Use of nanoparticles have established benefits in a wide range of applications, however, the effects of exposure to nanoparticles on health and the environmental risks associated with the production and use of nanoparticles are less well-established. The present study addresses this gap in knowledge by examining, through a scoping review of the current literature, the effects of nanoparticles on human health and the environment. We searched relevant databases including Medline, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, Scopus, CINAHL, Embase, and SAGE journals, as well as Google, Google Scholar, and grey literature from June 2021 to July 2021. After removing duplicate articles, the title and abstracts of 1495 articles were first screened followed by the full-texts of 249 studies, and this resulted in the inclusion of 117 studies in the presented review.In this contribution we conclude that while nanoparticles offer distinct benefits in a range of applications, they pose significant threats to humans and the environment. Using several biological models and biomarkers, the included studies revealed the toxic effects of nanoparticles (mainly zinc oxide, silicon dioxide, titanium dioxide, silver, and carbon nanotubes) to include cell death, production of oxidative stress, DNA damage, apoptosis, and induction of inflammatory responses. Most of the included studies (65.81%) investigated inorganic-based nanoparticles. In terms of biomarkers, most studies (76.9%) used immortalised cell lines, whiles 18.8% used primary cells as the biomarker for assessing human health effect of nanoparticles. Biomarkers that were used for assessing environmental impact of nanoparticles included soil samples and soybean seeds, zebrafish larvae, fish, and Daphnia magna neonates.From the studies included in this work the United States recorded the highest number of publications (n = 30, 25.64%), followed by China, India, and Saudi Arabia recording the same number of publications (n = 8 each), with 95.75% of the studies published from the year 2009. The majority of the included studies (93.16%) assessed impact of nanoparticles on human health, and 95.7% used experimental study design. This shows a clear gap exists in examining the impact of nanoparticles on the environment.

Background: To produce graduates with strong knowledge and skills in the application of evidence into healthcare practice, it is imperative that all undergraduate health and social care students are taught, in an efficient manner, the processes involved in applying evidence into practice. The two main concepts that are linked to the application of evidence into practice are "evidence-based practice" and "evidence-informed practice." Globally, evidence-based practice is regarded as the gold standard for the provision of safe and effective healthcare.

Background: Nurses' ability to apply evidence effectively in practice is a critical factor in delivering high-quality patient care. Evidence-based practice (EBP) is recognised as the gold standard for the delivery of safe and effective person-centred care. However, decades following its inception, nurses continue to encounter difficulties in implementing EBP and, although models for its implementation offer stepwise approaches, factors, such as the context of care and its mechanistic nature, act as barriers to effective and consistent implementation. It is, therefore, imperative to find a solution to the way evidence is applied in practice. Evidence-informed practice (EIP) has been mooted as an alternative to EBP, prompting debate as to which approach better enables the transfer of evidence into practice. Although there are several EBP models and educational interventions, research on the concept of EIP is limited. This article seeks to clarify the concept of EIP and provide an integrated systems-based model of EIP for the application of evidence in clinical nursing practice, by presenting the systems and processes of the EIP model. Two scenarios are used to demonstrate the factors and elements of the EIP model and define how it facilitates the application of evidence to practice. The EIP model provides a framework to deliver clinically effective care, and the ability to justify the processes used and the service provided by referring to reliable evidence.

Background There is an increased interest in identifying practical and accurate biomarkers for fluoride exposure. Due to the narrow ‘dose-gap’ between the benefit of caries reduction and the risk of dental fluorosis, monitoring of fluoride exposure is vital when introducing any fluoridation programme for the prevention of dental caries. This scoping review aimed to ascertain the nature and extent of the available evidence on how spot urine and nail clippings are used to measure fluoride intake/exposure, by using a unique approach of mapping the studies according to population, setting, type of study design, methodology and analytical approach in community prevention programmes. Methods Multiple relevant databases were searched up to July 2021 for any study designs, including randomised controlled studies, quasi-experimental studies, surveys, retrospective and prospective cohort studies, case studies, phenomenological studies, and expert opinions. Results The search retrieved 9,222 studies of which 155 met the inclusion criteria. A high proportion of the studies (25.2%) originated from Latin America and the Caribbean continent subregion. However, per country, China recorded the highest number, followed by India and Mexico. The majority (62.6%) employed a cross-sectional study design, and 65.8% combined participants from different age groups. Of the included studies, 82.6% used spot urine samples as a biomarker for assessing fluoride intake/exposure. Water fluoride concentration was reported in 66.5% of the studies with 46.6% of all included studies reporting a water fluoride concentration of > 1.2 mg/L. The methods used in assessing oral hygiene and dietary intake were not reported in 72.3% and 71.0% of the included studies, respectively. Only 35.5% of the included studies assessed the relationship between fluoride exposure and excretion. Conclusions This review revealed a large variability in the way in which spot urine samples and/or nail clippings are used to measure fluoride exposure in different settings and situations. Particularly, there are inconsistencies in the methodologies and the analytical approaches used in assessing fluoride exposure. Therefore, there is a need for more rigorous primary research studies using standardised approaches to determine the suitability of spot urine samples and nail clipping as biomarkers for monitoring fluoride exposure.