The high demand for preventive medicine necessitates the search for the most effective forms, means, and methods of prevention. Hygienic education of various populations that factors in lifestyle, professional activity, environmental conditions, and health status is one of the relevant directions in the field of prevention. The search for the most relevant areas of hygiene education is the subject research designed to analyze the existing literature, regulations, and methodological documents. In order to identify the most relevant directions for research in the domain of hygienic education, it is necessary to summarize and systematize the accumulated research evidence and theoretical materials.

As specified in Clause 12 of the Passport of the scientific specialty "3.2.1 Hygiene," current research in the field of hygiene involves investigation of the effectiveness of various forms, means, and methods of hygienic education, which support the development of hygienic education technology for various population groups and design of an evidence-based healthy lifestyle popularization system.

Given that the Russian healthcare system is oriented toward prevention, it is necessary to analyze publication trends in the field of health education for various population groups, considering both historical experience and the current situation.

This study analyzed existing scientific and practical evidence on hygienic education in various populations.

METHODS

The Russian Science Citation Index (RSCI; data from eLIBRARY.RU) enabled the analysis of publication activity on the problem of hygienic education; the papers for inclusion in the study were searched for among the indexed literature. We considered works published from 1995 (when the first paper was added to the index) to the third quarter of 2025 inclusive. The search included three stages. At stage 1, we limited the search scope to titles and keywords, and searched for "hygienic education." The search yielded 480 publications, mostly by Russian authors. At stage 2, with the search still limited to titles and keywords, we used the query “sanitary education,” which reflects the historical development of this field in Russia. This attempt yielded 425 publications, mostly by Russian authors. At stage 3, we selected publications that were articles, monographs, textbooks, and manuals. Subsequently, we eliminated duplicate records identified in both search attempts (retaining a single copy) and excluded publications that were only indirectly related or unrelated to the review question. As a result, 663 publications were selected for further analysis.

GigaChat 2.0 neural network (https://giga.chat) was used to analyze the data. The results of the processing was verified and edited by the authors in accordance with modern approaches to data processing [1].

RESULTS

We established the total number of citations of the selected publications: 2402 (fig. 1). There were 278 publications with zero citations. The average number of citations per publication was 3.62 ± 1.22.

The pool of works included both translated publications, such as materials by the World Health Organization (WHO) and UNESCO, as well as original research conducted in the Republic of Belarus, the Republic of Tajikistan, the Kyrgyz Republic, and the People's Republic of China, the topics of which were addiction prevention, dental health, etc. (24 publications) [2–4].

There were 18 theses prepared for conferral of the degrees of Candidate or Doctor of Sciences in Medicine or Pedagogy. The study dedicated to dental health was the most cited: 25 citations [5]. The papers also described the organization of patient education courses for individuals with cardiovascular diseases, osteoporosis, and tuberculosis; programs aimed at preserving reproductive health; and courses promoting healthy lifestyle among students.

A large number of articles and fundamental monographs explored the history of medicine and health education in different periods of the country's development (83 publications) [6–9].

Some works investigated individual methods, forms, and means of health education, such as posters, films, and literature (14 citations) [10, 11].

Two publications analyzed the role of health education houses in the anti-epidemics efforts [12, 13].

The article with the largest number of citations (15) was published in 1995. It analyzes the historical problems of health education of the country's population and sets the tasks relevant at that time [14].

A number of studies have examined the contributions of prominent figures in hygiene and sanitation, including N.A. Semashko, Academician of the Academy of Medical Sciences of the USSR; Professors A.V. Molkov, Z.P. Solovyov, and I.M. Sechenov; and the poet V.V. Mayakovsky [15–17].

Works dedicated to prevention of drug addiction, substance abuse, alcohol dependence, and tobacco smoking prevention (analytical papers, manuals, original research, practical guidelines) occupy a special place. They are intended for different target audiences ― doctors, educators, psychologists, students, and parents. Our pool included 149 such publications. The most cited were the textbook for students of pedagogical universities (29 citations), the handbook for psychologists (28 citations), and the handbook for doctors (25 citations) [18–20].

Thirty-two publications covered protection of reproductive health, HIV and STD prevention. The most cited was a literature review (7 citations) discussing reproductive health of adolescent girls [21].

Many publications consider issues of prevention of dental diseases, including through hygienic education. There were 53 of them in the pool. The most cited (28 and 29 citations) were publications exploring approaches to the prevention of dental diseases in various population groups, including students [22, 23].

Several works focus on the need to educate tuberculosis patients (16 publications), and to organize educational programs for patients with various diseases (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes mellitus, cardiovascular, oncological diseases, etc.) (24 publications). The most cited of them was a monograph that discusses the issues of public health education in the context of prevention of zoonotic infections (45 citations) [24].

Twenty-nine works addressed the aspects of sanitary education of specific population cohorts — servicemen, women on maternity leave, convicts, working population, rural population, people living in the northern regions, retired, etc. The most cited work in this subpool was the one that considered sanitary and hygienic education of convicts (19 citations) [25].

A relatively small number of works — 9 publications — revolve around more current issues of hygiene education, including prevention of COVID-19, hygienic guidance for guests, athletes, and volunteers at the XXII Olympic and XI Paralympic Winter Games in Sochi [26].

A substantial subset of 95 guidelines and articles is aimed at teachers, psychologists, and students of pedagogical universities. These works cover hygienic education, healthy lifestyle formation, and health‑saving technologies in institutions for children, adolescents, and young people. Here, the guidelines received the largest number of citations (36) [27].

The pool included 14 fundamental guidelines and textbooks for hygienists, medical doctors of various specialties, teachers and students of medical universities and medical colleges (mostly for undergraduates and postgraduates). A 2019 textbook by L.F. Ignatova, V.V. Stan, and H.H. Khamidulina was the most cited work in this subset. It outlined the methodology for assessing lifestyle in school-age children [28].

We reviewed the original research by doctors on the topic of hygienic education of various groups of the population and students of medical universities; the topics of these works were nutrition (9 publications), safe use of electronic devices (12 publications), theoretical issues and modern technologies of hygienic education (22), etc. This subset included 94 original studies published in different years.

The most cited articles were those by A.G. Sukharev, V.V. Stan, and L.F. Ignatova (2016) — 25 citations; E.G. Blinova, O.S. Bogunova, I.S. Akimova, and L.V. Demakova (2015) — 24 citations; O.Yu. Milushkina, N.A. Skoblina, Yu.P. Pivovarov et al. (2022) ― 18 citations. They explore the issues of hygienic education of students [29–31].

fig. 2 presents the proportions of each of the publication types described above. The table below shows the overall distribution of publications. The ratio of publications by one author (18%) versus groups of authors (82%) is 1:5.

DISCUSSION

The problems of hygienic education of the population are cross-domain, being of interest to the medical, pedagogical, and psychological communities, as evidenced by the wide variety of journals publishing the respective works. However, although a substantial number of publications have appeared since 1995, they are rarely cited; many articles have zero citations.

Since 2005, only 18 dissertations have been completed; these studies vary considerably in how deeply they examine hygienic education in different populations, with most focusing on patients..

The most common sources in this study's corpus are historical and contemporary methodological papers and guidebooks on sanitary education for various population groups, covering addiction prevention, reproductive health, tuberculosis prevention, and dental health, as well as works discussing the organization of patient education courses for people with chronic non-communicable diseases, although the range of nosologies covered is limited.

There are 28 papers presenting research on health education of specific groups of the population (women on maternity leave, military personnel, convicts, working population, rural population, population of northern regions, retired, etc.). It should be noted that these studies do not cover all target groups.

The guidelines for teachers, psychologists, and students of pedagogical universities are a special subset of the corpus. In these works, health education is considered together with the formation of a healthy lifestyle and use of health-saving technologies.

The number of hygiene education textbooks and workbooks for doctors and students of medical universities that were published within the considered period is limited. Several studies report original research but largely neglect some of the notable issues, such as vaccination and parent education during the infant's first year of life. Current research priorities include population-level health education in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, given that this domain remains understudied. With the spread of digitalization, new forms, methods, and tools for hygienic education are becoming increasingly relevant, necessitating further methodological development, testing, and evaluation of their effectiveness. An interesting avenue is to analyze scientific developments across departments of leading medical universities; in our pool, only four papers fell into this category.

The ratio of single-author to multi-author publications likely reflects the current trend toward collaboration in research and practice, especially in areas related to disease prevention and hygiene education, where interdisciplinary approaches and multi-domain efforts are needed.

Most of the publications are research articles, which highlights the importance of original, relevant research in the field of hygiene education and disease prevention.

As for the evolution of research and other activities in the considered field, we see the following directions.

1. Expansion of interdisciplinary cooperation. Involvement of specialists from various domains (medicine, pedagogy, psychology, and sociology) to obtain a more holistic understanding and develop effective prevention strategies.
2. Expansion of the geographical scope of research. Comparative assessment of the data obtained in different regions of Russia aimed at identifying regional specifics and adapting the applied technologies to local conditions.
3. Strengthening the practical focus of research. Transition from purely theoretical developments to the design and testing of modern methods, forms, and means of hygienic education in order to facilitate practical application of the said theoretical developments.
4. Strengthening actual links between science and practice. Close cooperation between researchers and practitioners (teachers, doctors, social workers) in the context of testing of modern methods, forms and means of hygiene education, as well as assessment of practical effectiveness of implemented technologies.

CONCLUSIONS

The analysis of publication trends in the field of hygiene education revealed that this area has received insufficient attention from researchers. We identified only a few fundamental and original studies, a narrow range of issues addressed, and very few dissertations on this topic. This field requires extensive dialogue between scientists and practitioners, active discussion of the problem in leading hygiene journals, systematic sharing of accumulated experience, cross-citation of scientific literature, adaptation of existing practices to diverse living, working, and recreational conditions and regional contexts, and the development of new approaches to hygienic education.