Decision-theoretic recruitment and validation planning for depression surveys: An illustrative Chinese application
- 1Department of Behavioural Science and Health, Institute of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom
Abstract
Background: Survey planning must balance recruitment losses against uncertainty in screening yield, diagnostic accuracy and survey design. This study examined how these considerations determine invitation requirements and diagnostic-validation allocation. Methods: A Beta planning distribution used 170 PHQ-9-positive results among 1,045 Chinese community participants and an effective sample size of 100. Asymmetric recruitment loss selected conditional and joint-distribution invitation targets. A separate cost-plus-variance Bayes criterion jointly allocated survey clusters and independent reference-positive and reference-negative validation samples. Parameter uncertainty and future-data performance were evaluated by integration and simulation. Results: With an illustrative underplanning-to-overplanning loss ratio of 3, conditional planning selected a screening-positive proportion of 0.1862 and 4,794 screening invitations. Integrating design uncertainty increased this target to 5,346. Current-prevalence planning required 9,247 conditional invitations or 11,866 under joint parameter uncertainty when diagnostic accuracy was known within each scenario. The original validation sample imposed a reference-point half-width floor of 0.0292, exceeding the 0.020 target. Under specified relative costs, the joint allocation used 21,708 invitations and 240/4,538 reference-positive/reference-negative validation participants. Its prior-predictive width attainment was 53.15%, compared with 0.03% when nearly the same budget retained the original validation sample. Increasing the precision valuation fourfold raised attainment to 10,000/10,000 simulations, with 95.31% coverage. Uncorrected specificity shifts produced substantial bias despite larger samples. Conclusions: At k = 3, the loss-based rule selected a screening-positive planning proportion of 0.1862, reducing conditional invitation requirements by 39.38% relative to p = 0.5. Joint survey–validation allocation improved simulated precision at comparable assumed cost. These findings support allocating recruitment and diagnostic-validation resources jointly when planning current-prevalence surveys.
Related
- Grouped Validation and Conformal Calibration for Clustered Cross-National Data with an Application to Harmonized Learning Outcomes
- Grove polynomials and K-theoretic quasisymmetry
- Conservative CSPs in Logspace are in Symmetric Linear Datalog (under complexity theoretic assumptions)
- K-theoretic invariants of four three-dimensional operator systems
- A Deterministic Game-Theoretic Approach to Convexity-Preserving Property and Finite-Time Extinction of Level Sets for Geometric Equations
BibTeX
@article{liu2026decisiontheoretic,
title = {{Decision-theoretic recruitment and validation planning for depression surveys: An illustrative Chinese application}},
author = {Han Liu},
journal = {PLOS One},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.1371/journal.pone.0359867},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0359867},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Decision-theoretic recruitment and validation planning for depression surveys: An illustrative Chinese application
AU - Han Liu
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/01
JO - PLOS One
DO - 10.1371/journal.pone.0359867
UR - https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0359867
AB - Background: Survey planning must balance recruitment losses against uncertainty in screening yield, diagnostic accuracy and survey design. This study examined how these considerations determine invitation requirements and diagnostic-validation allocation. Methods: A Beta planning distribution used 170 PHQ-9-positive results among 1,045 Chinese community participants and an effective sample size of 100. Asymmetric recruitment loss selected conditional and joint-distribution invitation targets. A separate cost-plus-variance Bayes criterion jointly allocated survey clusters and independent reference-positive and reference-negative validation samples. Parameter uncertainty and future-data performance were evaluated by integration and simulation. Results: With an illustrative underplanning-to-overplanning loss ratio of 3, conditional planning selected a screening-positive proportion of 0.1862 and 4,794 screening invitations. Integrating design uncertainty increased this target to 5,346. Current-prevalence planning required 9,247 conditional invitations or 11,866 under joint parameter uncertainty when diagnostic accuracy was known within each scenario. The original validation sample imposed a reference-point half-width floor of 0.0292, exceeding the 0.020 target. Under specified relative costs, the joint allocation used 21,708 invitations and 240/4,538 reference-positive/reference-negative validation participants. Its prior-predictive width attainment was 53.15%, compared with 0.03% when nearly the same budget retained the original validation sample. Increasing the precision valuation fourfold raised attainment to 10,000/10,000 simulations, with 95.31% coverage. Uncorrected specificity shifts produced substantial bias despite larger samples. Conclusions: At k = 3, the loss-based rule selected a screening-positive planning proportion of 0.1862, reducing conditional invitation requirements by 39.38% relative to p = 0.5. Joint survey–validation allocation improved simulated precision at comparable assumed cost. These findings support allocating recruitment and diagnostic-validation resources jointly when planning current-prevalence surveys.
SN - 1932-6203
ER -