Case study 01 · Amura Health

The behavioral audit: closing the system and user alignment gap

Identifying 6 high risk psychographic segments to drive a service wide alignment strategy for a chronic care program serving 7,000+ clients.

RoleService Designer, solo research lead
Methods60+ interviews, psychographic segmentation, journey mapping
OutcomeDrop offs reframed as a 66% predictable pattern
Before we dive in

What counts as an escalation and why it is expensive

At Amura, a client complaint becomes an escalation the moment a manager gets tagged in a message or called into the group chat directly. Escalations matter because they burn expensive backstage resources. They emotionally exhaust the care team and their managers and quietly degrade the experience of every other client under that same care team.

The gap between belief and reality

What the company believed
  • Clients are non compliant
  • Protocol is correct and can be applied uniformly
  • Escalations can be handled once they arise
What was actually true
  • Users are unaware of the effort required from them
  • The service offering, as communicated through protocol, is confusing
  • Drop offs are predictable and avoidable, if caught early

The real question: who are the clients unaware of the effort required on their end to succeed in this program and can that be seen coming?

Diving deep

From 60+ interviews to a diagnostic framework

1. Psychographic segmentation

Why not personas, or demographics? During the audit, a 20 year old student in the US and a 64 year old retiree in Kerala turned out to show identical adherence patterns. That was the proof: in chronic care, demographics like age, gender and geography are poor predictors of behavior.

Adherence is driven by internal mental models and a lifetime of health related stimuli, not anything trackable in a straight line. Psychographic segmentation made it possible to design for the belief system rather than the biography, surfacing 6 distinct segments that predicted how a client would respond to the program long before they dropped off.

Mindset 01

The health as a side task client

32of 80 audited clients showed this mindset
The belief they arrive with

“This reversal should slot seamlessly into my existing schedule.”

What success actually requires

“My environment and schedule must be intentionally redesigned until this behavior becomes a habit.”

Operational failures

Time based restriction lapses. Program follow through. Meal planning consistency. Supplement adherence.

Behavioural friction

Health management is filed away as a background task. Business and family responsibilities stay the core priorities, leaving limited mental and physical bandwidth for execution. Program effort reads as a productivity tax.

Root belief

“If the program is truly effective, it should be manageable alongside my current lifestyle without requiring significant sacrifice.”

Mindset 02

The willpower only client

28of 80 audited clients showed this mindset
The belief they arrive with

“The intensity of my desire to change equals my capacity to execute.”

What success actually requires

“Sustainable change requires environment design, not just sheer willpower.”

Operational failures

Lapses in consistency, especially during social eating. High emotional fatigue. Regression to old habits when motivation dips.

Behavioural friction

The client significantly overestimates individual discipline and underestimates social and cultural friction. Relying purely on willpower creates a cycle of high initial effort followed by inevitable burnout.

Root belief

“Failure is personal weakness. If I truly want this outcome, I will force myself to make it work, regardless of the environment.”

Fig 01 and 02 · The two highest volume mindsets surfaced by the audit

2. Journey mapping the mindsets

The first real realization here: it is not entirely anyone's fault when a client arrives with the wrong mindset. Even so, it becomes the service's job to recognize that mindset early and subtly correct course before it hardens into disengagement.

Fig 03 · Journey map, the health as a side task mindset
Stage
Discovery
GC call
Onboarding
Intake call
Clean eating
V1 phase
V2 phase
Customer actions
  • Explores Amura via ads and referrals
  • Consumes testimonials
  • Evaluates: can this work for me?
  • Discusses goals and history
  • Asks feasibility questions
  • Decides to proceed
  • Begins the program on WhatsApp with the care team
  • Reviews onboarding messages and initial guidelines
  • Shares detailed lifestyle and schedule
  • Understands next steps
  • Attempts strict diet adherence
  • Manages meal prep and timings
  • Follows daily instructions
  • Continues protocol
  • Adds fibre drink, salt drink and stricter structure
  • Continues program with modifications
  • Balances protocol with real life
Touchpoints
  • Website
  • Social media
  • Word of mouth
  • Guidance counsellor call
  • WhatsApp
  • WhatsApp with HC and doctor
  • Onboarding messages
  • Initial guidelines
  • Health coach intake call
  • Daily WhatsApp communication
  • HC nudges
  • Diet plans
  • HC follow ups
  • Daily reminders
  • Protocol updates
  • Periodic HC check ins
  • Progress tracking
Mood
Mood curve across the journeyHopefulMotivatedManagingLoadedFrustratedFatiguedStabilized
Experience
Hopeful and outcome focused. Effort feels manageable.
High motivation. Trust in the system and its authority.
Slightly overwhelmed. Trying to fit tasks in.
Engaged but cognitively loaded. Still optimistic.
Time pressure. Cognitive overload. Frustration emerging.
Fatigue. Reduced enthusiasm. Selective compliance.
Stabilized but diluted adherence. More control taken by the client.
Friction points
  • Effort is underestimated
  • No anticipation of time and social trade offs
  • Ease expectation gets anchored early
  • Overcommitment without lifestyle planning
  • Effort casually explained
  • Leaves with confidence, not preparedness
  • Instruction overload
  • Timing conflicts begin
  • Early minor non compliance
  • No explicit life redesign discussion
  • Schedule conflicts remain unresolved
  • Execution feasibility not stress tested
  • Meal prep clashes with the work schedule
  • Social eating disruptions
  • Skipping or delaying meals
  • Beginning of partial adherence
  • Forgetting additional steps
  • Dropping non visible tasks first
  • Increasing negotiation with the protocol
  • Self modification of rules
  • Reduced strictness
  • Plateau or inconsistent results

3. Behaviour failure model

Mapping each segment against the actual protocol made the failure visible, not as a vague non compliance label, but as a specific stage in the journey where a designed intervention was missing and where a policy reminder was never going to fix it.

Fig 04 · Behaviour failure model, escalation builds from left to right
Stage
Stage 01 →Leading indicators
Stage 02 →Silent deviations
Stage 03 →Trust erosion
Stage 04 →Compounding friction
Stage 05 Escalation
What it looks like
  • Instructions feel more complex than expected
  • Time and effort feel higher than assumed
  • Early confusion around the why behind steps
  • Client starts modifying the program quietly
  • Questioning effectiveness
  • Doubting instructions
  • Increased need for reassurance
  • Emotional fatigue
  • Reduced responsiveness
  • Increased inconsistency
  • Complaint or escalation raised
  • Request for simplification
  • Disengagement or refund
Client frictions
  • Struggles to align meal timings with work
  • Confusion between fibre drink and salt drink timing
  • Surprise at the number of supplements
  • Partial adherence
  • Skipping inconvenient steps
  • Adjusting the protocol to fit lifestyle
  • No visible change in clean eating raises: is this working?
  • Hunger and headaches read as negative signals
  • Comparing effort against visible results
  • Ignoring reminders and messages
  • Following only the easy parts of the plan
  • Rising frustration with restrictions
  • Asking for diet relaxation
  • Dissatisfaction with effort versus outcome
  • Dropping off or threatening to quit
Client quotes

“This is a bit more complicated than I thought.”

“I didn't expect it to be this strict.”

“Why are there so many things to follow daily?”

“I missed it today, but I'll do it properly tomorrow.”

“I'm mostly following, just adjusting a little.”

“I couldn't manage it with my schedule today.”

“I'm doing everything, but I don't see any change.”

“Is this supposed to feel like this?”

“I'm not sure if this is working for me.”

“This is getting hard to manage every day.”

“I have too much going on to keep up with this.”

“I'm trying, but it's not sustainable like this.”

“This is not working for my lifestyle.”

“I need something more practical.”

“I can't continue like this.”

4. Predictive heatmapping

This was the turning point. Once the touchpoints were visible on a heatmap, the possible interventions became visible too. What had looked like random client drop off was actually a predictable pattern waiting to be caught early.

Fig 05 · Predictive heatmap across the customer journey
Concern area
Onboarding
First blood report
Clean eating
V1
V2
V3
V4
V5
V6
MV1
Second blood report
Maintenance
Immediate access and responsiveness
Financial and payment expectations
Medical authority and credibility
Program structure and timeline
Program identity misinterpretation
Program customization and supplement suitability
Process friction and administrative issues
Self doubt and low motivation from the client
High risk touchpointWatch zoneStable
Business impact

Defining the service strategy

This audit provided the ground truth needed to move the service from a one size fits all approach to a targeted, mindset aware model.

6high risk psychographic segments identified across the client base
66%of previously random drop offs reframed as a predictable, catchable pattern
60+in depth interviews synthesized into the segmentation model
What I learned

Professional and personal

Scaling through systems

Research as a business metric: user friction is effectively an operational tax. Translating user pain into wasted clinical bandwidth made the research land with stakeholders in their own language. Demographics, in this case, turned out to be noise. Mental models were the real signal.

Backstage empathy

Empathy has to extend beyond the client to the clinical staff delivering the service. If a service design burns out the doctors and coaches behind it, the client experience fails no matter how good the client facing design looks.

Next case study →

How were the 6 psychographic segments turned into onboarding interventions?

Or

Just want to talk? Get in touch →