Introduction
Prolonged interruptions in medical education pose a critical yet understudied threat to medical students’ psychological well-being and professional development. Although global disruptions—from the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic to geopolitical conflicts—have produced consistent patterns of distress, systematic evidence remains fragmented. This gap is particularly concerning for South Korea, which is currently experiencing an unprecedented 17-month curriculum suspension due to a physician–government dispute affecting over 95% of medical students, according to Shin and Shin [1]. International studies have reported severe consequences, including a 28% anxiety rate and 48% depression rate among students who lost clinical experience according to Lin et al. [2]. Choi et al. [3] found that 77% of electives and 43% of assistantships were canceled, reducing students’ sense of preparedness, while Wearn et al. [4] reported that losing authentic bedside learning weakened professional identity formation. Despite these findings, no systematic review has synthesized psychological impacts across diverse disruption contexts to inform crisis management for Korea’s unique situation.
The application of international evidence to the Korean context is theoretically grounded in several key principles. As Cruess et al. [5] note, medical education follows universally recognized competency-based progression models, making Korean medical students susceptible to the same disruption mechanisms identified internationally. The Korean medical education system shares core structural features with global models, including sequential curriculum progression, high-stakes assessments, intensive clinical training, and strong expectations for professional identity formation.
Medical students’ learning has been disrupted by varied events, including the COVID-19 pandemic, natural disasters, and armed conflicts. However, previous studies have used differing terminologies and conceptual frameworks within their respective contexts, limiting comprehensive understanding of how academic disruption affects psychological well-being. Disaster-related studies, for example, examined changes in academic performance following physical disruptions to learning environments according to Wilkinson et al. [6], whereas COVID-19 research has focused on the effects of rapid transitions to remote learning according to Motte-Signoret et al. [7] and Shahrvini et al. [8]. Although these studies provide valuable insights within their specific contexts, the diversity of research designs and measurement tools has constrained the development of consistent evidence on psychological impacts. Accordingly, this study aimed to systematically review research across diverse forms of academic disruption and apply a standardized psychological health framework to identify common patterns in medical students’ experiences.
For this review, academic disruption is operationally defined as any unplanned event that prevents undergraduate medical students from progressing through their intended curriculum according to the original timeline and delivery format, regardless of cause. This definition is supported by literature documenting the detrimental effects of sudden virtualization and loss of authentic clinical experience on competence development [7,8]. As Cheong [9] notes, medical students already demonstrate substantial baseline academic stress, making them particularly vulnerable to emotional distress, motivational decline, and instability in professional identity during disruptions.
To systematically categorize psychological outcomes, this review adopts the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) as the primary theoretical framework. PROMIS was selected due to its international standardization across 24 countries, as described by Cella et al. [10], its capacity for multidimensional assessment according to Hays et al. [11], its evidence-based domain structure noted by Reeve et al. [12], and its flexibility for adaptation as shown by DeWalt et al. [13]. For medical education contexts, we implemented a modified PROMIS framework comprising five core domains: (1) affect, including anxiety, depression, and anger; (2) meaning and purpose; (3) psychosocial illness impact (negative); (4) psychosocial illness impact (positive); and (5) helpful outcomes, reflecting general life satisfaction and positive affect. This consolidation reorganized PROMIS’s broader structure to better align with psychological patterns observed in academic disruption contexts. The review therefore serves two purposes: synthesizing international evidence on academic disruption effects and establishing theoretical foundations for addressing Korea’s unprecedented medical education crisis.
This systematic review addresses the following primary research question: “What is the prevalence and severity of psychological impacts across the five modified PROMIS domains among medical students experiencing academic disruption, and how does relative vulnerability differ between domains?”
Methods
1. Study design and review questions
We conducted a systematic review to summarize evidence on the psychological effects of academic disruption—including rapid transitions to remote instruction, reduced clinical practice, pandemics, natural disasters, and war—among medical students. The review question was structured using the Population-Exposure-Outcome format, following the protocol of Butler et al. [14]. The population was medical students; the exposure was academic disruptions, including study interruption, reductions in clinical training, or transitions to remote learning due to natural disasters, war, or epidemics; and the outcomes were psychological impacts resulting from academic disruption. The review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines by Moher et al. [15], and the study selection process is shown in Figure 1.
2. Information sources and search strategy
We conducted this systematic review in accordance with PRISMA 2020 guidelines by Moher et al. [15] to summarize evidence on psychological effects of academic disruption among medical students. The review question was structured using the Population-Exposure-Outcome format: the population was medical students; the exposure was academic disruptions, including study interruption, reduced clinical training, or transition to remote learning caused by natural disasters, war, or epidemics; and the outcomes were psychological impacts.
We systematically searched PubMed (MEDLINE), CINAHL via EBSCOhost, the National Assembly Library of Korea, RISS (KERIS), and KoreaMed for studies published from January 2013 through July 2025. The primary search terms were “(medical students or medicine students or students in medicine) AND ((academic) or (study) or (major)) AND ((disruption) or (interruption) or (break) or (rest)) AND (psychological effects or psychological impact or emotional impact or mental health).” Studies were included if they assessed psychological outcomes in medical students affected by academic disruption, and excluded if they did not report psychological outcomes or focused solely on satisfaction with online learning without an explicit connection to academic disruption. The number of records identified per database was: PubMed (n=24), CINAHL (n=9), and KoreaMed, RISS, and National Assembly Library (n=0).
3. Study selection and data extraction
A total of 1,884 records were identified. After removing duplicates and screening titles and abstracts, 33 studies were included for final synthesis. Two independent reviewers screened all studies and resolved disagreements through consensus. Data extraction included publication details, sample characteristics, disruption type and duration, psychological outcomes, and measurement tools. Psychological outcomes were categorized using the PROMIS Domain Framework adapted for academic disruption contexts. The complete study selection workflow is outlined in Figure 1, and criteria for including or excluding studies are summarized in Table 1.
4. Quality assessment and evidence classification
Two reviewers independently assessed methodological quality using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) version 2018 by Hong et al. [16], which evaluates qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods studies using two screening questions and five design-specific quality criteria. Disagreements were settled through discussion and consensus. Studies meeting four to five criteria were classified as high quality, those meeting two to three as moderate quality, and those meeting zero to one as low quality. No studies were excluded on the basis of quality; instead, findings were tagged as empirically supported (assessed with validated tools), implied (qualitative statements), or insufficient (excluded from synthesis).
5. Outcome definitions and domain classification
Psychological outcomes were categorized according to a modified PROMIS Domain Framework, detailed in Table 2. PROMIS was selected for three reasons: (1) it allows internationally standardized assessment across diverse populations; (2) it provides a comprehensive multidimensional evaluation of physical, mental, and social health; and (3) its flexibility supports integration of quantitative and qualitative evidence [10-13]. For this medical education context, the framework was adapted to five core domains: (1) affect (anxiety, depression, anger); (2) meaning and purpose; (3) psychosocial illness impact (negative); (4) psychosocial illness impact (positive); and (5) helpful outcomes (general life satisfaction and positive affect). The modification involved three principal changes to the original PROMIS structure: first, anxiety, depression, and anger—typically separate PROMIS domains—were consolidated under affect to reflect their shared emotional-distress nature in disruption settings; second, positive affect and general life satisfaction were combined under helpful outcomes to capture resilience; and third, psychosocial illness impact was subdivided into “negative” and “positive” to distinguish distress from post-traumatic growth, a distinction particularly relevant in academic disruption research. To prevent double-counting, outcomes coded as anxiety, depression, anger, or meaning and purpose were not redundantly coded under psychosocial illness impact.
6. Data synthesis
Meta-analysis was not feasible because of substantial heterogeneity across multiple dimensions: study designs ranged from quantitative to qualitative and mixed-methods approaches; populations spanned 24 countries with varying medical education systems; disruption exposures differed in type, duration, and severity; and outcome assessments used more than 15 validated instruments with differing thresholds. Statistical pooling would therefore have produced misleading estimates that obscured meaningful contextual variation. Consequently, we conducted a structured narrative synthesis, organizing findings using the modified PROMIS framework as the primary classification structure.
For mixed-methods integration, we applied a convergent synthesis approach. Within each domain, quantitative findings from studies using comparable validated instruments were first tabulated to determine prevalence ranges. Qualitative themes were then incorporated to identify underlying mechanisms. Quantitative and qualitative results were subsequently triangulated to generate domain-specific insights. Wide prevalence ranges for anxiety and depression were explored through descriptive subgroup analyses examining sources of variation, including disruption severity, student characteristics, measurement timing, and cultural context. The synthesis followed Enhancing Transparency in Reporting the Synthesis of Qualitative Research guidelines for qualitative integration and Synthesis Without Meta-analysis guidelines for quantitative synthesis without meta-analysis.
Results
The key characteristics of the 33 included studies are summarized in Table 3 [3,4,6,17-46]. Studies were conducted across 24 countries, with most (85%) examining academic disruptions during the COVID-19 pandemic, while others focused on natural disasters (n=3), war or conflict (n=2), and compound crises (n=2). Table 3 presents detailed information on each study, including country, research design, sample characteristics (size, gender, academic year), type of disruption, and psychological outcomes measured across PROMIS domains. Most studies used cross-sectional survey designs (n=24; 72.7%), followed by qualitative studies (n=7; 21.2%) and mixed-methods approaches (n=2; 6.1%). Sample sizes ranged from 13 to 3,348 participants (median=297). Academic levels represented included preclinical years 1–3 and clinical years 4–6, with some studies also including preparatory or internship cohorts. As shown in Table 3, evidence distribution varied across PROMIS domains: anxiety and depression had the strongest empirical support (22 and 21 studies, respectively), whereas anger was evaluated in relatively few studies (n=5).
1. Study quality assessment and heterogeneity consistency assessment
The quality assessment conducted using MMAT version 2018 is summarized in Supplement 1. MMAT ratings indicated that 22 studies (66.7%) were high quality and 11 studies (33.3%) were moderate quality. The primary reasons for moderate ratings in quantitative descriptive studies were concerns regarding sample representativeness and non-response bias. Many studies relied on convenience or snowball sampling through social media, resulting in selection biases such as gender imbalance, overrepresentation of certain majors, or samples drawn from single institutions. Additionally, several studies had a high risk of non-response bias due to low participation rates or unclear sampling frames, which prevented calculation of response rates. For the mixed-methods study rated as moderate, limitations included insufficient integration of qualitative and quantitative components and inadequate statistical power in the quantitative analyses.
Substantial heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis due to variation in study designs, populations across 24 countries, disruption types (COVID-19 85%, disasters/war 15%), and outcome instruments (more than 15 validated tools with differing cutoffs). Despite this heterogeneity, consistent patterns emerged within PROMIS domains. Anxiety showed uniform directional effects across all 22 studies, with recurrent subgroup patterns indicating that early-year students and women consistently faced higher risk (identified in 8/8 and 12/12 studies, respectively). Depression prevalence also increased consistently, with variation that aligned with disruption severity (pandemic-only: 10%–35%; compound crises: 40%–87%). Wide prevalence ranges were explored through descriptive subgroup analyses, examining variation sources such as disruption severity, student characteristics, timing of measurement, and cultural context.
2. Domain 1: Affect
1) Anxiety
Robust empirically supported evidence from 22 studies using validated instruments (Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 [GAD-7], Depression Anxiety Stress Scales-21 [DASS-21], Beck Anxiety Inventory, Kessler Psychological Distress Scale-10) demonstrated that academic disruption consistently triggered moderate-to-severe anxiety in 23%–84% of medical students. Sixteen large cross-sectional surveys reported increased anxiety whenever bedside teaching, clinical placements, or assessments were canceled or transitioned online [18-22,27,30-33,36,38,41-44]. Across all studies, early-year cohorts, women, and students facing examination uncertainty repeatedly showed higher odds of anxiety. Qualitative implied evidence revealed additional mechanisms: disrupted learning environments undermined emerging professional identity, intensified imposter feelings, and amplified concerns about future clinical roles [4,17,21,25,33,37,46]. Identified protective factors included faculty reassurance, peer-support networks, and maintenance of structured routines [4,21]. Two narrative papers offered only insufficient evidence, presenting hypothetical associations between reduced in-person learning and anxiety [33] or fear after an earthquake prompting compensatory over-study [8], but without empirical measurement.
2) Depression
Strong empirically supported evidence from 21 studies using standardized tools (Patient Health Questionnaire-9 [PHQ-9], Patient Health Questionnaire-2 [PHQ-2], DASS-21) demonstrated that 10%–65% of medical students met depression criteria once core teaching structures were curtailed [29,36,38,41,42,44]. Compound crises intensified depressive burden: during the Ukraine war, 87% of displaced students met DASS-21 depression thresholds, including 40% at “extreme” severity [32]. Studies conducted in war-affected Sudan reported 29% depression [33], while Croatia’s earthquake triggered elevated PHQ-9 scores [41]. Qualitative implied evidence described loneliness, disengagement, and emotional exhaustion following rapid virtualization [21,27,35]. Additional smaller-scale studies found 11%–12% moderate depression associated with canceled teaching [20,28,39,40]. Taku et al. [34] offered insufficient evidence by linking sadness to post-traumatic growth without using a formal depression scale.
3) Anger
Evidence for anger-related outcomes was predominantly implied, with only one study providing empirically supported evidence through indirect quantitative indicators linking irritation to stress levels [20]. Five qualitative studies consistently identified anger-related distress—mainly frustration—when educational structures became unstable [4,17,35,46]. Students attributed motivational decline to canceled or altered learning experiences. However, the absence of validated anger-specific instruments limits the ability to estimate prevalence or infer causal pathways.
3. Domain 2: Meaning and purpose
Evidence showed divergent trajectories depending on disruption timing. Implied evidence from three qualitative studies described early-stage students experiencing directional loss and existential doubt when canceled placements removed formative experiences [4,17,21]. In contrast, empirically supported evidence indicated renewed purpose and post-traumatic growth in later phases. After the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake, students exhibited significant post-traumatic growth with higher life-motivation scores [34]. Two COVID-19 studies also reported enhanced motivation and clearer educational purpose following reflection on pandemic-related challenges [35,37]. Findings demonstrated temporal consistency: initial meaning loss was observed in all acute-phase studies (6/6), followed by meaning reconstruction in all extended follow-up studies (4/4).
4. Domain 3: Psychosocial illness impact
1) Negative impact
Empirically supported evidence from 18 cross-sectional surveys found that 47%–72% of students experienced isolation when teaching moved online or campuses closed [19,20,27,30-33,40,45]. Threats to professional preparedness were common, with 64% of UK final-year students reporting feeling less prepared after assistantship curtailment [3]. Implied evidence highlighted that reduced peer interaction and limited mentor access disrupted belonging and contributed to distress. In severe contexts, up to 93% of students reported distress symptoms, and many considered discontinuing medical training.
2) Positive impact
Seven studies documented positive adaptations, including post-traumatic growth associated with enhanced motivation to help others [34]. Focus-group studies indicated that enforced reflection, increased family time, and early clinical exposure sometimes strengthened purpose and resilience [4,17,35,37,44]. Post-traumatic growth was most evident in contexts with structured support and opportunities for meaning-making.
5. Domain 4: Helpful (positive affect and general life satisfaction)
Empirically supported evidence suggested partial preservation of life satisfaction: BMLSS scores remained high during pandemic periods [39], and 6% of students reported improved mental well-being [19]. Implied evidence from qualitative studies described adaptive positive affect despite curtailed training. Students noted enjoyment of online interactions and gains in self-reliance [4,25,27,30,37,46]. Relief following the resumption of clinical rotations was also reported [35]. However, positive outcomes were consistently limited to small subsets (6%–23%), and evidence remains insufficient to generalize these effects.
Discussion
This systematic review addressed the research question concerning the prevalence and severity of psychological impacts across the five modified PROMIS domains among medical students experiencing academic disruption, as well as differential vulnerability across domains. Analysis of 33 studies from 24 countries revealed consistently elevated psychological distress, including anxiety (23%–84%), depression (10%–65%), and social isolation (47%–72%). These findings support the applicability of the modified PROMIS framework for categorizing psychological impacts in medical education, indicating that academic disruption influences multiple interconnected psychological domains rather than producing transient stress responses. The framework further demonstrated differential domain vulnerability, with the affect domain showing the strongest empirical evidence, whereas anger and meaning/purpose domains had limited quantitative support. Psychosocial isolation emerged as a central mechanism linking academic disruption to affective symptoms.
Widespread anxiety prevalence (23%–84%) can be interpreted as an emotional response that extends beyond routine academic stress and reflects structural vulnerabilities inherent in medical education. Early-year cohorts and female students consistently showed greater susceptibility, aligning with Spielberger’s state–trait anxiety theory, which posits that external threats interact with individual predispositions to amplify anxiety [47]. Theory predictions corresponded closely with observed patterns (early-year: 8/8 studies; female: 12/12 studies), though the predominance of cross-sectional designs (72.7%) limits the ability to distinguish temporary state elevations from more enduring trait-related patterns. While prior reviews identified similar associations [48], anxiety levels in this review appeared markedly higher, likely reflecting the unprecedented duration of educational disruption. Faculty support, peer networks, and structured routines emerged as protective factors, consistent with stress-coping frameworks [49,50]. These findings underscore the need for institutions to implement a stratified mental health approach: universal prevention through mandatory biannual GAD-7 screening with automated referral pathways for early identification [51,52]; targeted interventions for high-risk groups involving designated coordinators and anonymous digital platforms that reduce stigma-related barriers; and enhancement of protective factors by maintaining faculty–student advisor ratios not exceeding 1:10 and ensuring annual faculty training on mental health recognition [53,54]. Such tiered strategies address both population-level vulnerability and individual risk factors delineated in psychological theory.
Depression patterns (10%–65% meeting screening criteria) appear to reflect the longer-term emotional consequences of academic disruption, with extreme prevalence observed in compound crises (e.g., 87% during the Ukraine war). These results align with the cognitive theory of depression by Beck [55], wherein the hopelessness triad becomes heightened in severe contexts, although the rapid escalation seen in some settings challenges the theory’s typical gradual onset predictions. From a learned helplessness perspective, students confronted with uncontrollable circumstances may come to believe that their efforts cannot influence outcomes, though longitudinal designs are required to establish causal pathways [56]. Cross-sectional findings indicated symptom manifestations that extended beyond emotional responses to include cognitive decline and social withdrawal [57]. The wide prevalence range suggests that both disruption severity and institutional response substantially modulate depressive outcomes, supporting a dual-track prevention model. For acute disruptions, mandatory PHQ-9 screening at onset and regular intervals may allow early detection, enabling a three-tier response from peer-based support to psychiatric referral [51,52]. For long-term resilience, structured programs—such as resilience training focused on stress management and uncertainty tolerance, reflective portfolio assignments linked to professional identity, simulation-based crisis training, and peer mentorship pairing senior and junior students—can target cognitive vulnerabilities described in Beck’s model [58,59]. Transparent communication regarding timelines and progression requirements may mitigate perceived uncontrollability, a central mechanism in learned helplessness.
Evidence for anger and frustration, though limited, appears tied to unpredictable shifts in educational policy and process. Available findings were constrained to qualitative evidence from four studies and lacked validated quantitative measures, which restricts conclusions regarding the prominence of anger within the PROMIS framework. The studies that were available described frustration arising when educational structures became unstable, reflecting the frustration–aggression hypothesis within competitive learning environments [60]. Anger manifested primarily as internalized frustration and helplessness rather than outward aggression and was associated with academic avoidance and cynicism. However, the absence of standardized anger-specific tools and the small number of studies preclude definitive interpretation [61-64]. Future research should therefore incorporate validated measures of anger [64]. Existing qualitative findings nonetheless suggest that institutions may reduce frustration by addressing structural unpredictability—for example, through regular liaison meetings that include student representation in crisis-related decisions and digital platforms enabling anonymous feedback. These approaches enhance perceived control and procedural justice, directly targeting the unpredictability identified as the primary trigger for anger in qualitative studies.
The meaning and purpose domain showed divergent patterns reflecting both vulnerability and potential for growth. Early-stage students experienced disrupted identity formation, consistent with the psychosocial developmental crisis of identity versus role confusion [4,17,21]. Cross-sectional evidence suggested that early deficits in experiential learning may hinder professional identity development, though longitudinal research is required to verify long-term effects [65]. In contrast, several studies documented renewed purpose and post-crisis growth, such as post-traumatic growth observed after the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake, where students demonstrated strengthened life motivation and professional identity [41]. These findings align with the theory by Tedeschi and Calhoun [66] that crises can prompt meaning reconstruction, with the observed biphasic pattern—initial loss followed by reconstruction—corresponding closely to theoretical predictions. From a logotherapy perspective, educational disruption may become a catalyst for growth when meaning is actively constructed [67]. These contrasting trajectories indicate that professional identity requires intentional support during disruptions. Structured clinical shadowing, including virtual patient interactions, may preserve identity continuity, as recommended in professional identity formation theory [68]. Narrative medicine workshops, competency milestone tracking, alumni mentorship networks, and reflective portfolio assignments can provide layered scaffolding to prevent identity deterioration and facilitate meaning-making processes that underpin post-traumatic growth [66,69]. Framing disruptions as potential opportunities for reflection and development aligns with the logotherapeutic emphasis on purposeful meaning construction.
Psychosocial impact findings (47%–72% reporting isolation) reflect what can be characterized as a social network crisis functioning as a central mediating mechanism. When teaching moved online or campuses closed, students reported isolation, alienation, and diminished support, directly corresponding to frustrated relatedness needs described in self-determination theory [70]. In medical education, peer relationships and faculty–student connections are integral to professional development. Following placement cancellations, 70% of students felt less prepared, suggesting that lack of performance experiences may be associated with declining self-efficacy [3,71]. This dual burden—emotional isolation combined with concerns regarding competence—creates compounding vulnerability. However, seven studies demonstrated elevated post-traumatic growth scores and strengthened motivation to help others, aligning with resilience theory’s depiction of adaptive functioning [72], with social support, flexible operations, and peer networks emerging as major protective factors. The centrality of social networks in both vulnerability and resilience suggests that multi-layered support systems informed by social capital theory are essential [53,54]. Structured peer support circles with trained facilitators, regular virtual check-ins during disruptions, preservation of small-group learning formats even online, and ensuring faculty–student advisor accessibility through scheduled liaison meetings can maintain the connectedness that self-determination theory identifies as a fundamental psychological need. Technology-enabled approaches—discussion forums, virtual study groups, and collaborative platforms—can partially compensate for lost physical proximity while institutions monitor social connectedness indicators for early detection of emerging isolation patterns.
Positive outcomes demonstrated patterns of resilience, self-direction, and preserved life satisfaction despite the negative effects of disruption. General life satisfaction measured by BMLSS remained stable across pandemic periods with no significant change [39]. According to the happiness determinant model by Lyubomirsky [73]—where genetic set-point accounts for 50%, life circumstances 10%, and intentional activities 40%—learning deficits may be buffered through intentional coping strategies. Studies reported that 6% of students experienced improvements in well-being, particularly through enhanced family relationships, exercise, or sleep [19]. The broaden-and-build theory by Fredrickson [74] suggests that such positive experiences expand psychological resources and foster long-term resilience. Studies from disaster settings further demonstrated that post-traumatic growth, including increased gratitude for life, can be quantitatively measured [34,75], challenging deficit-focused narratives. These findings indicate that resilience-building curricula should cultivate the intentional activities Lyubomirsky [73] identifies as modifiable determinants: wellness programs emphasizing physical activity, sleep hygiene, and work–life balance; reflective practices that help students articulate strengths; and recognizing positive adaptations [58]. Normalizing adaptive coping discussions reduces stigma, while peer mentorship facilitates transmission of successful coping strategies. For students exhibiting positive adaptation, articulating skills gained (e.g., self-directed learning, technological competence, flexibility) can convert disruption into recognized professional development, aligning with broaden-and-build mechanisms to consolidate crisis-induced gains into durable psychological resources.
This review has important methodological limitations. The predominance of cross-sectional study designs and the lack of baseline mental health data limit causal inference and restrict the ability to differentiate new-onset symptoms from exacerbations of pre-existing conditions. The concentration of COVID-19 studies and predominance of Western samples limit generalizability to other contexts, particularly Korea’s physician–government conflict, which represents a novel crisis combining educational disruption with institutional conflict. East Asian cultural factors—including hierarchical education structures, collectivist values, and mental health stigma—may modify the manifestation of psychological distress in ways not captured by Western-derived evidence. The PROMIS framework was further constrained by limited quantitative data in certain domains, especially anger, and measurement heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis. Future research should prioritize prospective longitudinal studies among Korean medical students, qualitative investigations into culturally specific experiences, head-to-head comparisons across crisis types, and intervention trials assessing culturally adapted strategies.
Conclusion
This systematic review indicates that academic disruption is consistently associated with substantial increases in anxiety, depression, and social isolation among medical students, with qualitative evidence highlighting professional identity challenges as key underlying mechanisms. Medical education policymakers must therefore establish comprehensive crisis response systems that protect psychological well-being while ensuring continuity of training. However, generalizability to Korea’s unprecedented physician–government conflict requires caution due to the predominance of Western samples and potential cultural differences in distress expression. Context-specific research is essential for developing effective, culturally appropriate crisis response strategies suited to Korea’s unique circumstances, while also informing international preparedness for similarly complex educational disruptions.
PDF Links
PubReader
ePub Link
XML Download
Full text via DOI
Download Citation
Supplement
Print
