Compare · vs PHQ-9
Emobot vs the PHQ-9 by email.
This is the most common question we get, and the honest answer is that it is not either/or. The PHQ-9 is a validated, free, familiar instrument. The problem is not the PHQ-9 itself, it is using an emailed PHQ-9 as your only signal between visits.
What PHQ-9 by email is
The PHQ-9 is a nine-item, self-reported depression scale, validated and in the public domain. Many clinics send it by email between visits to track patients. It is quick, well understood, and reimbursable as a measurement-based-care instrument.
Where PHQ-9 by email is genuinely good
- Validated, free, and clinically familiar to every psychiatrist.
- A good periodic anchor and a billable measurement-based-care touchpoint.
- Useful as a structured self-report at the visit itself, where completion is high.
Where it falls short
- By email it reaches only 30 to 40% of patients, so most of the panel is unmonitored between visits.
- It captures one recalled moment every six to eight weeks, not the trajectory in between.
- The patients least likely to complete it are the ones who are relapsing, because low motivation is a symptom.
Side by side
| Feature | Emobot | PHQ-9 by email |
|---|---|---|
| Data collection | Passive & multimodal | Active self-report |
| Frequency | Continuous (daily) | Every 6–8 weeks |
| Reaches the whole panel | Yes (75% activation) | Partial (30–40% by email) |
| Early relapse signal | ~48h lead time | Reactive |
| Patient burden | Zero after setup | Manual entry each time |
| Validation | r=0.89 vs MADRS | Validated scale |
Where Emobot is different
It is the data between your PHQ-9s
Emobot is not a replacement for the PHQ-9. It fills the long, unmonitored gaps between assessments with continuous, objective signal.
Reaches patients who never reply
Because it is passive, it covers the 60 to 70% who never open the email, including the at-risk ones.
Objective, not recall
It measures behavior directly rather than relying on how a patient remembers feeling on the day they fill out a form.
Frequently asked questions
Is Emobot a replacement for the PHQ-9?
No. The PHQ-9 remains a useful periodic anchor and a billable measurement-based-care instrument. Emobot is the continuous, objective data between PHQ-9 assessments, covering the weeks the questionnaire cannot.
What is the PHQ-9 email completion rate?
Emailed PHQ-9 completion averages 30 to 40%. That means most of a clinic's panel has no monitoring between visits, and the patients most likely to skip it are often those who are deteriorating.
What is a good alternative to the PHQ-9 by email?
Rather than replacing the PHQ-9, pair it with passive monitoring. Keep the PHQ-9 as your periodic scale and add continuous, passive measurement to catch change between visits with about 48 hours of lead time.
Related reading: Passive Depression Monitoring: Clinical Guide
See the difference on a real patient case.
A 30-minute demo shows exactly what continuous, passive, multimodal monitoring looks like in your dashboard.