Environmental health literacy competencies and teaching methods for students and health professionals in Primary Health Care: A scoping review.

Skip to main content An official website of the United States government Here's how you know Here's how you know Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States. Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock Locked padlock icon ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites. Search Log in Dashboard Publications Account settings Log out Search… Search NCBI Primary site navigation Search Logged in as: Dashboard Publications Account settings Log in Search PMC Full-Text Archive Search in PMC Journal List User Guide PERMALINK Copy As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsement of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health. Learn more: PMC Disclaimer | PMC Copyright Notice PLoS One . 2026 Apr 10;21(4):e0343112. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0343112 Search in PMC Search in PubMed View in NLM Catalog Add to search Environmental health literacy competencies and teaching methods for students and health professionals in Primary Health Care: A scoping review Flaviane Cristina Rocha Cesar Flaviane Cristina Rocha Cesar 1 School of Medicine, Centro Universitário de Mineiros (UNIFIMES), Trindade, Goiás, Brazil Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing Find articles by Flaviane Cristina Rocha Cesar 1, * , Fabian Calixto Fraiz Fabian Calixto Fraiz 2 School of Dentistry, Universidade Federal do Paraná (UFPR), Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing Find articles by Fabian Calixto Fraiz 2, # , Aline Maciel Monteiro Aline Maciel Monteiro 3 School of Medicine, Universidade de Rio Verde (UniRV), Aparecida de Goiânia, Goiás, Brazil Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing Find articles by Aline Maciel Monteiro 3, # , Maria Alves Barbosa Maria Alves Barbosa 4 Graduate Program in Health Sciences, Universidade Federal de Goiás (UFG), Goiânia, Goiás, Brazil Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing Find articles by Maria Alves Barbosa 4 , Ricardo Cambraia Parreira Ricardo Cambraia Parreira 1 School of Medicine, Centro Universitário de Mineiros (UNIFIMES), Trindade, Goiás, Brazil Writing – review & editing Find articles by Ricardo Cambraia Parreira 1 , Andréa Cristina de Sousa Andréa Cristina de Sousa 1 School of Medicine, Centro Universitário de Mineiros (UNIFIMES), Trindade, Goiás, Brazil Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing Find articles by Andréa Cristina de Sousa 1 , João Victor Pereira Almeida João Victor Pereira Almeida 1 School of Medicine, Centro Universitário de Mineiros (UNIFIMES), Trindade, Goiás, Brazil Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing Find articles by João Victor Pereira Almeida 1 , Jaqueline Reis Sotero da Silva Jaqueline Reis Sotero da Silva 5 School of Nursing, Centro Universitário Sul-Americano, Goiânia, Goiás, Brazil Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing Find articles by Jaqueline Reis Sotero da Silva 5 Editor: André Luis C Ramalho 6 Author information Article notes Copyright and License information 1 School of Medicine, Centro Universitário de Mineiros (UNIFIMES), Trindade, Goiás, Brazil 2 School of Dentistry, Universidade Federal do Paraná (UFPR), Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil 3 School of Medicine, Universidade de Rio Verde (UniRV), Aparecida de Goiânia, Goiás, Brazil 4 Graduate Program in Health Sciences, Universidade Federal de Goiás (UFG), Goiânia, Goiás, Brazil 5 School of Nursing, Centro Universitário Sul-Americano, Goiânia, Goiás, Brazil 6 University of Porto Faculty of Medicine: Universidade do Porto Faculdade de Medicina, PORTUGAL ✉ * E-mail: [email protected] Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist. # ☯ These authors contributed equally to this work. # Contributed equally. Roles Flaviane Cristina Rocha Cesar : Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing Fabian Calixto Fraiz : Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing Aline Maciel Monteiro : Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing Maria Alves Barbosa : Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing Ricardo Cambraia Parreira : Writing – review & editing Andréa Cristina de Sousa : Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing João Victor Pereira Almeida : Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing Jaqueline Reis Sotero da Silva : Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing André Luis C Ramalho : Editor Received 2025 Dec 4; Accepted 2026 Jan 28; Collection date 2026. © 2026 Cesar et al This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. PMC Copyright notice PMCID: PMC13068257  PMID: 41961801 Abstract Environmental determinants play an increasingly important role in shaping population health, highlighting Environmental Health Literacy (EHL) as a critical competency for Primary Health Care (PHC). Despite growing attention to environmental health education, evidence addressing EHL in PHC remains fragmented and inconsistently conceptualized. This scoping review aimed to systematically map existing evidence on environmental health literacy among health professions students and practicing professionals in PHC settings, with a focus on identifying core competency domains and educational interventions relevant to PHC practice. A scoping review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Searches were performed across seven electronic databases, complemented by additional searches in Google Scholar and grey literature sources. Empirical and theoretical studies examining EHL or closely related environmental health constructs in PHC or PHC-relevant contexts were included. Twenty-nine studies met the inclusion criteria, comprising 24 empirical studies and five theoretical contributions. This review represents the first synthesis explicitly framed within the EHL context for PHC. Across studies, five core EHL domains consistently emerged: environmental health knowledge, clinical skills, risk communication, equity-oriented attitudes, and systems-based advocacy. Building on this synthesis, the review proposes a consolidated set of global competencies for EHL in PHC and systematically maps educational and practice-based interventions aimed at developing these competencies, particularly multimodal and technology-enhanced approaches. While several interventions demonstrated improvements in knowledge, skills, and self-efficacy, evidence of sustained integration into routine PHC practice remained limited. Overall, the findings demonstrate that EHL is a multidimensional and foundational competency for PHC but is most often addressed implicitly rather than explicitly. Bridging the gap between education and clinical application will require sustained curricular integration, institutional support, and system-level alignment to ensure that PHC professionals are equipped to address environmental determinants of health in an increasingly complex global context. Introduction The contemporary environmental crisis poses an unprecedented challenge to global health, driven by interconnected disruptions such as pollution, climate change, and biodiversity loss that amplify disease burdens and exacerbate inequities worldwide [ 1 ]. The World Health Organization estimates that a substantial proportion of global mortality is attributable to modifiable environmental risk factors, disproportionately affecting vulnerable populations, particularly children in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) [ 2 ]. Primary Health Care (PHC), situated at the frontline of population health, is a critical approach for identifying, preventing, and mitigating environment-related health risks, yet remains insufficiently prepared to address the complex interplay between environmental exposures and social vulnerabilities [ 3 ]. PHC professionals routinely encounter conditions associated with environmental degradation, such as respiratory illnesses linked to air pollution, vector-borne diseases influenced by climatic shifts, and chronic conditions aggravated by toxic exposures, yet they face persistent barriers to integrating environmental considerations into clinical practice [ 1 ]. These include overcrowded curricula that marginalize environmental health, limited faculty expertise, insufficient tools for environmental exposure assessment, and scarce patient education resources [ 3 , 4 ]. PHC settings that care for populations experiencing high social vulnerability are particularly affected, as environmental injustices compound pre-existing health inequities [ 2 ]. Environmental Health Literacy (EHL) has emerged as a key competency domain for strengthening PHC responsiveness to environmental threats. In this review, EHL is defined as the integrated set of knowledge, clinical skills, risk communication abilities, and community-engagement capacities that enable health professionals to identify, assess, and respond to environmental determinants of health. For PHC practitioners, this includes obtaining environmental exposure histories, offering anticipatory environmental guidance, interpreting environmental health information, supporting patients and communities in reducing risks, and advocating within broader public health systems [ 3 , 5 ]. Given their longitudinal and population-wide engagement, PHC professionals serve as trusted messengers whose EHL can influence individual behaviors, inform local policy, and contribute to community resilience [ 6 ]. The importance of EHL for PHC is reinforced by the unique role of primary care providers at the interface between clinical care and community health. They are positioned to detect environmental exposures early, monitor related outcomes over time, and integrate environmental risk assessment into routine preventive care [ 2 ]. Participatory and community-engaged approaches to environmental health education, which center on co-learning, recognition of local knowledge, and collective action, align closely with PHC principles [ 7 ]. While isolated curricular innovations demonstrate feasibility, such as train-the-trainer programs that prompted residency-level integration of environmental content [ 8 ], systematic and sustained curricular incorporation remains rare. Nursing and medical programs frequently report insufficient environmental health content, limited faculty preparedness, and competing priorities that marginalize this domain [ 1 , 4 ]. Competency frameworks vary widely, from pediatric environmental health [ 2 ] to community-engaged models [ 7 ], but few address the specific competencies required for PHC practice. Evidence related to competency assessment, implementation strategies, and applicability to resource-constrained environments remains limited [ 9 , 10 ]. Recent scoping and systematic reviews on planetary health and environmental health education demonstrate progress while highlighting persistent gaps. A global scoping review identified 73 planetary health education articles but noted that 88% originated in high-income countries and few addressed PHC-specific needs [ 11 ]. Another review of planetary health in medical education found that most publications (71%) focused on calls to integrate content rather than documenting implementation strategies or educational outcomes [ 12 ]. Reviews in nursing education reveal similar patterns, with a predominance of commentaries and limited empirical evidence or interprofessional approaches [ 13 , 14 ]. Remarkably, no completed scoping or systematic review has synthesized evidence on EHL within PHC settings, especially in LMIC contexts. A registered protocol for a scoping review on planetary health in family medicine continuing professional development indicates emerging interest but remains unpublished [ 14 ]. Thus, the existing review literature highlights two gaps: geographic concentration in high-income settings and a thematic emphasis on medical and nursing education in general. There is insufficient attention to the distinctive competencies, frameworks, and pedagogical strategies required to build EHL among PHC students and professionals who deliver frontline care in diverse global contexts. Given the conceptual diversity, methodological heterogeneity, and fragmented nature of this literature, a scoping review is the most appropriate method to systematically map available evidence, clarify existing frameworks, and identify gaps. [ 15 ]. By mapping the conceptual frameworks, competencies, content domains, and teaching methods used to develop EHL for PHC students and professionals, this review will provide a structured evidence base for educators, curriculum developers, and policymakers. It may inform context-sensitive curricular design, faculty development initiatives, and national or international standards for environmental health integration [ 1 ]. In LMIC contexts, where environmental burdens are greater and documentation of educational strategies is scarce, the findings may guide the development of resources, capacity building, and South-South collaboration [ 9 , 10 ]. Review question What are the conceptual frameworks, competencies, content areas, and teaching methods currently used in the development of environmental health literacy for students and health professionals in Primary Health Care, and how are these elements applied in different educational settings? Objectives This scoping review aims to systematically map existing evidence on environmental health literacy for students and professionals in PHC settings, specifically to identify and synthesize: (1) the core competencies and learning outcomes proposed or implemented for PHC trainees and practitioners; and (2) the teaching strategies, pedagogical methods, and educational interventions employed to develop EHL in PHC contexts. Method A scoping review of the literature was employed to examine the specificities and complexities of the concept of environmental health literacy, particularly in the education and practice of health professionals within the context of primary care. This methodological approach is especially suitable for synthesizing and mapping emerging or heterogeneous fields, where conducting a systematic review may be unfeasible or premature. Scoping reviews play a critical role in clarifying concepts, identifying key elements within the existing literature, and uncovering knowledge gaps that warrant further investigation [ 16 ]. This approach aligns with the objectives of the present study, which aims to comprehensively map the current state of environmental health education in primary care in order to support the development of a robust and context-sensitive training framework. The study protocol was registered in the Open Science Framework database (registration number: osf.io/8u7wd, October 2025). Search strategy The literature search was conducted in accordance with the three-step strategy recommended by the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) for scoping reviews [ 16 ], ensuring methodological rigor and comprehensive coverage of the topic: Initial Search : A preliminary and limited search was performed in MEDLINE (via PubMed) and Web of Science to identify relevant descriptors and indexing terms associated with the concepts of environmental health literacy , health competencies , and primary health care . Titles, abstracts, and indexing terms of the retrieved studies were examined to refine the search vocabulary. Comprehensive Search : Based on the terminology identified in the initial stage, a second and more extensive search was conducted across multiple databases, including MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, and LILACS. For each database, the search strategy was customized using controlled vocabularies (e.g., MeSH, Emtree) and relevant synonyms. The complete search strategies for each source are detailed in Appendix 1. Search for Additional Sources : To ensure the inclusion of potentially relevant studies not captured in the database searches, the reference lists of all selected articles were manually screened. Additionally, grey literature was explored through platforms such as OpenGrey, Google Scholar, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, and various institutional repositories. No restrictions regarding language or publication date were imposed. However, only studies published in English, Portuguese, or Spanish were included for full-text screening. Study selection This scoping review encompassed studies that fulfilled specific eligibility criteria, defined according to the Population–Concept–Context (PCC) framework recommended by the JBI. The aim was to map existing evidence on the EHL competencies of health professionals within PHC settings. Population: The review included studies focusing on health professionals active in PHC, such as physicians, nurses, dentists, social workers, community health workers, and other allied health practitioners. Research involving health professionals in training, such as undergraduate students and medical or residency trainees, was also considered provided it addressed aspects related to environmental health literacy competencies. Concept: The central concept guiding inclusion was the development and application of environmental health literacy competencies, which are understood as a combination of knowledge, skills, and attitudes. Knowledge encompassed cognitive dimensions involving the understanding of environmental determinants of health, including issues such as pollution, climate change, and environmental exposures. Skills referred to the ability to apply environmental health knowledge in practice, particularly within clinical or community contexts, involving activities such as risk assessment, health communication, and multisectoral coordination. Attitudes addressed the values, beliefs, and perceptions of health professionals regarding the integration of environmental health into their routine care practices. Additionally, studies describing educational, clinical, or organizational interventions aimed at enhancing EHL responsiveness in academic or professional settings were also included. Context: Eligible studies were situated in primary health care contexts, regardless of geographic location, and included both urban and rural areas. Types of Sources: A wide range of evidence was considered, including empirical studies (quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods), institutional reports, curricular documents, training guidelines, and theoretical frameworks related to environmental health competencies. Language and Timeframe: No temporal restrictions were applied to ensure comprehensive inclusion of relevant literature. Publications in English, Portuguese, and Spanish were considered. The literature search was concluded in November 2025. Exclusion Criteria: Studies were excluded if they did not focus on EHL-related competencies, if they were conducted in secondary or tertiary care settings without direct relevance to PHC, or if they consisted solely of opinion articles, editorials, or narrative reviews lacking empirical or conceptual grounding. To ensure methodological transparency, all records were managed using Rayyan , a software platform specialized for systematic reviews. Duplicate entries were removed, and titles and abstracts were independently screened by two reviewers according to the established inclusion and exclusion criteria. Full texts of potentially relevant studies were retrieved and assessed independently by the same reviewers. Discrepancies were resolved through discussion or consultation with a third reviewer when necessary. As is consistent with scoping review methodology, no formal critical appraisal of the included studies was undertaken. Data extraction Data from the selected studies were systematically extracted using a standardized data charting form, specifically adapted to align with the objectives of this scoping review. The form was designed to capture key information relevant to the research questions and included the following elements: (1) Author(s), (2) Year of publication, (3) Country of origin, (4) Study population, (5) Characteristics of health professionals responsive to environmental health literacy Knowledge – Skills – Attitudes, (6) Interventions to improve environmental health literacy competencies. Data analysis The extracted data were subjected to thematic analysis, following the methodological framework proposed by Nowell et al. [ 15 ]. This systematic approach allowed for the identification and organization of key patterns within the data, ensuring analytical rigor and transparency. The process involved six sequential steps: (1) Familiarization with the data through repeated reading and immersion in the content; (2) Generation of preliminary codes based on recurring elements and relevant features; (3) Identification of emergent categories and mapping of related competencies; (4) Review and refinement of categories to ensure internal coherence and distinctiveness; (5) Definition and naming of finalized thematic categories, reflecting core dimensions of environmental health literacy competencies; and (6) Construction of a comprehensive narrative that synthesizes the findings using the defined categories. This analytical strategy enabled the development of a structured interpretation of the data, grounded in both empirical evidence and the conceptual aims of the review. Results A comprehensive search was conducted across seven electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Scopus, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and LILACS), yielding 3,842 records. In addition, 228 records were identified through other sources, including Google Scholar, OpenGrey, and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. After removing 308 duplicates, 3,534 unique references were screened by title and abstract. During the initial screening phase, 3,392 records were excluded for not meeting the scope of the review. Overall, 3,534 records underwent title and abstract screening, from which 142 studies were selected for full-text assessment. Of these, 117 articles were excluded for various reasons, including editorial or non-empirical publication type (n = 22), ineligible populations (n = 35), narrative review design (n = 10), and unavailability of the full text (n = 26). Regarding records identified through additional search methods, 226 studies were screened, of which 222 were excluded due to population mismatch (n = 33) or lack of relevance to environmental health literacy (n = 189). At the end of the selection process, 29 studies met all eligibility criteria, comprising 25 studies identified through database searches and 4 studies retrieved through other search methods, including Google Scholar. The complete identification, screening, and selection process is presented in the PRISMA flow diagram ( Fig 1 ). Fig 1. PRISMA diagram – Selection of studies. Open in a new tab Of the 29 included studies, five were theoretical contributions, comprising four literature reviews and one conceptual paper addressing curricular integration. These theoretical studies were used to inform the identification of core concepts and competencies related to environmental health, but were not included in the quantitative distributions of populations, settings, or geographical scope. The remaining 24 studies constituted the empirical evidence base for the analyses presented below and involved a broad range of health professional categories. Among the empirical studies, most focused on practicing health professionals (n = 13), including nurses in diverse roles, midwives, perinatal health professionals, family physicians, pediatricians, public health personnel, community health workers, and multidisciplinary teams working in primary care or environmental health settings. Studies involving undergraduate students in nursing or medicine accounted for six studies (n = 6), reflecting a growing interest in introducing environmental health content during early professional training. In addition, two empirical studies (n = 2) specifically examined nursing faculty in relation to curricular integration and teaching practices. Three studies (n = 3) adopted a mixed population design, simultaneously including students and practicing health professionals, thereby bridging educational preparation and professional practice. With respect to setting, and considering only the empirical studies, most investigations (n = 17; 58.6%) addressed Primary Health Care (PHC) directly, involving professionals embedded in PHC services such as family physicians, midwives working in PHC, community nurses, public health nurses, maternal and child health personnel, community health workers, perinatal care providers, and primary care teams. Only two empirical studies (n = 2; 6.9%) examined PHC indirectly, primarily through educational or conceptual approaches whose scope interfaces with PHC but is not explicitly situated within PHC service delivery. The remaining 10 empirical studies (34.5%) showed no operational or educational linkage to PHC, focusing instead on psychometric instrument development or theoretical propositions without explicit contextualization in primary care systems. Geographically, and again based on the empirical studies, the evidence base was relatively concentrated. Most empirical work (n = 24) was conducted in the United States (n = 13; 54.1%), highlighting its leading role in environmental health and professional education research. Additional clusters of activity were observed in Spain (n = 4; 16.6%) and France (n = 2; 8.3%). Single empirical studies were identified in Turkey, South Africa, China, and Canada (each n = 1; 4.1%), contributing to the broader international scope of the field. One study (n = 1; 4.1%) represented an international collaboration between Spain and the United Kingdom. All included studies were published in English, consistent with the predominance of English-language scientific dissemination in environmental health research. Theoretical and conceptual foundations of environmental health literacy and its integration into primary health care education Among the 29 studies included, only three explicitly addressed EHL as a core construct, using the term and defining it as a central analytical framework. In contrast, the remaining 26 studies (89.7%) engaged with EHL indirectly, examining environmental health–related knowledge, skills, competencies, practices, and educational strategies without explicitly labeling these elements as EHL. This indirect engagement was reflected in the conceptual foundations and competency frameworks adopted across the studies. A majority of investigations (62.1%, n = 18) drew upon foundational definitions of environmental health, emphasizing exposures related to air, water, food, housing, and occupational settings as central components of PHC. Furthermore, 17 studies (58.6%) addressed the nature or levels of EHL, describing developmental progressions from basic awareness of environmental risks to more advanced competencies, including risk communication, population-level interventions, and policy advocacy. In parallel, 15 studies (51.7%) explicitly referenced core public health competencies, such as analytic and assessment skills, communication, cultural competence, community engagement, and leadership, thereby reinforcing the alignment between environmental health education and the operational requirements of PHC practice ( Table 1 ). Table 1. Conceptual and theoretical Foundations for Integrating Environmental Health Literacy into Primary Health Care (PHC) education (n = 29). Theoretical and Conceptual Foundation Key Elements and Components Guidance for Integrating EHL into Educational Frameworks n Definition and Relevance of Environmental Health (EH) Environmental Health is defined as the “freedom from disease or injury associated with exposure to toxic agents and other environmental conditions.” Its scope encompasses air, water, soil, food, lifestyle factors, and occupational settings [ 17 – 19 ] • Across-the-Curriculum Approach: EH content should be integrated horizontally across undergraduate and graduate curricula rather than taught as a separate subspecialty [ 20 , 21 ] • Longitudinal Integration: EH should be introduced early and reinforced throughout the entire continuum of professional education [ 22 ] • Leveraging Foundational Courses: Core Environmental Health content, such as toxicology and the principles of industrial hygiene, should be incorporated into existing foundational courses, including Advanced Health Assessment, Pathophysiology, and Pharmacology [ 17 ] • Competency-Driven Integration: Curricular incorporation of Environmental Health is guided by competency-based learning objectives that structure both content and expected student outcomes [ 18 , 23 ] 7 The Nature of Environmental Health Literacy (EHL) Environmental Health Literacy equips professionals to engage in preventive, upstream-oriented practice that addresses the population-level determinants of health, requiring the ability to read, interpret, and act upon environmental information [ 3 , 24 ]. Its development is conceptualized as a multilevel process [ 3 , 23 , 25 – 28 ]. Levels of Environmental Health Literacy Integration in Professional Training: Level 1 – Foundational: Knowledge and understanding of environmental determinants and their effects on human health; Level 2 – Clinical: Ability to communicate environmental health risks and provide relevant guidance to patients; Level 3 – Community: Application of public health and population-based approaches to reduce exposures at the group level, including recognition of the distinction between individual and social determinants of health; Level 4 – Policy: Engagement in professional societies and policy arenas, participating in advocacy efforts through professional associations; Level 5 – Public Advocacy: Active involvement in public advocacy, influencing policy development and supporting legislative reforms aimed at protecting health [ 3 ]. 7 Essential Competencies Environmental Health Literacy (EHL) reflects the ability to apply these responsibilities in routine practice— how professionals meaningfully engage with environmental health tasks. In this sense, EHL represents the demonstrable attainment of these essential competencies [ 3 , 20 ] • Environmental Health Competencies: I) Fundamental Knowledge and Concepts; II) Environmental Exposure Assessment and Referral; III) Advocacy, Ethics, and Risk Communication; and IV) Legal and Regulatory Frameworks [ 17 , 18 , 20 , 22 , 24 , 25 , 29 ] • Public Health Competencies: I) Analytic/Assessment Skills; II. Basic Public Health Sciences Skills; III. Cultural Competency Skills; IV) Communications Skills; V) Community Dimensions of Practice Skills; VI) Financial Planning and Management Skills; VII) Leadership and Systems Thinking Skills; e VIII) Policy Development/Program Planning Skills [ 28 ] 9 Core Clinical Competency Understanding environmental exposures is fundamental to the training of health professionals and constitutes a core clinical competency within primary care practice [ 22 , 25 ]. Training efforts should strengthen practical Environmental Health (EH) skills, with particular emphasis on the Environmental Exposure History (EEH) as a central clinical tool [ 22 , 30 , 31 ]. The I PREPARE mnemonic provides a structured approach for primary care providers to investigate environmental exposures by guiding questions about work, residence, environmental concerns, and daily activities, along with referrals and educatio [ 32 ]. The CH₂OPD₂ mnemonic offers an additional framework for obtaining a comprehensive environmental exposure history, focusing on community, home, occupation [ 23 ] 6 Focus on Vulnerable Populations EHL in the context of vulnerable populations is fundamentally linked to understanding both biological and social susceptibilities, as well as to the ability of health professionals to implement targeted interventions. [ 5 , 25 , 27 , 33 – 37 ] Education aimed at preparing professionals to work with vulnerable groups must be multidisciplinary, practice-oriented, and culturally responsive. Key elements emphasized in the literature include: (I) Recognition of Unique Vulnerability [ 36 , 38 ]; (II) Understanding Biological Mechanisms [ 35 , 39 ]; (III) Identification of the “Risk Cocktail” [ 36 , 38 ]; (IV) Awareness of Socioeconomic Context [ 35 , 40 ] and (V) Perinatal and Preconception Exposure [ 36 , 40 , 41 ] 12 Open in a new tab Clinical environmental competencies, including environmental exposure history-taking and risk communication, were identified in 12 studies (41.4%), while a focus on vulnerable populations (particularly children, pregnant women, and environmentally burdened communities) appeared in 14 studies (48.3%). Overall, the distribution demonstrates strong conceptual convergence: across the literature, EHL is consistently framed as a multifaceted competency central to PHC practice, encompassing environmental risk assessment, clinical decision-making, community engagement, and policy-oriented action. The specific knowledge, skills, and attitudes (competencies) that constitute EHL for PHC practice Analysis of the 29 included studies identified five core competency domains that define EHL in PHC: knowledge, clinical skills, communication and counseling, systems-based practice and advocacy, and attitudes and equity. These domains were derived from the distribution of studies, the self-evaluation indicators proposed by the authors, and the representative competencies described in the literature ( Table 2 ). Together, they reflect the multidimensional nature of EHL in PHC, integrating cognitive, clinical, communicative, systemic, and equity-oriented capacities. Table 2. Core Competency Domains for Environmental Health Literacy in Primary Health Care (PHC) (n = 29). Domain Suggested Self-Assessment Indicators of Competence Representative Competencies n Knowledge • I feel adequately prepared to identify the influence of environmental factors and environmental agents on the health of my patients. • I possess sufficient knowledge regarding the unique biological and behavioral vulnerability of pediatric populations to environmental exposures. • I feel confident in analyzing and discussing knowledge gaps related to endocrine disruptors and other relevant contaminants present in the community where I practice. • My current knowledge allows me to interpret basic environmental exposure data (e.g., air or water quality reports). • Understand the influence of environmental factors and environmental agents on human health [ 17 , 18 , 22 , 25 , 29 , 42 ] • Recognize the unique vulnerability of pediatric populations, given their increased exposure and biological immaturity [ 17 , 27 , 31 , 39 , 43 ] • Analyze knowledge gaps in more complex domains—such as biomarkers, pesticides, and particularly endocrine disruptors—present within the community in which the health professional practices [ 18 , 26 , 40 , 41 ] 13 Clinical skills • I routinely obtain a detailed environmental exposure history (including occupational and residential factors) for all of my patients. • I feel capable of using standardized tools or mnemonics (e.g., CH₂OPD₂) to guide the collection of environmental exposure information. • I am able to distinguish clinically relevant environmental exposures from low-risk exposures during patient assessment. • Conduct environmental exposure histories and interpret basic exposure data [ 3 , 22 , 23 , 25 , 29 ] • Obtain a detailed environmental exposure history—including occupational and residential factors—from all patients [ 22 , 30 , 31 ] 7 COMMUNICATION AND COUNSELING • I consistently use plain language and avoid technical jargon when discussing environmental risks with my patients. • I actively provide health education to my patients on strategies to reduce exposure to contaminants in food and household products. • I employ shared decision-making techniques to ensure that patients actively participate in selecting prevention and risk-reduction strategies. • Use plain language, risk communication strategies, and shared decision-making techniques [ 25 ] • Demonstrate the ability to discuss environmental risks and provide patients with clear, comprehensible information on risk-reduction and prevention strategies [ 5 , 18 , 22 , 25 , 38 , 43 ] 6 Systems and advocacy • I am able to identify and refer patients to appropriate sources of information and relevant public health regulatory agencies for environmental health concerns. • I engage in advocacy activities (e.g., notifying public authorities, participating in committees) aimed at reducing the impact of pollutants in my community. • I feel responsible for alerting public agencies about Environmental Health hazards that I identify in my clinical practice. • Identify relevant reference sources and engage with regulatory and public health agencies [ 18 , 22 ] • Demonstrate competence in advocating within the community to reduce pollutant impacts and in notifying public authorities about environmental health hazards [ 18 , 19 , 22 , 36 ] 4 Attitudes and equity • I feel effective in applying risk communication strategies to help patients understand the probability and severity of an exposure. • My current training has provided me with the knowledge and skills necessary to counsel patients on strategies for reducing environmental risk. • Environmental Health assessment should be a mandatory and systematic component of every clinical encounter, even in the absence of obvious symptoms. • Lack of time during clinical visits is a justifiable barrier to conducting a detailed environmental exposure assessment. (Reverse-coded statement) • I recognize that exposure to environmental hazards is unequal and disproportionately affects socioeconomically vulnerable populations in the area where I practice. • I actively seek to engage patients and the broader community as partners in identifying and addressing environmental health problems. • Recognize environmental health disparities and adopt a community-partnership orientation [ 35 ] • Affirm that Environmental Health assessment should be part of routine clinical practice [ 18 , 25 , 41 ] • Demonstrate perceived self-competence to address environmental exposures [ 24 , 25 , 40 ] 6 Open in a new tab Overall, knowledge emerged as the dominant domain (n = 13; 44.8%), followed by clinical skills (n = 7; 24.1%), communication and counseling (n = 6; 20.7%), attitudes and equity (n = 6; 20.7%), and systems-based practice and advocacy (n = 4; 13.8%). This distribution demonstrates that while foundational knowledge is well represented, competencies related to systemic navigation and advocacy appear less frequently in the literature. The knowledge domain (44.8%) was the most frequently addressed. Self-assessment items emphasized preparedness to identify environmental determinants of health, understand pediatric vulnerability, and interpret basic exposure data. Correspondingly, representative competencies included understanding exposure pathways, recognizing community-relevant contaminants (e.g., endocrine disruptors), and keeping up with emerging environmental health risks. Building on this foundation, studies addressing clinical skills (24.1%) focused on the practical application of knowledge in PHC settings. Self-evaluation items reflected confidence in conducting detailed occupational and residential exposure histories and using structured tools for environmental assessment. Representative competencies included differentiating clinically significant exposures and interpreting basic environmental indicators during patient encounters. Complementing these skills, the communication and counseling domain (20.7%) highlighted providers’ ability to translate complex environmental information into actionable guidance for patients. Self-assessment items centered on using plain language, offering preventive advice, and engaging patients in shared decision-making. Representative competencies included effective risk communication, patient education on exposure reduction, and contextualizing environmental data within clinical care. The systems-based practice and advocacy domain (13.8%), though less frequently represented, emphasized competencies necessary for engaging with environmental health systems. Self-evaluation items covered the ability to identify appropriate referral resources and collaborate with public health agencies. Representative competencies included making referrals to environmental health services and advocating for community-level environmental protections. Finally, the attitudes and equity domain (20.7%) underscored the ethical and justice-oriented dimensions of EHL. Self-evaluation items reflected the belief that environmental assessment should be a routine component of PHC practice and acknowledged the unequal distribution of environmental risks among socially vulnerable populations. Representative competencies included recognizing environmental health disparities, partnering with communities, and maintaining a proactive approach to environmental risk mitigation. Educational intervention outcomes in environmental health literacy A total of 29 studies met the inclusion criteria for this scoping review. Among these, 14 studies implemented some type of educational intervention in Environmental Health (EH) or Environmental Health Literacy (EHL). However, not all reported quantitative outcomes or provided sufficient methodological detail to allow systematic extraction. Two studies—one describing only a curricular proposal [ 1 ] and another presenting interventions as part of narrative conclusions rather than as primary evaluative data [ 3 ] —were therefore excluded from the summary table. Table 3 focuses exclusively on the 12 studies that explicitly described an intervention and reported evaluable outcomes, either quantitative or qualitative ( Table 3 ). Table 3. Environmental Health Literacy Intervention Studies for Health Students and Professionals (n = 12). Study Context and Population Type of Intervention Methods Competencies Developed (K/S/A)* Intervention Outcomes [ 36 ] Continuing Education (CE) Sample: 42 midwives/nurses in primary health care services Short-term in-person training Duration: 2 days Focus: Environmental and child health Quasi-experimental (single-group pretest–posttest) K: Knowledge of environmental and child health, risk factors S: Ability to identify at-risk children and analyze exposure history A: Increased awareness Significant improvement in knowledge (pre: 20.29; post: 31.07; p < 0.001). Large effect size (Eta² = 0.78). [ 35 ] Undergraduate/Graduate Programs Sample: 116 nursing students and nurses Hands-on modeling, case study, and in-person lectures Duration: 3 hours Focus: Environmental Health Literacy and Genomics Survey with pretest–posttest design K: Molecular basis, toxicology S: Ability to communicate concepts using culturally appropriate language A: Increased confidence and literacy in environmental health and genomics Significant knowledge gain (p < 0.0001). Mean scores increased from 10.9 to 14.0 (+3.1). [ 18 ] Undergraduate Programs Sample: 36 medical students Six-week module integrating interactive classes and use of a product-evaluation app Focus: Environmental Health Survey-based study K: Knowledge on toxins/endocrine disruptors S: Counseling skills, community advocacy A: Perceived preparedness/self-efficacy Likert-scale increases: • Diet/toxins counseling: 2.31 → 3.46 • Personal care/household products: 2.48 → 3.47 • Community advocacy: 2.27 → 3.39 (all p < 0.001) [ 44 ] Continuing Education (CE) Sample: 994 participants (nurses, mid-level practitioners, medical/nursing students, and other nonclinical professionals) Digital training with 12 online modules Duration: 30–60 minutes per module Focus: Pediatric Environmental Health Intervention study with follow-up survey K: Increased knowledge of pediatric environmental health S: Implicit increase in skills Mean score improved from 62.33% to 93.07% (+30.74%; p < 0.0001). Gains by subgroup: nurses +33.32%, mid-level +33.24%, physicians +28.58%, students +30.04%. ANOVA: p = 0.01. [ 38 ] Undergraduate Programs Sample: 267 nursing students (110 Spain; 157 UK) BOLD (blended learning) model combining e-learning and case-based learning Duration: 90 minutes Focus: Pediatric Environmental Health Quasi-experimental time-series design K: Knowledge on child environmental health and climate change S: Problem-solving, health education on contaminants A: Attitudes, commitment, agency as change agents Significant improvements (p < 0.001): • Knowledge +39.02% • Skills +29.98% • Attitudes +15.81% “Good knowledge”: Spain 39.09% → 90%; UK 19.11% → 64.33%. [ 40 ] Continuing Education (CE) Sample: 11 participants (midwives, nursery nurse, GP, obstetrician) Training day (Photolanguage 1h30; lecture 1h; 62-min focus group) Focus: Environmental Health Qualitative (focus group) K: Relationship between social environment and patient behavior S: Development of culturally relevant educational strategies A: Increased sensitization to environmental health issues Improved attitudes, communication, and awareness of modern environmental risks among vulnerable populations. [ 5 ] Continuing Education (CE) Sample: ~ 86 health professionals (physicians, nurses, public health workers) Development and implementation of the multimedia e-book A Story of Health Focus: Environmental Health Literacy Descriptive study K: Interaction of environmental and genetic factors S: Ability to develop strategies and interventions A: Environmental health literacy; recognition of professionals as trusted messengers 90% user satisfaction, applicability to practice, strategy development, and perceived absence of barriers. [ 31 ] Continuing Education (CE) Sample: Nursing researchers, public health nurses, environmental health specialists, research coordinators Active in-person methodology (home-based intervention) Focus: Environmental Health Case study K: Child vulnerability and household exposures S: Ability to conduct full home environmental risk assessments, provide education and referrals Not applicable (descriptive case). [ 17 ] Graduate Programs Sample: Master’s students (Family Nurse Practitioner – FNP e Clinical Nurse Specialist – CNS) 3-hour lecture and discussion Focus: Environmental Health Descriptive study K: Toxicology/industrial hygiene principles S: Application of the Hierarchy of Controls A: Increased acceptance of environmental health content Environmental exposures documented in only 9.4% of 53 audited records; Hierarchy of Controls identified as the most difficult concept. [ 29 ] Continuing Education (CE) Sample: Nursing faculty and public health nurses 2.5-day community case study conference; 6-hour interpreted bus/walking tour Focus: Environmental Health Descriptive study K: Toxicology, epidemiology S: Environmental exposure history, community assessment, digital resource use A: Social justice awareness, literacy and sensitization 100% of participants rated the combined lecture–hands-on–field visit method as highly effective. [ 21 ] Undergraduate Programs Sample: 94 nursing students in a community health nursing course Integration of in-person/online classes with 3–8 hour fieldwork supervised by environmental health professionals Focus: Environmental Health Intervention study K: Environmental health subspecialties S: Development of environmental risk assessments during home visits A: Increased valuation of environmental health knowledge, enhanced worldview 73.4% positive evaluation; 12.8% found it valuable despite limited initial interest. [ 20 ] Continuing Education (CE) Sample: Clinical nurses, academics, researchers Five-day conference/lecture Focus: Environmental Health Nominal Group Process (NGP) K: Basic mechanisms of environmental exposures, prevention and control strategies S: Comprehensive environmental exposure history, appropriate referrals A: Adoption of the role of patient advocate Priority strategies identified: make Environmental Health mandatory in curricula; strengthen interprofessional collaboration; offer placements in agencies; train faculty; create Environmental Health awards. Open in a new tab Notes : *Developed Competencies (Knowledge – K, Skills/Practice – S, Attitudes/Awareness – A). Across the 12 included intervention studies, sample sizes ranged from 8 to 994 participants, encompassing undergraduate and graduate students, midwives, nurses, physicians, public health professionals, and faculty members. The interventions employed a wide range of pedagogical formats, with the most effective approaches consistently combining traditional didactic instruction with active, immersive, and technology-mediated methods. These strategies aimed not only to improve knowledge but also to enhance self-efficacy, a key determinant of preparedness to recognize environmental exposures and provide counseling. Knowledge was addressed in 100% of studies, followed by skills (92%) and attitudes/awareness (83%). In formal educational settings, the predominant curricular strategy was the integration of EH/EHL content into existing courses, rather than the creation of new standalone modules, reflecting the structural constraints of already saturated curricula. Educational outcomes were consistently positive. Short-term in-person training for midwives increased mean knowledge from 20.29 to 31.07 (+53%, p < 0.001). Hands-on modeling for undergraduate nursing students (n = 116) increased test performance from 10.9 to 14.0 (+3.1 points; p < 0.0001). A six-week blended module for medical students (n = 36) produced substantial gains in self-reported preparedness, with improvements of 33–52% across counseling domains (p < 0.001). Large-scale digital training through the PEHSU program (n = 994) raised mean scores from 62.33% to 93.07% (+30.74%; p < 0.0001). A blended intervention with nursing students (n = 267) increased knowledge by 39.02%, skills by 29.98%, and attitudes by 15.81% (p < 0.001), with “good knowledge” rising from 39.09% to 90% in Spain and 19.11% to 64.33% in the UK. Experiential and community-based approaches also yielded strong outcomes. A 2.5-day case-based conference reached 100% agreement among participants regarding the effectiveness of combining lectures, laboratory demonstrations, and a 6-hour field tour to make complex toxicology and environmental epidemiology concepts accessible. In undergraduate field placements, 73.4% of students (69/94) evaluated the intervention positively, while 12.8% acknowledged its value despite low initial interest. Process and behavioral indicators revealed areas for improvement. Among postgraduate trainees, only 9.4% of clinical records (5/53) documented environmental exposures, and the Hierarchy of Controls was identified as the most challenging concept. Taken together, these findings indicate that although multimodal and blended educational strategies significantly enhance EHL knowledge, skills, and self-efficacy, sustained curricular integration and structured practical application remain essential for translating competencies into clinical and community practice. Discussion The findings of this scoping review reinforce the understanding of EHL as a multidimensional construct that extends beyond the mere acquisition of factual knowledge. EHL consistently emerged as a layered developmental process in which professionals progress from basic awareness of environmental determinants of health toward more advanced competencies involving clinical reasoning, community engagement, and policy-oriented action [ 45 ]. This conceptual progression mirrors established models of professional development in PHC, where practitioners evolve from applying individual-level interventions to engaging in upstream strategies that address structural and environmental determinants [ 46 ]. The recurrent emphasis on pediatric populations, pregnant women, and socioeconomically vulnerable groups underscores the ethical imperative inherent in EHL: the need to safeguard communities that disproportionately bear the burden of environmental exposures. This equity-focused orientation provides a unifying conceptual thread across diverse educational and clinical contexts [ 47 ]. The identification of five interrelated competency domains, knowledge, clinical skills, communication and counseling, attitudes and equity, and systems-based practice and advocacy, offers a coherent and comprehensive framework for conceptualizing EHL in PHC settings. However, the predominance of knowledge-centered outcomes relative to systems-based and advocacy-oriented competencies reveals a persistent imbalance in current educational approaches. While foundational knowledge is essential for recognizing environmental hazards, effective PHC practice depends on the ability to navigate regulatory systems, mobilize community resources, and influence upstream determinants [ 48 ]. Concurrently, the limited attention to communication and counseling competencies is concerning, given the centrality of risk communication in PHC and the complexities involved in helping patients interpret and act upon environmental health information. Collectively, these gaps suggest that existing curricula may enhance understanding without fully preparing professionals for practical, context-specific application, or for the intersectoral action that is fundamental to an integral approach to environmental health [ 49 ]. In this context, the educational interventions identified in the review provide an important counterpoint. They demonstrate considerable promise for strengthening EHL, with substantial gains observed across knowledge, skills, and attitudes. The consistent effectiveness of blended and technology-enhanced approaches indicates that pedagogical diversity, particularly when incorporating experiential components, can meaningfully enhance learners’ self-efficacy, a key determinant in translating knowledge into action [ 50 ]. Nevertheless, the concentration of interventions among undergraduate students and nurses, alongside the limited participation of postgraduate trainees and broader PHC teams, underscores that these gains have not yet been equitably distributed across the workforce. Expanding educational initiatives to involve a wider range of PHC professions could help build a more cohesive and system-responsive workforce, capable of integrating EHL more effectively [ 51 ]. Despite these encouraging developments, the translation of EHL gains into clinical practice remains limited. The strikingly low documentation of environmental exposures in clinical records exemplifies a persistent implementation gap in EHL, underscoring that improved knowledge alone does not guarantee practice change. Structural barriers, including curricular overload, limited consultation time, lack of incentives, and insufficient organizational support, emerged consistently across studies, indicating that individual-level training is necessary but not sufficient [ 52 ]. These findings highlight the importance of shifting from isolated educational strategies to comprehensive implementation approaches that address workflow integration, institutional infrastructure, and policy-level enablers. Without such systemic alignment, EHL risks remaining an aspirational competency rather than an operationalized component of PHC [ 53 ]. This structural pattern is further reflected in the geographic and professional distribution of the EHL evidence. The predominance of studies conducted in high-income countries suggests that prevailing EHL frameworks may insufficiently capture the realities of low- and middle-income settings, where environmental health burdens are often more acute [ 54 ]. Similarly, while the central role of nurses in EHL research aligns with their preventive and community-based orientation, the relative absence of other PHC professionals points to underutilized opportunities for broader interprofessional engagement. Addressing these gaps will be essential to advance EHL as a shared PHC responsibility rather than a niche domain concentrated within a single professional group. Against this backdrop, several implications arise for research, policy, and educational planning. From a research standpoint, there is an urgent need for implementation science approaches to examine how organizational structures, clinical workflows, and institutional environments facilitate or impede the adoption of EHL competencies [ 55 ]. Additional inquiry in diverse global contexts would strengthen the applicability of existing frameworks and ensure that emerging initiatives align with the environmental health challenges faced by different health systems. From a policy perspective, sustainable EHL integration will require coordinated action across educational institutions, accreditation bodies, and healthcare organizations. Embedding EHL competencies into professional training standards, developing supportive documentation and referral systems, and creating institutional incentives for environmental health assessment represent promising strategies for fostering durable adoption. Furthermore, the development and validation of standardized EHL assessment tools could enable consistent measurement of educational and practice outcomes. The limitations of the assessed evidence base should temper interpretation. The heterogeneity of populations, interventions, and outcomes precluded meta-analysis and limited direct comparisons of effectiveness. The predominance of studies from high-income countries may also restrict generalizability to regions where environmental burdens are more severe and PHC systems are more resource constrained. Even so, the evidence converges on a clear conclusion: EHL is essential for contemporary PHC, educational interventions can substantially improve competencies, and meaningful public health impact will depend on coordinated action across educational systems, health service organizations, and policy environments. Conclusion This review establishes EHL as a foundational and multidimensional competency within community-based primary health care, intersecting preventive, clinical, communicative, and advocacy capacities. Although conceptual heterogeneity exists in the literature, five core domains consistently define effective EHL: environmental health knowledge, clinical exposure assessment, risk communication, equity-oriented attitudes, and systems-level advocacy. Multimodal training strategies, especially those enhanced by digital tools and mobile learning systems, were associated with meaningful gains in knowledge, skills, and professional self-efficacy among PHC teams. However, evidence of translation into routine practice remains limited, revealing a persistent implementation gap. Inconsistent recording of environmental exposures in standardized medical registries, lack of structured reporting instruments, and weak institutional integration into daily PHC workflows indicate that education, while essential, cannot sustain adoption without enabling infrastructures. Bridging this disconnect will require embedding EHL into undergraduate and residency medical training pathways, aligned with competency-based assessment models, institutional protocols, and interoperable digital health platforms that support longitudinal exposure documentation and interprofessional collaboration. Strengthening environmental health capacity in PHC demands a coordinated transformation spanning academic institutions, service management systems, public policy frameworks, and environmental-health partnerships. Systemic alignment, measurable indicators, and routine documentation standards will be critical to ensure meaningful clinical and public-health impact. Supporting information S1 File. Appendix 1. (DOCX) pone.0343112.s001.docx (25.4KB, docx) Data Availability All data underlying the findings of this study are publicly available in the following figshare repository: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.30755477 . Funding Statement The Centro Universitário de Mineiros (UNIFIMES) provided financial support to cover the article processing charge (APC) through reimbursement of the publication fee. No additional external funding was received for this study. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. References 1. Leonardi GS, Zeka A, Ashworth M, Bouland C, Crabbe H, Duarte-Davidson R, et al. Building competency to deal with environmental health challenges: experiences and a proposal. Front Public Health. 2024;12:1373530. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2024.1373530 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 2. Goldman RH, Zajac L, Geller RJ, Miller MD. Developing and implementing core competencies in children’s environmental health for students, trainees and healthcare providers: a narrative review. BMC Med Educ. 2021;21(1):503. doi: 10.1186/s12909-021-02921-3 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 3. Brown P, Clark S, Zimmerman E, Valenti M, Miller MD. Health professionals’ environmental health literacy. 2019 [cited 2025 Feb 16]. In: Environmental health literacy [Internet]. USA: Springer, [cited 2025 Feb 16]; [195-227]. Available from: doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-94108-0_8 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 4. Bellack JP, Musham C, Hainer A, Graber DR, Holmes D. Environmental Health Competencies Prepared for the Environmental Health & Equity Collaborative’s Workforce & Education Workgroup. USA: AAOHN Journal; 2020. [cited 2025 Feb 16]. Available from: https://www.apha.org/getcontentasset/e0c3466b-5dcd-4f90-841c-02adae649c1e/7ca0dc9d-611d-46e2-9fd3-26a4c03ddcbb/environmental_health_competencies.pdf?language=en [ Google Scholar ] 5. Miller MD, Valenti M, Schettler T, Tencza B. A Multimedia E-Book-A Story of Health: Filling a Gap in Environmental Health Literacy for Health Professionals. Environ Health Perspect. 2016;124(8):A133-6. doi: 10.1289/EHP222 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 6. Klar RT, Keating SA, Stimpfel AW. Expanding Environmental Care Competencies for Future and Current Healthcare Providers. Build Healthy Acad Communities J. 2024;8(2):47–52. doi: 10.18061/bhac.v8i2.9752 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 7. Sauvé L, Godmaire H. Environmental Health Education: A Participatory Holistic Approach. EcoHealth. 2004;1(S2):SU35–46. doi: 10.1007/s10393-004-0080-z [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 8. Frazier LM, Berberich NJ, Moser R Jr, Cromer JW Jr, Hitchcock MA, Monteiro FM, et al. Developing occupational and environmental medicine curricula for primary care residents: project EPOCH-Envi. Educating Physicians in OCupational Health and the Environment. J Occup Environ Med. 1999;41(8):706–11. doi: 10.1097/00043764-199908000-00014 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 9. Asaduzzaman M, Ara R, Afrin S, Meiring JE, Saif-Ur-Rahman KM. Planetary Health Education and Capacity Building for Healthcare Professionals in a Global Context: Current Opportunities, Gaps and Future Directions. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(18):11786. doi: 10.3390/ijerph191811786 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 10. Hamerski Trombetta G, Soares Rech R, Tetelbom Stein A. Planetary health curriculum in higher education: Scoping review. Int Health Trends & Persp. 2023;3(3):316–35. doi: 10.32920/ihtp.v3i3.1804 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 11. Carrion C, Llamas CA, Safitri ED, Domènech-Panicello C, Downward GS, Findyartini A, et al. Conceptual frameworks, competencies, contents and teaching methods in planetary health education for health students and professionals: a global systematic scoping review. BMC Med Educ. 2025;25(1):956. doi: 10.1186/s12909-025-07450-x [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 12. Visser EH, Oosterveld B, Slootweg IA, Vos HMM, Adriaanse MA, Schoones JW, et al. The Development and Characteristics of Planetary Health in Medical Education: A Scoping Review. Acad Med. 2024;99(10):1155–66. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000005796 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 13. Vandenberg S, Strus JA, Chircop A, Egert A, Savard J. Planetary Health in Nursing: A Scoping Review. J Adv Nurs. 2025;81(12):8080–115. doi: 10.1111/jan.16570 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 14. Tiitta I, Cubelo F, McDermott-Levy R, Jaakkola JJK, Kuosmanen L. Climate change integration in nursing education: A scoping review. Nurse Educ Today. 2024;139:106210. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2024.106210 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 15. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467–73. doi: 10.7326/M18-0850 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 16. Peters MDJ, Marnie C, Tricco AC, Pollock D, Munn Z, Alexander L, et al. Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evid Implement. 2021;19(1):3–10. doi: 10.1097/XEB.0000000000000277 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 17. Hewitt JB, Candek PR, Engel JM. Challenges and successes of infusing environmental health content in a nursing program. Public Health Nurs. 2006;23(5):453–64. doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1446.2006.00583.x [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 18. Kligler B, Pinto Zipp G, Rocchetti C, Secic M, Ihde ES. The impact of integrating environmental health into medical school curricula: a survey-based study. BMC Med Educ. 2021;21(1):40. doi: 10.1186/s12909-020-02458-x [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 19. Watterson A, Thomson P, Malcolm C, Shepherd A, McIntosh C. Integrating environmental health into nursing and midwifery practice. J Adv Nurs. 2005;49(6):665–74. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2004.03340.x [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 20. Larsson LS, Butterfield P. Mapping the future of environmental health and nursing: strategies for integrating national competencies into nursing practice. Public Health Nurs. 2002;19(4):301–8. doi: 10.1046/j.1525-1446.2002.19410.x [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 21. Sweeney NM, de Peyster A. Integrating environmental health into an undergraduate community health nursing course. Public Health Nurs. 2005;22(5):439–44. doi: 10.1111/j.0737-1209.2005.220509.x [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 22. Gehle KS, Crawford JL, Hatcher MT. Integrating environmental health into medical education. Am J Prev Med. 2011;41(4 Suppl 3):S296–301. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2011.06.007 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 23. Sanborn M, Grierson L, Upshur R, Marshall L, Vakil C, Griffith L, et al. Family medicine residents’ knowledge of, attitudes toward, and clinical practices related to environmental health: Multi-program survey. Can Fam Physician. 2019;65(6):e269–77. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 24. Van Dongen CJ. Environmental health and nursing practice: a survey of registered nurses. Appl Nurs Res. 2002;15(2):67–73. doi: 10.1053/apnr.2002.29521 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 25. Massaquoi LD, Edwards NC. A Scoping Review of Maternal and Child Health Clinicians Attitudes, Beliefs, Practice, Training and Perceived Self-Competence in Environmental Health. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2015;12(12):15769–81. doi: 10.3390/ijerph121215018 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 26. Subiza-Pérez M, Vrotsou K, Esnal H, Kortajarena M, Mujika A, Marinelarena E, et al. Environmental health knowledge and competences in Basque health workers. A comparison of different professional profiles. Environ Res. 2024;243:117789. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2023.117789 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 27. Vrotsou K, Subiza-Pérez M, Lertxundi A, Vergara I, Marti-Carrera I, Ochoa de Retana L, et al. Environmental health knowledge of healthcare professionals: Instrument development and validation using the Rasch model. Environ Res. 2023;235:116582. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2023.116582 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 28. Bartee RT, Winnail SD, Olsen SE, Diaz C, Blevens JA. Assessing competencies of the public health workforce in a frontier state. J Community Health. 2003;28(6):459–69. doi: 10.1023/a:1026085808741 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 29. Backus ASN, Hewitt JB, Chalupka SM. Using a site visit to a contaminated location as a focus for environmental health education for academic and public health nurses. Public Health Nurs. 2006;23(5):410–32. doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1446.2006.00580.x [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 30. Nicotera G, Nobile CGA, Bianco A, Pavia M. Environmental history-taking in clinical practice: knowledge, attitudes, and practice of primary care physicians in Italy. J Occup Environ Med. 2006;48(3):294–302. doi: 10.1097/01.jom.0000184868.77815.2a [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 31. Barnes G, Fisher B, Postma J, Harnish K, Butterfield P, Hill W. Incorporating environmental health into nursing practice: a case study on indoor air quality. Pediatr Nurs. 2010;36(1):33–9, 52; quiz 40. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 32. Paranzino GK, Butterfield P, Nastoff T, Ranger C. I PREPARE: development and clinical utility of an environmental exposure history mnemonic. AAOHN J. 2005;53(1):37–42. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 33. Stotland NE, Sutton P, Trowbridge J, Atchley DS, Conry J, Trasande L, et al. Counseling patients on preventing prenatal environmental exposures--a mixed-methods study of obstetricians. PLoS One. 2014;9(6):e98771. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0098771 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 34. Sattler B, Davis DBA. Nurses’ role in children’s environmental health protection. Pediatr Nurs. 2008;34(4):329–39. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 35. Vandiver KM, Erdei E, Mayer AG, Ricciardi C, O’Leary M, Burke K, et al. Building Environmental Health and Genomics Literacy among Healthcare Providers Serving Vulnerable Communities: An Innovative Educational Framework. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(2):929. doi: 10.3390/ijerph19020929 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 36. Gürgen Şimşek H, Dağhan Ş. Improving the Awareness of Midwives and Nurses Working in Primary Health Care Services Regarding the Relationship Between Environment and Child Health: A Quasi-Experimental Research. Public Health Nurs. 2026;43(1):127–37. doi: 10.1111/phn.70027 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 37. Morton DG, Senekane MF. Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices of Community Health Workers in Relation to Environmental Health Hazards in the Nelson Mandela Bay. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2024;21(3):353. doi: 10.3390/ijerph21030353 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 38. Álvarez-García C, Álvarez-Nieto C, Kelsey J, Carter R, Sanz-Martos S, López-Medina IM. Effectiveness of the e-NurSus Children Intervention in the Training of Nursing Students. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16(21):4288. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16214288 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 39. Álvarez-García C, Álvarez-Nieto C, Pancorbo-Hidalgo PL, Sanz-Martos S, López-Medina IM. Student nurses’ knowledge and skills of children’s environmental health: Instrument development and psychometric analysis using item response theory. Nurse Educ Today. 2018;69:113–9. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2018.07.008 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 40. Albouy-Llaty M, Rouillon S, El Ouazzani H, DisProSE G, Rabouan S, Migeot V. Environmental Health Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices of French Prenatal Professionals Working with a Socially Underprivileged Population: A Qualitative Study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16(14):2544. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16142544 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 41. Sunyach C, Antonelli B, Tardieu S, Marcot M, Perrin J, Bretelle F. Environmental Health in Perinatal and Early Childhood: Awareness, Representation, Knowledge and Practice of Southern France Perinatal Health Professionals. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018;15(10):2259. doi: 10.3390/ijerph15102259 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 42. Leffers JM, Smith CM, McDermott-Levy R, Resick LK, Hanson MJ, Jordan LC, et al. Developing curriculum recommendations for environmental health in nursing. Nurse Educ. 2015;40(3):139–43. doi: 10.1097/NNE.0000000000000133 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 43. Miao K, Chen Q, Fang H, Liu S. Psychometric validation of the children’s environmental health questionnaires in community nurses. Public Health Nurs. 2022;39(1):326–35. doi: 10.1111/phn.13024 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 44. Wong KH, Allen A, Durrani TS. Evaluating Effectiveness of Online Learning Modules in Pediatric Environmental Health Education. J Med Toxicol. 2020;16(3):269–75. doi: 10.1007/s13181-019-00746-7 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 45. Tomsho KS, Quinn MR, Wang Z, Preston EV, Adamkiewicz G, Joseph NT, et al. Improving the Health and Environmental Health Literacy of Professionals: Evaluating the Effect of a Virtual Intervention on Phthalate Environmental Health Literacy. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2024;21(12):1571. doi: 10.3390/ijerph21121571 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 46. Zanobini P, Del Riccio M, Lorini C, Bonaccorsi G. Empowering Sustainable Healthcare: The Role of Health Literacy. Sustainability. 2024;16(10):3964. doi: 10.3390/su16103964 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 47. Wong A, Hoang T-MH, Ferrara V, Nguyen TH. How Systemic Barriers Can Impact Health Inequities When Facing Climate Change Stressors: A Scoping Review of Global Differences. Geohealth. 2025;9(6):e2024GH001272. doi: 10.1029/2024GH001272 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 48. Jacobsen KH, Waggett CE, Berenbaum P, Bayles BR, Carlson GL, English R, et al. Planetary health learning objectives: foundational knowledge for global health education in an era of climate change. Lancet Planet Health. 2024;8(9):e706–13. doi: 10.1016/S2542-5196(24)00167-0 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 49. de Medeiros LC, Caldeira FID, de Medeiros FD, Silva RU de O, Gasque KC da S. Reflexos da saúde planetária no processo transdisciplinar entre profissionais de saúde. Saude soc. 2023;32(suppl 1). doi: 10.1590/s0104-12902023230004pt [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 50. Ferrari AP, Andrade J, Parada CMG de L. Inclusion of planetary health and Sustainable Development Goals in nursing training. Rev Bras Enferm. 2025;78Suppl 1(Suppl 1):e20240014. doi: 10.1590/0034-7167-2024-0014 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 51. Endalamaw A, Khatri RB, Erku D, Zewdie A, Wolka E, Nigatu F, et al. Barriers and strategies for primary health care workforce development: synthesis of evidence. BMC Prim Care. 2024;25(1):99. doi: 10.1186/s12875-024-02336-1 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 52. Jakubiak A, Kwiatkowska K, Fedorenko N, Ille S, Jakubiak Z. Barriers to physical activity counseling in primary health care: identifying gaps in training and implementation. Wiad Lek. 2025;78(3):565–70. doi: 10.36740/WLek/202448 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 53. Derksen C, Walter FM, Akbar AB, Parmar AVE, Saunders TS, Round T, et al. The implementation challenge of computerised clinical decision support systems for the detection of disease in primary care: systematic review and recommendations. Implement Sci. 2025;20(1):33. doi: 10.1186/s13012-025-01445-4 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 54. Wells J, Matthews V, Chakraborty A. Exploring best practices that integrate environmental health and primary healthcare in Indigenous populations: A scoping review. First Nations Health and Wellbeing - The Lowitja Journal. 2025;3:100071. doi: 10.1016/j.fnhli.2025.100071 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 55. Mutsaers B, Langmuir T, MacDonald-Liska C, Presseau J, Larocque G, Harris C, et al. Applying Implementation Science to Identify Primary Care Providers’ Enablers and Barriers to Using Survivorship Care Plans. Curr Oncol. 2024;31(6):3278–90. doi: 10.3390/curroncol31060249 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0343112.r001 Decision Letter 0 André Luis C Ramalho André Luis C Ramalho Academic Editor Find articles by André Luis C Ramalho Author information Copyright and License information Roles André Luis C Ramalho : Academic Editor © 2026 André Luis C RamalhoAndré Luis C Ramalho This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited., which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. PMC Copyright notice 2 Feb 2026 Environmental Health Literacy Competencies and Teaching Methods for Students and Health Professionals in Primary Health Care: A Scoping Review PONE-D-25-64280 Dear Dr. Cesar, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support .. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Kind regards, André Luis C Ramalho, PhD Academic Editor PLOS One Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ********** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #1: N/A Reviewer #2: Yes ********** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??> The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.--> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ********** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ********** Reviewer #1: Dear Authors, Dear Authors, - This topic is timely and well‑motivated given the expanding remit of PHC to address environmental determinants of health. The proposed EHL competency framework is a key strength. Besides, the manuscript is methodologically sound and consistent with PRISMA‑ScR and JBI guidance, and its conclusions are reasonably supported by the mapped evidence. - No original statistical analysis was conducted by the authors, which is appropriate for a scoping review. Descriptive reporting of quantitative outcomes from included studies is adequate. - The final queries applied in each database are shared as an Appendix of this article, which ensures the transparency of the applied methods, thus allowing a user to address the same question and screen the same set of literature to come up with a comparable general conclusion. - The manuscript is generally clear, well structured, and written in acceptable scientific English. Given all these aspects, this manuscript is recommended for publication. Reviewer #2: I have no comments to the author at this time. The article is well written and I have no additions at this time. The authors should keep up this approach to developing and crafting future articles. The attention to detail is emulable. I have no comments to the author at this time. The article is well written and I have no additions at this time. The authors should keep up this approach to developing and crafting future articles. The attention to detail is emulable. ********** what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .--> Reviewer #1: Yes: Bruno Filipe Coelho da CostaBruno Filipe Coelho da Costa Reviewer #2: Yes: Henry J. lawsonHenry J. lawson ********** PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0343112.r002 Acceptance letter André Luis C Ramalho André Luis C Ramalho Academic Editor Find articles by André Luis C Ramalho Author information Copyright and License information Roles André Luis C Ramalho : Academic Editor © 2026 André Luis C RamalhoAndré Luis C Ramalho This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited., which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. PMC Copyright notice PONE-D-25-64280 PLOS One Dear Dr. Cesar, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS One. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact [email protected]. You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing . If we can help with anything else, please email us at [email protected]. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Prof. Dr. André Luis C Ramalho Academic Editor PLOS One Associated Data This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article. Supplementary Materials S1 File. Appendix 1. (DOCX) pone.0343112.s001.docx (25.4KB, docx) Data Availability Statement All data underlying the findings of this study are publicly available in the following figshare repository: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.30755477 . Articles from PLOS One are provided here courtesy of PLOS ACTIONS View on publisher site PDF (809.0 KB) Cite Collections Permalink PERMALINK Copy RESOURCES Similar articles Cited by other articles Links to NCBI Databases Cite Copy Download .nbib .nbib Format: AMA APA MLA NLM Add to Collections Create a new collection Add to an existing collection Name your collection * Choose a collection Unable to load your collection due to an error Please try again Add Cancel Follow NCBI NCBI on X (formerly known as Twitter) NCBI on Facebook NCBI on LinkedIn NCBI on GitHub NCBI RSS feed Connect with NLM NLM on X (formerly known as Twitter) NLM on Facebook NLM on YouTube National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894 Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure Help Accessibility Careers NLM NIH HHS USA.gov Back to Top