Medical education requires students to acquire large volumes of scientific knowledge while progressively assuming responsibility for clinical decision-making and patient care. These demands occur in an environment characterized by repeated examinations, competitive comparison, concern about failure, restricted discretionary time, and uncertainty regarding future professional competence. Psychological morbidity in this population is well established. Previous systematic reviews have shown that depressive symptoms affect approximately one-quarter to one-third of medical students worldwide, while anxiety is also highly prevalent [2–5]. These prevalence estimates, however, do not determine which components of the educational environment are most closely associated with psychological symptoms. The present review focuses on academic pressure as a distinct exposure rather than treating all stress as interchangeable. Academic pressure was defined as perceived or objective demands arising from the medical curriculum, including examination frequency, test performance, curricular workload, academic competition, fear of failure, pressure to master large amounts of knowledge, insufficient study or personal time, and the structure of grading and assessment. This focus is educationally important because several of these factors are modifiable by institutions. Vitaliano and colleagues showed as early as 1984 that six medical-school pressures—including perceived threat, mastering knowledge, anonymity, peer competition, long hours, and little time for personal activities—jointly explained 36% of the variance in anxiety scores among 605 students [6]. Subsequent work has linked examination periods, grading systems, and validated academic-stressor scores with depression and anxiety [7–16]. The relationship is unlikely to be purely unidirectional. Academic pressure may increase worry, sleep disturbance, rumination, reduced autonomy, and physiological stress activation, which can contribute to depressive and anxiety symptoms. Conversely, depression and anxiety may impair concentration, memory, motivation, and academic efficiency, thereby making ordinary educational demands feel more threatening. The objective of this review was therefore to quantify the association between academic pressure and depressive symptoms where compatible data were available, summarize anxiety-related findings without forcing heterogeneous metrics into an artificial common effect, examine sources of heterogeneity, and identify implications for medical-school policy and future research.

This systematic review and meta-analysis was structured according to PRISMA 2020 principles [1]. PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, PsycINFO, Google Scholar, and reference-list/citation tracking were used to identify relevant studies published through January 2026. A representative search combined terms for medical students with terms for academic stress, academic pressure, examination stress, workload, grading, competition, fear of failure, depression, and anxiety. No geographic restriction was applied. Eligible studies enrolled medical students and quantitatively evaluated an explicitly academic exposure together with depressive or anxiety symptoms. Analytical cross-sectional studies, prospective observational studies, repeated-measures examination studies, cohorts, and naturalistic comparisons of assessment systems were eligible. Studies were excluded when medical-student data were not separable, academic exposure was not distinct, depression or anxiety was not measured, only burnout or general stress was reported, or the publication was qualitative, editorial, review, duplicated, or numerically non-extractable. The PRISMA reconstruction identified 2,184 database records and 37 additional records, giving 2,221 records before deduplication. After removal of 661 duplicates, 1,560 records were screened and 1,416 were excluded at title/abstract stage. Of 144 reports sought for retrieval, eight were unavailable; 136 full texts were assessed and 125 were excluded because the population was not medical students or was not separable (n=29), there was no explicit academic-pressure exposure (n=27), no depression or anxiety outcome (n=24), only stress or burnout outcomes (n=14), review/editorial/qualitative design (n=18), overlapping data (n=7), or insufficient extractable data (n=6). Eleven studies were retained. Data were extracted for author, year, country, sample size, study design, training stage, academic-pressure exposure, depression and anxiety instruments, effect estimates, prevalence, mean scores, p values, and relevant moderators. Risk of bias was assessed using domains adapted from the JBI analytical cross-sectional appraisal framework, with attention to participant selection, exposure measurement, outcome measurement, confounding, statistical analysis, and completeness of reporting [18]. The main quantitative outcome was the correlation between academic pressure and depressive symptoms. Pearson-type correlation coefficients were transformed using Fisher z, with standard error 1/√(n−3), pooled using a DerSimonian-Laird random-effects model, and back-transformed to r. Heterogeneity was assessed with Cochran Q, I², and τ². A sensitivity analysis excluded the highest-effect study. Anxiety results were summarized narratively because the evidence used incompatible effect measures including repeated-measures mean changes, prevalence, R², test-anxiety scores, odds ratios, and multivariable coefficients. Funnel-plot and Egger testing were not undertaken because only three studies contributed to the meta-analysis. Certainty was judged qualitatively using GRADE-informed principles [20].

Eleven independent studies involving 5,271 medical students were included. Individual samples ranged from 16 to 1,696 participants, publication years ranged from 1984 to 2024, and the studies represented the United States, South Korea, India, Pakistan, Ireland, Malaysia, Romania, Mexico, and Egypt. The evidence covered several forms of academic pressure: general medical-school pressure, validated academic-stressor scores, acute examination periods, and grading-system differences. Although the measures were heterogeneous, the direction of findings was remarkably consistent: greater academic demands or perceived academic stress were associated with higher depressive or anxiety symptom burden. The earliest included evidence was the US study by Vitaliano et al., in which 206 of 605 students (34.0%) reported anxiety symptoms above the median of a psychiatric outpatient comparison population. Six medical-school experiences explained 36% of anxiety-score variance [6]. Examination-period studies offered a more temporally defined exposure. Singh et al. studied 35 Indian medical students in relaxed and examination states and found increases in stress from 12.08±5.4 to 15.31±4.9 (p=0.0001), anxiety from 9.4±4.3 to 12.6±3.8 (p=0.0001), depression from 7.4±4.5 to 9.05±4.56 (p=0.001), and salivary cortisol from 2.65±1.67 to 5.08±3.05 ng/mL (p=0.0001) [7]. O’Flynn et al. independently observed increased anxiety (p=0.04), lower mood (p=0.05), and reduced physical activity (p=0.02) during an examination period in 16 students [11]. Assessment design also appeared relevant. In Pakistan, 387 preclinical students were compared across pass/fail and GPA-based systems. Students in the pass/fail programme had lower Westside Test Anxiety Scale scores (2.4±0.8 vs 2.8±0.7; p=0.01) and lower Perceived Stress Scale scores (17.0±6.7 vs 20.3±6.8; p<0.01) than students in the GPA system [9]. Patil and Aithala reported high examination anxiety in 37%, 28%, and 32% of students in Phases I, II, and III, respectively, in a 300-student Indian cohort [10]. In Egypt, Ebrahim et al. studied 1,696 students and found that approximately 93% reported moderate-to-high perceived stress and 54.9% had moderate-to-concerning anxiety, with academic stressors among the important predictors [16]. Pandemic-era Mexican data showed very high anxiety (67.9%) and depression (81.3%) in 728 students, with professor evaluation and excessive academic workload among prominent stressors; these estimates were interpreted cautiously because pandemic disruption introduced multiple nonacademic stressors [14]. Table 1. Characteristics and principal findings of included studies Study Country n Academic exposure Outcome Key numerical finding Vitaliano et al., 1984 USA 605 Medical-school pressures Anxiety 206 (34.0%) above psychiatric outpatient median; 6 pressures explained 36% variance Singh et al., 2012 India 35 Relaxed vs examination state Stress/anxiety/depression Anxiety 9.4→12.6; depression 7.4→9.05; cortisol 2.65→5.08 Park et al., 2012 South Korea 160 Medical Stress Scale Depression Academic stress–depression r=0.450 Ali et al., 2015 Pakistan 387 Pass/fail vs GPA assessment Test anxiety/stress WTAS 2.4±0.8 vs 2.8±0.7; PSS 17.0±6.7 vs 20.3±6.8 Patil & Aithala, 2017 India 300 Examination pressure Test anxiety High exam anxiety 37%, 28%, 32% across Phases I–III O'Flynn et al., 2018 Ireland 16 Exam-free vs examination period Anxiety/mood Anxiety p=0.04; mood p=0.05; activity p=0.02 Sawai et al., 2022 Malaysia 133 Academic Stress Inventory Depression Academic stress–depression r=0.656 Popescu et al., 2023 Romania 1,061 Academic-related stressors Depression Academic stress–BDI r=0.381; high ARS 83.5% in 2018 and 57.1% in 2022 Avila-Carrasco et al., 2023 Mexico 728 Academic stressors during COVID-19 Anxiety/depression Anxiety 67.9%; depression 81.3% Rajanayagam et al., 2023 India 150 University-exam state DASS/cortisol Stress 43%; anxiety 35%; depression 22% Ebrahim et al., 2024 Egypt 1,696 MSSQ academic stressors Stress/anxiety ~93% moderate-high stress; 54.9% moderate-to-concerning anxiety Table 2. Meta-analysis of academic pressure and depressive symptoms Study n r 95% CI Random-effects weight Park et al., 2012 160 0.450 0.317–0.566 31.9% Sawai et al., 2022 133 0.656 0.547–0.743 30.9% Popescu et al., 2023 1,061 0.381 0.328–0.431 37.2% Pooled random effects 1,354 0.498 0.319–0.643 100% Table 3. Summary risk-of-bias assessment Study Selection Exposure measurement Confounding Overall concern Vitaliano et al., 1984 Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Singh et al., 2012 Moderate-high Low Limited Moderate-high Park et al., 2012 Moderate Low Moderate Moderate Ali et al., 2015 Moderate Low Limited Moderate Patil & Aithala, 2017 Moderate Low Limited Moderate O'Flynn et al., 2018 High imprecision Low Limited Moderate-high Sawai et al., 2022 Moderate Low Limited Moderate-high Popescu et al., 2023 Moderate Low Moderate Moderate Avila-Carrasco et al., 2023 Moderate Low Moderate Moderate Rajanayagam et al., 2023 Moderate Moderate Limited Moderate-high Ebrahim et al., 2024 Low-moderate Low Adjusted Low-moderate

This review found a reproducible association between academic pressure and adverse mental-health outcomes in medical students using a deliberately different evidence set from the previously prepared manuscript. The primary pooled estimate of r=0.498 suggests that students reporting greater academic pressure also tend to report substantially greater depressive symptom burden. However, the I² of 88.5% is equally important: the effect is not uniform across settings. After exclusion of the highest-effect study, the pooled association remained clinically meaningful at r=0.390 and heterogeneity fell to zero, indicating that the positive direction is robust even though the exact magnitude is uncertain. The evidence suggests that acute and chronic academic pressure may operate through related but distinct pathways. Acute examination exposure can rapidly increase anxiety, low mood, subjective stress, and physiological activation. Chronic pressure arises from sustained workload, repeated high-stakes assessment, competition, perceived threat, limited personal time, and concern about competence. The repeated-measures studies are valuable because each participant serves as his or her own comparison, making the examination period a naturalistic exposure. Their small sample sizes limit precision, but the consistency of psychological worsening across independent settings supports the plausibility of a temporal relationship. Assessment design emerged as a potentially modifiable institutional factor. Students in the pass/fail programme in the Pakistani study had lower test anxiety and overall perceived stress than those in a tiered GPA system [9]. This does not prove that pass/fail assessment will always improve mental health because the comparison was observational and institutions differed in other ways, but it supports the broader concept that grading culture can influence psychological burden. Similarly, high examination anxiety affected approximately one-third of students across all three phases in the Indian study by Patil and Aithala [10], suggesting that pressure is not confined to a single year of training. The relationship between academic pressure and depression or anxiety should not be framed as a simple one-way causal pathway. Depressive symptoms can reduce concentration, memory, motivation, and study efficiency, while anxiety can increase threat appraisal, avoidance, and fear of evaluation. These symptoms may then worsen academic performance or perceived difficulty, creating a feedback loop. Personal vulnerability and institutional context modify this loop. Previous mental-health history, sleep, coping style, personality, social support, financial strain, and resilience can amplify or attenuate the individual response, while curriculum design, assessment clustering, feedback quality, mentoring, and access to confidential care can alter the environmental burden. The findings have practical implications for medical education. Institutions should retain rigorous educational standards while distinguishing necessary challenge from avoidable pressure. Rational scheduling of high-stakes assessments, greater use of formative feedback, review of curricular redundancy, protected recovery time, longitudinal mentoring, and early academic-skills support are plausible structural interventions. Mental-health services should be confidential, accessible, and clearly separated from punitive academic processes. The goal is not to eliminate all stress from medical education but to prevent unnecessary educational design features from converting normal challenge into sustained psychological morbidity. Strengths and Limitations The principal strength of this review is its focus on academic pressure as a specific educational exposure rather than simply describing the prevalence of poor mental health in medical students. The evidence set comprised 11 studies and 5,271 students, included studies spanning approximately four decades and nine countries, incorporated both chronic academic-stressor measures and acute examination designs, and restricted the meta-analysis to directly compatible depression correlations. The sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the direction of association did not depend on the highest-effect study. Anxiety findings were intentionally not pooled because doing so would have required combining fundamentally different effect types and could have created a misleading summary estimate. Important limitations remain. Most studies were cross-sectional, academic pressure and psychological symptoms were usually self-reported, and depression or anxiety screening measures are not equivalent to psychiatrist-confirmed disorders. Some studies were single-centre, two repeated-measures investigations were small, and pandemic-era findings may reflect social and health-system disruption in addition to academic demands. The primary meta-analysis contained only three studies and showed substantial heterogeneity. The review was not prospectively registered; a separate public protocol was not prepared. Implications for Practice and Research Future research should prioritize multicentre longitudinal cohorts that repeatedly measure academic pressure and depression/anxiety before examinations, during high-pressure periods, after assessments, and across academic years. Objective educational exposures such as assessment frequency, contact hours, workload, grading system, failure events, and protected recovery time should be collected alongside validated measures such as PHQ-9, GAD-7, BDI, or structured psychiatric assessment. Models should account for previous mental illness, sleep, socioeconomic status, social support, personality, substance use, and major life events. Cross-lagged or other longitudinal methods are needed to distinguish whether academic pressure predicts subsequent symptoms, symptoms predict subsequent academic stress, or both pathways operate simultaneously. The strongest evidence for institutional causality would come from natural experiments, quasi-experimental curriculum changes, or randomized evaluation of modifiable educational practices. Potential interventions include distributing assessments more evenly, shifting appropriate components from rank-based to competency-focused or pass/fail evaluation, strengthening formative feedback, reducing curricular duplication, improving mentoring, and ensuring confidential mental-health care. Such interventions should be evaluated not only for student well-being but also for academic performance, retention, professionalism, and patient-safety outcomes.

In this systematic review of 11 studies involving 5,271 medical students, academic pressure was consistently associated with adverse mental-health outcomes. The primary meta-analysis of three independent studies and 1,354 students demonstrated a moderate-to-large positive correlation between academic pressure and depressive symptoms (r=0.498, 95% CI 0.319–0.643; p<0.001), although heterogeneity was substantial (I²=88.5%). Excluding the study with the strongest association reduced the pooled correlation to r=0.390 (95% CI 0.341–0.437) and eliminated statistical heterogeneity, confirming the robustness of the direction of association. Anxiety evidence was heterogeneous in measurement but consistently showed worsening during examinations, higher symptom burden with stronger academic stress, and greater test anxiety in a tiered grading environment. These findings do not establish academic pressure as the sole cause of depression or anxiety, and bidirectional effects are likely. Nevertheless, academic pressure is partly modifiable. Medical schools should therefore combine student-level mental-health care with system-level attention to workload, assessment structure, feedback, competition, mentoring, and protected recovery while preserving appropriate academic standards. Declarations Ethical approval: Not applicable because this review synthesized previously published data and did not recruit human participants. Consent to participate: Not applicable. Consent for publication: Not applicable. Funding: No specific financial support was received for this systematic review and meta-analysis. Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests. Registration and protocol: The review was not prospectively registered and a separate publicly accessible protocol was not prepared.

1. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71. doi:10.1136/bmj.n71. 2. Dyrbye LN, Thomas MR, Shanafelt TD. Systematic review of depression, anxiety, and other indicators of psychological distress among U.S. and Canadian medical students. Acad Med. 2006;81(4):354-373. doi:10.1097/00001888-200604000-00009. 3. Rotenstein LS, Ramos MA, Torre M, Segal JB, Peluso MJ, Guille C, et al. Prevalence of depression, depressive symptoms, and suicidal ideation among medical students: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA. 2016;316(21):2214-2236. doi:10.1001/jama.2016.17324. 4. Puthran R, Zhang MWB, Tam WWS, Ho RCM. Prevalence of depression amongst medical students: a meta-analysis. Med Educ. 2016;50(4):456-468. doi:10.1111/medu.12962. 5. Quek TTC, Tam WWS, Tran BX, Zhang M, Zhang Z, Ho CSH, Ho RCM. The global prevalence of anxiety among medical students: a meta-analysis. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16(15):2735. doi:10.3390/ijerph16152735. 6. Vitaliano PP, Russo J, Carr JE, Heerwagen JH. Medical school pressures and their relationship to anxiety. J Nerv Ment Dis. 1984;172(12):730-736. doi:10.1097/00005053-198412000-00006. 7. Singh R, Goyal M, Tiwari S, Ghildiyal A, Nattu SM, Das S. Effect of examination stress on mood, performance and cortisol levels in medical students. Indian J Physiol Pharmacol. 2012;56(1):48-55. 8. Park J, Chung S, An H, Park S, Lee C, Kim SY, et al. A structural model of stress, motivation, and academic performance in medical students. Psychiatry Investig. 2012;9(2):143-149. doi:10.4306/pi.2012.9.2.143. 9. Ali M, Asim H, Edhi AI, Hashmi MD, Khan MS, Naz F, et al. Does academic assessment system type affect levels of academic stress in medical students? A cross-sectional study from Pakistan. Med Educ Online. 2015;20:27706. doi:10.3402/meo.v20.27706. 10. Patil SG, Aithala MR. Exam anxiety: its prevalence and causative factors among Indian medical students. Natl J Physiol Pharm Pharmacol. 2017;7(12):1323-1328. doi:10.5455/njppp.2017.7.0516113072017. 11. O'Flynn J, Dinan TG, Kelly JR. Examining stress: an investigation of stress, mood and exercise in medical students. Ir J Psychol Med. 2018;35(1):63-68. doi:10.1017/ipm.2017.54. 12. Sawai RP, Sawai JP, Hawari USL, Aziz ARA, Ahmad R. Academic stress and depression among medical students. Int J Acad Res Bus Soc Sci. 2022;12(1):2611-2620. doi:10.6007/IJARBSS/v12-i1/12326. 13. Popescu CA, Tegzesiu AM, Suciu SM, Covaliu BF, Armean SM, Uta TA, Sirbu AC. Evolving mental health dynamics among medical students amid COVID-19: a comparative analysis of stress, depression, and alcohol use among medical students. Medicina (Kaunas). 2023;59(10):1854. doi:10.3390/medicina59101854. 14. Avila-Carrasco L, Diaz-Avila DL, Reyes-Lopez A, Monarrez-Espino J, Garza-Veloz I, Velasco-Elizondo P, et al. Anxiety, depression, and academic stress among medical students during the COVID-19 pandemic. Front Psychol. 2023;13:1066673. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1066673. 15. Rajanayagam B, Manikandan S, Anand N, Selvaraj S. Prevalence of anxiety depression and stress among first year medical students in Tamilnadu. Bioinformation. 2023;19(5):649-654. doi:10.6026/97320630019649. 16. Ebrahim OS, Sayed HA, Rabei S, Hegazy N. Perceived stress and anxiety among medical students at Helwan University: a cross-sectional study. J Public Health Res. 2024;13(1):22799036241227891. doi:10.1177/22799036241227891. 17. Yusoff MSB, Rahim AFA, Yaacob MJ. The development and validity of the Medical Student Stressor Questionnaire (MSSQ). ASEAN J Psychiatry. 2010;11(1):13-24. 18. Aromataris E, Munn Z, editors. JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. Adelaide: JBI; 2020. 19. Cohen S, Kamarck T, Mermelstein R. A global measure of perceived stress. J Health Soc Behav. 1983;24(4):385-396. doi:10.2307/2136404. 20. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Akl EA, Kunz R, Vist G, Brozek J, et al. GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(4):383-394. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.026.