La souffrance psychologique des médecins est connue depuis plus d’un siècle ; celle des étudiants en médecine a été reconnue plus récemment. De nombreuses études et méta-analyses ont évalué la prévalence de la dépression, de l’anxiété et du burnout chez les étudiants en médecine et plus généralement de l’absence de bien-être. Depuis quelques décennies, des chercheurs ont testé des interventions pour améliorer le bien-être des étudiants. Notre travail a pour objectif de faire une revue des interventions, utilisant des échelles validées, pour aider les étudiants en médecine. 36 études ont été incluses dans cette revue. La qualité des études est très hétérogène. Nous pouvons distinguer trois types d’intervention : institutionnelle (modification du système de notation, de classement…), en groupe (gestion du stress, thérapie pleine de conscience, relaxation, psychoéducation…) ou individuelle (dépistage et prise en charge personnalisée). Ces interventions englobent l’ensemble des niveaux de prévention (primaire, secondaire et tertiaire). On retrouve une efficacité limitée des interventions en groupe. Cette efficacité a disparu au bout de six mois, à l’exception des interventions institutionnelles. L’ensemble des données incite à ne pas privilégier un seul type d’intervention mais à promouvoir une intervention globale agissant à tous les niveaux. Les chercheurs peuvent notamment s’inspirer des études effectuées sur les médecins et sur les internes. La France est en retard sur la question avec peu d’études publiées sur les interventions pour améliorer le bien-être des étudiants mais une prise de consciente récente semble avoir eu lieu.

Physician's psychological distress has been known for more than a century. A meta-analysis found an increase in the suicide rate among physicians, compared to the general population, with a relative risk of 1.41 for men and 2.27 for women. Among interns, the prevalence of depression or depressive symptoms is estimated at 28.8% (IC 95%=25.3%–32.5%). The suffering of medical students prior to internship has been recognized more recently. But now there are many studies, and a few meta-analyses, which have evaluated the prevalence of anxiety, depression, burnout and, more generally, the lack of well-being. Among medical students, the prevalence of depression or depressive symptoms is estimated at 27.2% (IC 95%=24.7–29.9) and that of suicidal ideation of 11.2% (CI at 95%=9.0–13.7). Another meta-analysis found a prevalence of burnout of 44.2 % (IC 95%=33.4–55.0). Since the problem has been known researchers have tested interventions to improve the well-being of students. Our work aims to review interventions to help medical students and use validated scales. A review was published in 2016 about interventions on the learning environment, and the well-being of medical students was published; 28 studies were identified. But they did not systematically use validated questionnaires allowing a quantitative approach. Interventions included: pass/fail scoring systems (n=3), mental health programs (n=4), psycho-corporal skills programs (n=7), curriculum structure (n=3), multi-component program reform (n=5), wellness programs (n=4), and counseling/mentoring programs (n=3). We chose to focus only on studies using validated questionnaires. A search was performed in the MEDLINE biomedical electronic database until July 31, 2018. The inclusion criteria were: original study, in French or English, concerning medical students prior to internship involving an intervention to improve the well-being of medical students by measuring at least one criterion of psychological distress (anxiety, burnout, depression…) using a validated scale. Thirty-six studies were included in this review. The quality of the studies is very heterogeneous. We can distinguish three types of intervention: institutional (modification of the system of notation, classification…), in-group (management of the stress, therapy full of conscience, relaxation, psychoeducation…) or individual (screening and support custom). These interventions encompass all levels of prevention (primary, secondary and tertiary). There is limited effectiveness of group interventions. This effectiveness disappeared after SIX months with the exception of institutional interventions. The data set encourages us not to favor a single type of intervention but to promote a global intervention acting at all levels. In particular, researchers can draw on studies of doctors and interns. France is late to come to the issue with few published studies on interventions to improve the well-being of students, but recent awareness seems to have taken place. Our study has some limitations: restriction to French and English, the choice to select only comparative studies using validated scales which limited the number of studies selected but also the type of interventions not all of which allow a quantitative evaluation. In the interventions not taken into account in this review, several seem promising. They mainly involve secondary prevention: improving the training of staff and students in the detection of symptoms of depression, burnout and psychological stress, screening at-risk populations, and communication campaigns to combat the stigma of psychiatric disorders and encourage students to consult. But tertiary prevention is also of interest: have psychologists and psychiatrists in the faculties accessible to students who feel the need and can also accommodate. Finally, a certain number of faculties have set up vocational guidance and selection aids that are appreciated by students but have not been evaluated for their impact on students’ health. Recent studies and meta-analyses indicate a significant prevalence of outstanding medical students, however, there is reason to be optimistic. Many health professionals and researchers are interested in the problem as well as the means to remedy it. Most studies are effective in the short term. However, the methodological limitations (low number of subjects, limited follow-up time…) and the heterogeneity of studies concerning interventions (mindfulness, psychoeducation…) on students do not allow us to conclude that they are effective in the long term. It should therefore rather move towards comprehensive care acting on the three levels of prevention: primary (institutional interventions/speech groups/psycho education), secondary (screening of subjects at risk, speech groups/psycho education/others) and tertiary (individual interventions).