Exploring contradicting associations between anxiety disorders, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and academic achievement: A meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Academic achievement is an important predictor of later life outcomes, yet its relationship with anxiety disorders and obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) remains unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to clarify the direction and strength of these associations and is the first to synthesise evidence on moderators and mediators. METHOD: We searched Embase, PsycINFO, and PubMed from inception to 12 March 2025 for observational studies of anxiety disorders or OCD (exposure variables) and academic achievement (outcome) at any age. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Crude effects were pooled using random-effects meta-analyses, and study-level moderators explored using subgroup analyses. Evidence on confounders, within-study moderators and mediators was synthesised narratively. PROSPERO: CRD42023393935. RESULTS: Of 7610 studies screened, 23 were included. Study quality was generally low for anxiety disorders but higher for OCD. Meta-analysis of 15 studies (n = 864,729) showed a small negative association between anxiety disorders and academic achievement, Hedges' g = -0.31, 95 % CI [-0.46, -0.16], p < .001, I² = 98.1 %. All four studies examining sex/gender reported stronger negative effects among females. Adjusted estimates varied. Meta-analysis of four studies (n = 809,598) showed no evidence of an association between OCD and academic achievement, Hedges' g = -0.21, 95 % CI [-0.56, 0.14], p = .25, I² = 97.9 %. CONCLUSIONS: Anxiety disorders, but not OCD, were negatively associated with academic achievement in meta-analysis. High meta-analytic heterogeneity and inconsistent adjusted findings suggest context-dependent effects, underscoring the need for more moderation studies. Nonetheless, our findings highlight the need for coordinated efforts between educational and mental health services to better identify and support affected students.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".