What is a pre deployment checklist?
The usefulness of psychological screening for recruitment and for use by aid workers
Background
Individuals who work in disasters abroad can experience trauma that can cause discomfort and trigger psychological illnesses such as PTSD. , depression and anxiety disorder [1,2,3,4,5,6]. Disaster relief workers include professionals such as firefighters, police, search and rescue teams and health workers, as well as non-formal volunteers. Previous studies have indicated that the rate of PTSD among these figures ranges from 8 to 25% [7,8,9]. Although these figures reinforce the risks associated with procrastination, they also show that only a minority of obese workers develop psychological distress and illness [10]. This raises the question of whether it is possible to predict who is most likely to be in distress or mentally disturbed after the trauma that may arise in pre deployment checklist.
Attempts are often made to identify accident workers who may be at risk for post-traumatic stress disorder using psychological pre-employment or pre-employment screening methods. Those who are vulnerable can be prevented from taking on the role of disaster workers, being better looked after during work or limited to the responsibilities they can perform. . Preclinical psychological screening, however, has a false history. During World War II, the United States identified some 2 million people at risk of collapse due to the pressure of battle, most of whom later became agile and successful soldiers. Recent attempts to screen armed personnel have shown a similar lack of accuracy [12]; study [13] to scrape armed workers for pre-existing mental health problems, which are often reported risk factors [14], only to find that it did not have a low positive predictive value to improve post-use mental disorders.
The similar inefficiency of screening tools has led researchers to expand their research on risk and reinforcement factors in numbers working in trauma-based environments. A new screening in the emergency services [15] identified several predictors of mental health including neuroticism, pre-existing psychopathology, history of trauma, maladaptive coping styles and the introduction of catastrophic thinking and ruminating, and social factors such as substance-related disorders.
However, the study concluded that there were no reliable ways to improve staff selection through screening and the authors stated that further research was needed on the subject. However, the review [15] was limited to individuals working in general emergency services rather than disaster response, the majority of which identified studies included trainees and firefighters.
The main purpose of our review is to evaluate evidence for psychological screening before employment and disaster relief efforts. We aimed to identify specific functions, which are found in the preconception, which predict an individual’s weak well-being after their work.
Way
A complete list of research terms has been compiled that covers disaster-related careers, screening techniques, psychological disorders and study design. The materials used are PsycINFO, MEDLINE, EMBASE and GlobalHealth. We included studies that used interdisciplinary or longitudinal study design; they have been published in English in peer-reviewed academic journals; a statement about the relationship between characteristics before and after employment and mental disorder or distress after work; consider all professional bodies that respond to a particular individual emergency; and used at least one diagnostic measure of distress or disturbance. We extracted data about the author; year of publication; accident description; study country; study design; population samples; the results of the disorder and the measures used; and results.
Data processing, quality assessment and data synthesis
EO was trained in the use of SKB [18] in the data collection form. Pilot EO using the only paper form, which was then revised by SKB; some areas for improvement were considered. The coding instructions are clearly defined on the form file.Using the data collection form, all documents were retrieved using EO (Additional document 4. Table of main results). Data in a small number of these articles were processed independently by SKB. Comparing the data obtained from the two scientists, there was a general consensus. All disputes were resolved through a discussion between the research team.
We compiled and recorded the following variables from each study including: author, year of publication; accident description; country of study; study design; estimated time from use / follow-up; population sample (‘n’ and demographic data including gender distribution, age range, average age, occupation); the result (s) of the disturbance and the measures used; Predictive factors include key outcomes.
We evaluate the quality of each study in three areas: inspection design; data collection and methodology; and performance. Our quality assessment tool (Supplementary Document 2) was designed for prior review [18] and obtained information from existing quality assessment tools [19, 20]. Each study received an overall score as a percentage, based on the number of “yes” responses, with a higher score indicating better quality.
For data synthesis, thematic analysis was used to enter predictive factors. Subjects that we considered to be “material” would need to be identified by at least two studies to take into account the results within the text; Predictive variables are analyzed using only one study reported in the tables.
Results
The review included 62 high-quality studies.Forty-one potential predictors were identified. Of these, only volunteer status and a history of mental illness and life stressors emerged as reliable predictors of distress or disorder.
Conclusion
The findings suggest that it is tempting to examine pre-employment and pre-employment stability indicators, but the evidence base for doing so is weak. At best, this type of detection can only weakly suggest vulnerability, and at worst, it can result in discrimination. Until better evidence of its usefulness is available, employers must be careful about its use.
