limited yield: some relevant studies use terms such as ‘care pathway mapping,’ ‘process mapping,’ or ‘experience mapping’ without explicitly employing the term ‘patient journey mapping,’ and were therefore not captured by our search strategy. Together, these factors suggest that the evidence base, while nascent, reflects the current state of the field rather than a limitation of the search itself.

To capture the full spectrum of patient journey mapping in mental disorders, we categorised the included studies into two distinct perspectives: system and provider perspective versus patient and service user perspective. This classification was based on each study's primary data source, research objective and intended audience. Studies focusing on clinical workflows, service delivery, resource allocation, or provider experiences were assigned to the system and provider perspective. Conversely, studies prioritising patients' subjective experiences, emotional responses, help‐seeking behaviours and recovery narratives were assigned to the patient and service user perspective. This distinction is essential because journey maps constructed from different vantage points reveal fundamentally different stages, touchpoints and pain points. System‐oriented maps emphasise standardised care processes and service integration, whereas patient‐oriented maps capture lived experiences and emotional trajectories. Presenting these perspectives separately allows readers to understand how the same care pathway can be viewed differently by providers and patients, thereby informing more holistic and patient‐centred service design. Tables 1 and 2 summarise the characteristics of included studies according to these two perspectives. Additional extracted information for each included study is provided in Table S1.

Data sources and collection methods varied across studies and included qualitative, quantitative, mixed‐methods and literature‐based approaches. Qualitative methods predominated, including: (1) semi‐structured interviews (Harris et al. 2025; Wolff et al. ²⁰²³; Soman et al. ²⁰²⁵; Fang et al. ²⁰²⁵; Wasson Simpson et al. ²⁰²²; O'Regan et al. ²⁰²³; Castillo et al. ²⁰¹³), which followed a pre‐defined guide but allowed interviewers to reorder questions and probe further to capture patients' perspectives, experiences and narratives; (2) focus groups (Castillo et al. 2013), which were used to collect views and experiences from specific populations through moderated group discussions; (3) clinical observation notes (Fang et al. 2025), clinicians systematically documented patients' behaviours, emotional states, symptom characteristics and related clinical responses in real‐world clinical settings; (4) patient self‐management diaries (Fang et al. 2025), patients maintained written records to document their symptom experiences, emotional states, behavioural manifestations and related feelings, serving as supplementary data collection materials. Some studies additionally incorporated literature reviews (Harris et al. 2025; Meleiro et al. ²⁰²³; Roennfeldt et al. ²⁰²¹) and email feedback (Harris et al. 2025) to supplement information. Quantitative methods included electronic health record reviews (Wolff et al. 2023; Soman et al. ²⁰²⁵), database extraction and questionnaires (O'Regan et al. ²⁰²³). For instance, Casey et al. (2021) extracted emergency department utilisation records from databases; O'Regan et al. (2023) combined online surveys with social media listening data to enable large‐scale quantitative analysis.

Sample sizes varied considerably by study design. Qualitative studies typically employed smaller samples: Fang et al. (2025) conducted longitudinal interviews with 12 adolescents with depression, whereas Wasson Simpson et al. (2022) interviewed 31 youth with mental health concerns. Mixed‐methods studies featured larger samples, such as Soman et al. (2025) with 55 emergency department staff and O'Regan et al. (2023) with 1543 participants recruited through telephone interviews, online questionnaires and social media listening. The main quantitative study analysed data from 200 frequent emergency department users (Casey et al. 2021). Two reviews (Meleiro et al. 2023; Roennfeldt et al. ²⁰²¹) did not report sample sizes, constructing maps through literature synthesis instead.

Analysis approaches comprised qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods. Qualitative methods predominated, including thematic analysis (Soman et al. 2025; Wasson Simpson et al. ²⁰²²; Castillo et al. ²⁰¹³), inductive content analysis (Wolff et al. 2023), qualitative content analysis (Harris et al. 2025), reflexive thematic analysis (Fang et al. 2025) and narrative synthesis (Roennfeldt et al. 2021). Some studies employed theoretical frameworks. Soman et al. (2025) applied the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) model for workflow coding; Fang et al. (2025) used symptom management theory to structure journey mapping. Quantitative methods included descriptive statistics (Wolff et al. 2023), logistic regression, and quantitative evidence synthesis. For instance, Casey et al. (2021) used logistic regression to identify factors associated with frequent emergency department use, and Meleiro et al. (2023) quantitatively integrated data on depression screening, diagnosis and treatment coverage. Mixed‐methods studies integrated qualitative accounts with quantitative service or survey data to support journey construction. O'Regan et al. (2023) combined telephone interviews, online questionnaires and social media listening data to present both narrative experiences and large‐scale statistical descriptions.

Five main visualisation tools were identified: (1) Patient journey maps (Wolff et al. 2023; Wasson Simpson et al. ²⁰²²; O'Regan et al. ²⁰²³), the most common format, presenting linear timelines of patient behaviours, emotions and touchpoints from symptom recognition to recovery; (2) Integrated Patient Journey Mapping (IPJM) (Harris et al. 2025), incorporating multi‐stakeholder perspectives with system processes; (3) Workflow maps (Soman et al. 2025), focusing on healthcare provider perspectives to illustrate multi‐role coordination and process nodes; (4) Symptom management journey maps (Fang et al. 2025), integrating patient self‐management behaviours with clinical interventions to highlight dynamic processes; (5) Recovery journey pyramids (Castillo et al. 2013), using hierarchical structures to depict recovery stages and support elements.

Patient journey stage classification varied by disorder type, care setting and research perspective. From system and provider perspectives (Harris et al. 2025; Wolff et al. ²⁰²³; Casey et al. ²⁰²¹; Soman et al. ²⁰²⁵; Meleiro et al. ²⁰²³), common stages included: awareness and screening, assessment and diagnosis, treatment and intervention, ongoing management and care, and discharge and outcomes. This perspective focuses on standardised service pathways. From patient and service user perspectives (Fang et al. 2025; Roennfeldt et al. ²⁰²¹; Wasson Simpson et al. ²⁰²²; Castillo et al. ²⁰¹³; O'Regan et al. ²⁰²³), common stages included: symptom recognition and experience, help‐seeking and interaction, treatment engagement and adaptation, daily management and self‐regulation, relapse response and crisis management, and recovery and social integration. This perspective reflects subjective individual experiences. Synthesising both perspectives, we identified five core stages: symptom onset and recognition, help‐seeking and diagnosis, acute treatment, ongoing treatment and recovery, and long‐term management and community integration (Figure 2).

Touchpoints represent critical interaction nodes between patients and the service system throughout the journey (Davies et al. 2023). To categorise these touchpoints systematically, we drew on the SEIPS framework's work system components (Carayon et al. 2007)—as later applied in mental health journey mapping by Soman et al. (2025)—which conceptualises healthcare delivery as the interaction of people, tasks, tools and technology, physical environment and organisational conditions. During thematic synthesis, the review team first extracted all touchpoint descriptions from the included studies and then grouped them according to the primary mode of interaction through which patients engage with the system. This inductive‐deductive integration yielded four distinct categories: (1) Human interaction, including triage, consultation, medication discussion, discharge coordination, family communication, peer support and psychotherapy. (2) Processes and documentation, including referral, screening, registration, assessment scheduling, discharge or transfer decisions and handovers. This category incorporates SEIPS' task and organisational coordination components, as these manifest to patients primarily as procedural touchpoints (e.g., referrals, assessments, handovers) rather than as discrete organisational structures. (3) Physical environment, including waiting areas, wards, emergency departments, treatment rooms and community service centres. (4) Technology and tools, including electronic health records, remote monitoring, online questionnaires and social media platforms. These four categories collectively capture where and how patients interact with the mental health service system across diverse mental health care settings.

Pain points reveal obstacles, negative experiences and service disconnections encountered during the journey (Davies et al. 2023). To categorise these pain points systematically, we drew on the socio‐ecological model (McLeroy et al. ¹⁹⁸⁸), which conceptualises barriers to healthcare as operating across multiple levels—from individual and interpersonal to organisational and policy levels. During thematic synthesis, the review team first extracted all pain point descriptions from the included studies and then grouped them according to the level at which they operate, following an inductive‐deductive integration approach guided by the socio‐ecological model. This integration yielded four dimensions: (1) Systemic (operating at the organisational and service levels), including service fragmentation, prolonged wait times, resource scarcity, complex multidisciplinary coordination, difficult discharge placement and inadequate community resources. (2) Communication and experience (operating at the interpersonal level), including information opacity, stigma, privacy deficiencies, discriminatory treatment, coercive measures and overlooked subjective feelings. (3) Social support (operating at the community and family levels), including insufficient family involvement, social exclusion, self‐harm behaviours, employment difficulties and financial strain. (4) Care gaps (operating across care continuity and transitions), including transitional discontinuity, missing services for moderate cases, limited psychotherapy accessibility, over‐the‐counter medication dependence and inadequate early relapse detection. These four dimensions collectively capture the multi‐layered barriers that patients face across clinical, social and systemic levels. The four‐dimension structure was derived empirically from the data (inductive dimension) and refined through the socio‐ecological model (deductive dimension); the resulting number (four) reflects the dominant levels at which pain points clustered in the included studies, with individual‐level barriers subsumed within the broader interpersonal and social‐support dimensions.

Patient journey mapping has been used for diverse purposes in mental health care, which we categorised into four domains: emergency and cross‐departmental coordination, system integration and resource planning, adolescent care, and long‐term recovery and digital health.

Emergency services and cross‐departmental coordination. Wolff et al. (2023) visualised paediatric psychiatric emergency care from provider perspectives to identify process bottlenecks and facilitate collaborative management, to inform strategies that may reduce waiting times. The same study integrated patient flow with staff workflows to reveal barriers in emergency mental health assessment and disposition, informing resource allocation and care process optimisation. Additionally, Roennfeldt et al. (2021) analysed the subjective experiences of mental health crisis patients in emergency departments to identify mitigating factors and pain points, providing evidence for service optimisation and alternative crisis intervention models.

System integration and resource planning. Casey et al. (2021) mapped fragmented service utilisation patterns and cumulative adverse outcomes among frequent emergency department users to inform system restructuring and personalised interventions, whereas Meleiro et al. (2023) evaluated national depression screening, diagnosis and treatment coverage to identify service gaps, offering evidence for policy refinement and primary care capacity building.

Adolescent care. Fang et al. (2025) dynamically visualised emotional fluctuations and key behaviours across symptom recognition, help‐seeking, treatment engagement and daily management stages in adolescents with depression to inform phased, individualised interventions. Wasson Simpson et al. (2022) identified validation experiences during treatment interactions to optimise communication approaches in youth mental health services.

Long‐term recovery and digital health. Castillo et al. (2013) proposed ‘transitional recovery’ as the essence of the pyramid‐structured rehabilitation journey from trust‐building to social integration, providing a conceptual framework for service design, clinical practice and policy formulation. O'Regan et al. (2023) systematically visualised seven critical stages from symptom onset to long‐term coexistence in insomnia patients to optimise management pathways and promote safe long‐term treatment development. Harris et al. (2025) visualised standard clinical pathways for ADHD to facilitate multidisciplinary team understanding and identify key integration points for connected health systems, supporting the embedding of digital health technologies into specialist services.

This scoping review synthesised 10 studies on patient journey mapping in mental disorders. Three observations are particularly important for interpreting this emerging field. A first observation is that the field is fragmented but understandable: diversity in data sources, visualisation formats and analytic frameworks reflects three interrelated factors—methodological diversity (varied data collection and analysis methods without agreed standards), disorder‐specific pathways (different mental health conditions have distinct care trajectories shaped by disease phenomenology, service models and the maturity of condition‐specific evidence bases), and geographic and systemic heterogeneity (research reflects local service structures rather than shared patient journey patterns). Each factor has practical implications for how PJM findings can be compared and translated across contexts: methodological diversity suggests the need for standardised construction protocols; disorder‐specific pathways caution against cross‐condition generalisation; and geographic heterogeneity underscores the importance of context‐specific implementation. A second observation is that the value of PJM in mental disorders extends beyond descriptive pathway mapping: it offers a unique capacity to expose hidden system‐level patterns (e.g., emergency department bottlenecks, transitional discontinuities) that conventional quality metrics often miss. A third observation is that the field's nascent evidence base points to actionable intervention opportunities, particularly in care coordination, patient engagement and digital health integration. The remainder of this Discussion elaborates on these three observations and their implications for clinical practice, research and implementation.

Across the included studies, PJM was found to serve three distinct functions in mental health, each of which carries different implications for interprofessional collaboration. Clinically, PJM functions as a diagnostic lens that exposes hidden system bottlenecks—such as emergency department delays, coordination failures and transitional discontinuities—which conventional quality metrics often miss. These insights are actionable primarily through the work of clinicians, including nurses, who operate at the intersection of direct patient care and system coordination and are uniquely positioned to translate journey mapping findings into care pathway adjustments. From a service management perspective, PJM functions as a planning instrument whose value lies not in descriptive mapping but in enabling evidence‐informed resource allocation and policy adjustment across fragmented service systems. For patients themselves, PJM functions as an engagement strategy that empowers individuals by validating their experiences and supporting self‐monitoring—particularly for adolescents and other populations who may otherwise be excluded from service design discussions.

However, the methodological challenges of mental health research impose greater demands on map construction than in other fields. Symptom fluctuation and concealment may introduce recall bias (Seif et al. 2025); stigma may lead patients to conceal or embellish experiences (Seo et al. 2024); and cognitive impairment may compromise accurate description of service processes (Zhang et al. 2019). Future map construction should therefore integrate multiple data sources—including patient narratives, family observations, clinician notes and objective records (e.g., nursing notes, electronic health record timestamps)—to triangulate findings and mitigate these biases. This approach has been exemplified in the included literature: O'Regan et al. (2023) combined social media listening with clinical interviews, demonstrating how multi‐source data integration can address self‐report limitations. Additionally, privacy protection and informed consent require special attention in PJM studies involving this vulnerable population.

Translating PJM insights into practice requires attention to implementation. To be effective, implementation should be stakeholder‐driven: journey maps are most actionable when co‐produced with clinicians, service managers and patients who can interpret findings within their local context. Nurses, given their continuous patient contact and role in care coordination, are particularly well‐positioned to identify recurring pain points from journey maps and translate them into care pathway adjustments. A phased approach is also important: identifying priority pain points from the journey map, designing targeted interventions (e.g., improved handover protocols, patient education materials), piloting changes in specific service areas and evaluating impact before wider rollout. Critically, implementation requires organisational support—including protected time for staff to review and act on journey map findings, training in quality improvement methods, and leadership commitment to acting on patient experience data. Without these supports, journey maps risk remaining academic exercises rather than tools for service change. The included studies offer limited evidence on implementation outcomes, underscoring the need for future research that prospectively evaluates how PJM‐informed changes affect clinical processes, patient satisfaction and service efficiency.

Beyond these methodological considerations, the scope of existing research also shows important limitations. Current research concentrates on depression, ADHD, personality disorders and schizophrenia, with limited coverage of bipolar disorder, obsessive‐compulsive disorder, eating disorders and substance use disorders. Most studies are conducted in high‐income countries, which restricts generalisability. Future research should encompass diverse economic contexts and cultural settings, and should address underserved populations including older adults, perinatal women and individuals with intellectual or developmental disabilities. These populations face unique service access challenges that remain underexplored.

Existing studies vary considerably in data collection methods, analytical frameworks and visualisation formats, and lack standardised guidelines (Davies et al. 2023). Future research should establish core elements and standardised construction protocols through expert‐patient consensus methods such as Delphi studies, drawing from oncology experiences (Ellis et al. 2022). Researchers should also explore integrating theoretical frameworks including implementation science and complexity science to enhance practical applicability. Current research predominantly focuses on map construction and descriptive analysis and lacks longitudinal assessment of intervention effects on clinical outcomes, healthcare costs, or service satisfaction. Future studies should employ prospective, controlled designs to evaluate the real‐world impact of journey mapping on clinical pathways and service optimisation.

Advances in artificial intelligence and big data offer opportunities for automated or dynamically updated journey maps. Researchers can use electronic health records and natural language processing to enhance real‐time applicability and scalability. Machine learning and topic modelling techniques, as applied by Voigt et al. (2025) in oncology to identify patient experience themes from online forums, hold similar potential for mental health research. Digital health integration can position journey maps as foundations for human‐computer interaction design (Voorheis et al. 2025), supporting remote monitoring, personalised interventions and virtual support communities. These innovations offer novel pathways for digital transformation of mental health services.

This scoping review has several limitations. Despite its strengths—including being the first scoping review to synthesise PJM evidence specifically in mental disorders, a systematic search of seven databases and dual independent screening—the following limitations should be acknowledged. The inclusive operational definition of PJM adopted in this review (see Section 3.2), while enabling comprehensive mapping of an emerging and heterogeneous literature, also resulted in considerable variation across included studies in data sources and mapping purposes; this warrants caution in interpretation and points to the need for clearer subtype reporting in future research. With respect to methodology, consistent with scoping review methodology, no formal quality appraisal was conducted. The inconsistent terminology surrounding PJM may have contributed to incomplete retrieval, particularly from grey literature and non‐English publications. The absence of field‐specific reporting guidelines may have introduced bias into data extraction and synthesis. Additionally, although both Chinese‐language and English‐language databases were searched, all eligible studies identified were published in English; this may reflect the nascent state of PJM research in Chinese‐language mental health literature, differences in terminology, or indexing practices, rather than a systematic retrieval failure. Beyond methodology, the evidence base itself has three additional limitations: studies concentrated on depression, ADHD, personality disorders and schizophrenia, with limited coverage of other common conditions; most originated from high‐income countries, restricting generalisability to low‐ and middle‐income settings; and the evidence remains largely descriptive, with limited empirical evaluation of PJM's impact on clinical or service outcomes. These limitations should be considered when interpreting the findings of this review.

This scoping review synthesised evidence on patient journey mapping in mental disorders. Construction methods included interviews, focus groups, patient diaries, medical record reviews and questionnaires. Visualisation formats comprised patient journey maps, integrated mapping tools, workflow maps, symptom management journey maps, recovery pyramids and data tables. In terms of content, common stages from symptom recognition to recovery emerged across studies. Four touchpoint categories were identified: human interaction, documentation processes, physical environment and technological tools. Four pain point dimensions also emerged: systemic issues, communication experiences, social support and care gaps. Regarding applications, patient journey mapping supported clinical pathway optimisation, resource planning, policy evaluation, patient empowerment and digital health development. Future research should prioritise methodological standardisation, broader population coverage, outcome evaluation and integration with artificial intelligence and big data to advance patient‐centred mental health services.

This scoping review provides mental health nurses with a structured understanding of how patient journey mapping can reveal critical touchpoints and pain points in care delivery. The synthesised evidence supports nurses in identifying service gaps, improving care coordination and engaging patients in shared decision‐making. Integrating these insights into nursing assessment and care planning can strengthen therapeutic relationships and advance person‐centred mental health nursing practice.

All authors meet the authorship criteria according to the latest guidelines of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Jingjing Wu: conceptualization, methodology, original draft, review and editing, project administration. Xiaolin Feng, Kerong Zhu, Wei Ding and Fang Huang: investigation, data curation, review and editing. Qun Yuan: conceptualization, methodology, supervision, review and editing, funding acquisition. All authors are in agreement with the manuscript and have approved the final version for submission.

This work was supported by the Natural Science Foundation of Hunan Province, No. 2026JJ81016.

The authors have nothing to report.

The authors have nothing to report.

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

The authors thank all participants in the included studies for sharing their experiences. This work was supported by the Natural Science Foundation of Hunan Province, China (Grant No. 2026JJ81016). The funder had no role in study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or manuscript preparation.

The data that supports the findings of this study are available in the Supporting Information of this article.