The aim of this systematic review was to identify the challenges imposed on medical and surgical education by the COVID-19 pandemic, and the proposed innovations enabling the continuation of medical student and resident training. A systematic review on the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases was performed on April 18th, 2020, and yielded 1288 articles. Sixty-one of the included manuscripts were synthesized in a qualitative description focused on two major axes, “challenges” and “innovative solutions”, and two minor axes, “mental health” and “medical students in the frontlines”. Shortage of personal protective equipment, suspension of clinical clerkships and observerships and reduction in elective surgical cases unavoidably affect medical and surgical education. Interesting solutions involving the use of virtual learning, videoconferencing, social media and telemedicine could effectively tackle the sudden cease in medical education. Furthermore, trainee’s mental health should be safeguarded, and medical students can be involved in the COVID-19 clinical treatment if needed.

Background: This systematic review and meta-analysis identified early evidence quantifying the disruption to the education of health workers by the COVID-19 pandemic, ensuing policy responses and their outcomes.Methods: Following a pre-registered protocol and PRISMA/AMSTAR-2 guidelines, we systematically screened MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, CENTRAL, clinicaltrials.gov and Google Scholar from January 2020 to July 2022. We pooled proportion estimates via random-effects meta-analyses and explored subgroup differences by gender, occupational group, training stage, WHO regions/continents, and study end-year. We assessed risk of bias (Newcastle–Ottawa scale for observational studies, RοB2 for randomized controlled trials [RCT]) and rated evidence certainty using GRADE.Results: Of the 171 489 publications screened, 2 249 were eligible, incorporating 2 212 observational studies and 37 RCTs, representing feedback from 1 109 818 learners and 22 204 faculty. The sample mostly consisted of undergraduates, medical doctors, and studies from institutions in Asia. Perceived training disruption was estimated at 71.1% (95% confidence interval 67.9–74.2) and learner redeployment at 29.2% (25.3–33.2). About one in three learners screened positive for anxiety (32.3%, 28.5–36.2), depression (32.0%, 27.9–36.2), burnout (38.8%, 33.4–44.3) or insomnia (30.9%, 20.8–41.9). Policy responses included shifting to online learning, innovations in assessment, COVID-19-specific courses, volunteerism, and measures for learner safety. For outcomes of policy responses, most of the literature related to perceptions and preferences. More than two-thirds of learners (75.9%, 74.2–77.7) were satisfied with online learning (postgraduates more than undergraduates), while faculty satisfaction rate was slightly lower (71.8%, 66.7–76.7). Learners preferred an in-person component: blended learning 56.0% (51.2–60.7), face-to-face 48.8% (45.4–52.1), and online-only 32.0% (29.3–34.8). They supported continuation of the virtual format as part of a blended system (68.1%, 64.6–71.5). Subgroup differences provided valuable insights despite not resolving the considerable heterogeneity. All outcomes were assessed as very-low-certainty evidence.Conclusion: The COVID-19 pandemic has severely disrupted health worker education, inflicting a substantial mental health burden on learners. Its impacts on career choices, volunteerism, pedagogical approaches and mental health of learners have implications for educational design, measures to protect and support learners, faculty and health workers, and workforce planning. Online learning may achieve learner satisfaction as part of a short-term solution or integrated into a blended model in the post-pandemic future.

Introduction: Schizophrenia is a severe psychiatric disorder affecting millions worldwide. However, available treatment options do not fully address the disease. Whereas current antipsychotics may control psychotic symptoms, they seem notoriously ineffective in improving negative and cognitive symptoms or in preventing functional decline. As the etiology of schizophrenia eludes us, the development of valid animal models for screening new drug targets appears to be a strenuous task. Areas covered: In this review, the authors present the key concepts that validate animal models of schizophrenia, as well as the different screening approaches for novel schizophrenia treatments. The models covered are either based on major neurotransmitter systems or neurodevelopmental, immune, and genetic approaches. Expert opinion: Sadly, due to inertia, research focuses on developing ‘anti-psychotics’, instead of ‘anti-schizophrenia’ drugs that would tackle the entire syndrome of schizophrenia. Whereas no perfect model may ever exist, combining different experimental designs may enhance validity, as the over-reliance on a single model is inappropriate. Multi-model approaches incorporating vulnerability, the ‘two-hit’ hypothesis, and endophenotypes offer a promise for developing new strategies for schizophrenia treatment. Forward and reverse translation between preclinical and clinical research will increase the probability of success and limit failures in drug development.