What We Lose When We Exclude Continuous Behavioral Measurement in Clinical Research & Practice?

Health condition detection and care are only as good as their measurability against a baseline over time. Mental and behavioral health measurement has traditionally been taken with self-reported surveys and validated scales, like PHQ-9 and GAD-7. Too few mental and behavioral health providers are aware that smartphones, apps, and sensors can continually measure passive behaviors which indicate mental states. This emergent measurement, continuous behavioral health measurement (CBHM), provides richer behavioral insights into the “clinical whitespace” between clinic appointments and beyond self-reporting. Dr. Glenn Coppersmith, in his article, Digital Life Data in The Clinical Whitespace (2022), talks about continuous behavior measurement’s advantages, over self-reporting.

Given this possibility for visibility into the clinical whitespace, we ask why this approach is not universally used as a complement to self-reported surveys and validated scales, like PHQ-9 and GAD-7. When CBHM use is excluded from clinical research and patient care, we lose:

  • more effective appointments and stronger therapeutic alliances are lost for lack of richer real-world behavioral insights from the clinical whitespace between appointments and beyond self-reporting,
  • broader and richer access to good healthcare is lost because passive behaviors which signal notable declines in health status are missed.
  • reduction of more expensive interventions & outcomes, i.e. emergency rooms, hospitalization, suicide, would yield earlier, more timely, and predictable, detection and intervention, and
  • more optimal mental and behavioral health intervention combinations due to collection and analysis of richer real-world data across diverse conditions and populations, not just related to mental and behavioral health, but also with acute and chronic conditions where function and quality of life are important outcomes, and
  • earlier detection of behavior-related financial, moral, care and regulatory risk factors.

Below is a key image from the Coppersmith (2022) article which highlights the benefit of continuous behavioral measurement, and where you see how much insight is lost when only live appointments are self-reported, note the upper hash marks.


If the losses noted above are part of a list of losses you are looking to avoid in your own clinical research studies or care practice, schedule a demonstration. We would love to discuss how Ksana Health can help improve your outcomes.

Coppersmith G. Digital Life Data in the Clinical Whitespace. Current Directions in Psychological Science. 2022;31(1):34-40. doi:10.1177/09637214211068839

Craig DeLarge

1 September 2022

Share on:

Recent Articles

The Health Economics Case for Continuous Behavioral Health Measurement

Like any new health technology, continuous behavioral health measurement (CBHM) must economically justify its place among the growing options for measuring therapy and care outcomes. At Ksana Health, we think a lot...

Continue reading

Behavioral Health Business Article: Inside Behavioral Healthcare’s Remote Patient Monitoring Opportunity

  In September 2022, Ksana Health founders, Dr. Nick Allen and Will Short are quoted in an industry article highlighting the opportunistic role of remote patient monitoring (RPM) in behavioral health. Ideas...

Continue reading

Ksana Health Achieves SOC2 Type 2 Compliance for HIPAA and GDPR

Ksana Health completed its first third-party assessment for security and privacy controls, receiving unqualified approval attesting to the strength of our controls and compliance with best practices and statutory requirements, including: AICPA,...

Continue reading