Comprehensive psychophysiological assessment as a tool for enhancing public health system readiness in emergencies

Abstract

The increasing frequency of chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear emergencies necessitates a high level of preparedness among rapid response teams. One of the key conditions for operational effectiveness is psychophysiological assessment, which is crucial for determining the ability of specialists to operate under conditions of time and information deficit, high stress, and risk.

Aim. To assess the psychophysiological status of rapid response personnel (core and reserve groups) to establish quantitative and qualitative criteria for professional selection and improve operational effectiveness.

Materials and methods. A total of 381 personnel (284 women, 97 men), with an age range of 25–72 years, were enrolled in the study. The participants were employees of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Public Health Center. The study was conducted in 2023–2024 using the PFO-1 (Psycholot-1) computerized psychophysiological assessment system. A comprehensive psychophysiological testing battery consisting of eight assessments was employed. The comparison methods included: Simple Visuomotor Reaction (Square), Complex Visuomotor Reaction (Triangle–Circle), Pendulum, Clocks, Table, Attention Switching, Extreme Conditions, Prolonged-Stimulus Complex Visuomotor Reaction, and Individual Strategy Assessment. Statistical analysis was performed using the D’Agostino-Pearson test, Kruskal-Wallis test, Dunn’s post hoc test, and Mann-Whitney U test in IBM SPSS Statistics (version 22) and Microsoft Excel 2016.

Results. Eight key psychophysiological criteria were identified as determinants of specialists’ effectiveness in high-risk conditions: balance of nervous processes, attention concentration, attention switching, spatial orientation, psychodynamics, resistance to monotony, stress tolerance, and risk-taking behavior. The most effective were groups 3 and 4, demonstrating high performance in attention concentration, psychodynamics, and cognitive flexibility. The proposed effectiveness scale enabled the ranking of participants and defined quantitative threshold values that may serve as normative indicators for professional selection.

Conclusions. Comprehensive psychophysiological assessment is an essential prerequisite for the effective functioning of rapid response teams in emergencies. The developed evaluation system, based on eight criteria with defined thresholds, ensures objectivity and standardization of personnel selection. The highest level of readiness was demonstrated by specialists with a predominance of excitatory nervous processes, high attention concentration, minimal errors, and sufficient stress tolerance. The findings may serve as a basis for updating the regulatory framework for professional selection of public health personnel and for strengthening the effectiveness of the emergency response system.