The usefulness of psychological distress screening for recruitment and use by aid workers
Individuals who work in disasters abroad can experience trauma that can cause discomfort and trigger psychological distress 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. Also, the 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 .
This raises the question of whether it is possible to predict, who is most likely to be in distress or mentally disturbed. Therefore, after the trauma that may arise in the pre-deployment checklist.
People make Attempts to identify accident workers who may be at risk for post-traumatic stress disorder Or psychological distress. Therefore, using psychological pre-employment or pre-employment screening methods.
Vulnerable can prevent themselves from taking on the role of disaster workers. Therefore, being better looks after work. Or have to limit 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. However, most of them later became agile and successful soldiers.
Purpose and effect of attempts:
Recent attempts to screen armed personnel have shown a similar lack of accuracy ; study  to scrape armed workers for pre-existing mental health problems, which are often reported risk factors , only to find that it did not have a low positive predictive value to improve post-use mental disorders.
Read More Blog:- 5 Ways to Manage Your Development Team as They Work Remotely
However, the study concludes that there were no reliable ways to improve staff selection through screening and the authors state that further research was in need on the subject.
However, the review  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 aim to identify specific functions, which we can find in the preconception, and they predict an individual’s weak well-being after their work.
They compile a complete list of research terms that covers disasters that relate to 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 publish it in English in peer-review 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  in the data collection form. Pilot EO using the only paper form, which SKB does revise, and consider some areas for improvement.
The coding instructions clearly define the form file. Therefore, Using the data collection form, and they retrieve all the documents using EO (Additional document 4. Table of main results).
Data in a small number of these articles process independently by SKB. Therefore, Comparing the data obtained from the two scientists, there was a consensus. Thus, All the 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  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, they use thematic analysis to enter predictive factors. They consider the subjects to be “material” would need to identify by at least two studies to take into account the results within the text; they can analyze the predictive variable using only one study report in the tables.
The review included 62 high-quality studies. Moreover, Forty-one potential predictors were identified. However, only volunteer status and a history of mental illness and life stressors emerged as reliable predictors of distress or disorder.
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.