Hydrogels are innovative materials characterized by a water-swollen, crosslinked polymeric network capable of retaining substantial amounts of water while maintaining structural integrity. Their unique ability to swell or contract in response to environmental stimuli makes them integral to biomedical applications, including drug delivery, tissue engineering, and wound healing. Among these, “smart” hydrogels, sensitive to stimuli such as pH, temperature, and light, showcase reversible transitions between liquid and semi-solid states. Thermoresponsive hydrogels, exemplified by poly(N-isopropylacrylamide) (PNIPAM), are particularly notable for their sensitivity to temperature changes, transitioning near their lower critical solution temperature (LCST) of approximately 32 °C in water. Structurally, PNIPAM-based hydrogels (PNIPAM-HYDs) are chemically versatile, allowing for modifications that enhance biocompatibility and functional adaptability. These properties enable their application in diverse therapeutic areas such as cancer therapy, phototherapy, wound healing, and tissue engineering. In this review, the unique properties and behavior of smart PNIPAM are explored, with an emphasis on diverse synthesis methods and a brief note on biocompatibility. Furthermore, the structural and functional modifications of PNIPAM-HYDs are detailed, along with their biomedical applications in cancer therapy, phototherapy, wound healing, tissue engineering, skin conditions, ocular diseases, etc. Various delivery routes and patents highlighting therapeutic advancements are also examined. Finally, the future prospects of PNIPAM-HYDs remain promising, with ongoing research focused on enhancing their stability, responsiveness, and clinical applicability. Their continued development is expected to revolutionize biomedical technologies, paving the way for more efficient and targeted therapeutic solutions.

Conventional oral and injectable drug administration still struggles with unstable plasma levels, weak targeting, and considerable systemic toxicity, problems that become especially acute in chronic disease management. Implantable and wearable biomedical devices offer one path around these limits, yet device-only platforms continue to fall short on drug loading, release control, and protection of fragile therapeutics. Integrating nanoparticle-based biomaterials into such devices has therefore moved from a research curiosity to a serious clinical strategy. As a result, understanding the design principles, translational challenges, and clinical potential of these hybrid platforms has become increasingly important. This review provides a comprehensive assessment of four major nanoparticle families—polymeric carriers (PLGA, chitosan, and micelles), lipid-based vehicles (liposomes, SLNs, and NLCs), inorganic systems (gold, mesoporous silica, iron oxide, and calcium phosphate), and hybrid composites—focusing on how their physicochemical properties govern drug encapsulation, release behavior, and tissue compatibility. These classes are then linked to specific implantable formats such as drug-eluting stents, nano-enabled scaffolds, and reservoir depots, and to wearable formats including transdermal patches, microneedle arrays, biosensor-coupled patches, and patient-actuated devices. A dedicated section addresses stimuli-responsive release driven by pH, enzymes, temperature, and electrical or magnetic fields, alongside closed-loop platforms that pair real-time biosensing with on-demand dosing. Surface engineering strategies, ligand targeting, antifouling coatings, antimicrobial layers, and immune-modulating chemistries are also discussed, together with the central translational hurdles: long-term stability, foreign body response, scale-up, sterilization, and regulatory classification of combination products. Finally, the review outlines near-term directions, including AI-driven dosing, 4D bioprinting, biomimetic nanocarriers, gene therapy delivery, and bioresorbable electronics, that together suggest where these hybrid platforms are likely to mature next.

Cancer incidence is increasing in Saudi Arabia, and in the Asir region, many cases are diagnosed at advanced stages. Schools are often considered advantageous settings for early prevention, but little is known about how cancer education is currently addressed or perceived within school settings. This exploratory study aimed to assess the status of cancer education in middle and high schools in the Asir region by examining science teachers’ practices, perceived barriers, and views on the feasibility of integrating cancer-related topics into routine instruction. An exploratory descriptive study was conducted with 22 science teachers from 5 urban public schools in the Asir region using structured interviews that included yes/no and open-ended questions. Descriptive statistics summarized closed-ended responses; open-ended data were analyzed through manual inductive content analysis. While most teachers reported including some cancer-related content in their teaching, coverage was inconsistent and typically breast cancer-focused. Only 2 teachers had received training on cancer education. Barriers included a lack of institutional support, time constraints, and beliefs that cancer education was outside their teaching responsibilities. Teachers generally viewed cancer education as important and feasible, with 20 of 22 expressing willingness to receive training and all participants supporting school–health partnerships such as guest speakers. Concerns about potential student anxiety were mixed: 13 of 22 teachers felt cancer education would not cause anxiety, whereas 9 of 22 were concerned that it might. Although based on a small, convenience-based sample drawn only from urban public schools, this study provides preliminary insight into how science teachers in 1 region of Saudi Arabia engage with cancer education. Findings highlight fragmented implementation, limited training, and considerable teacher interest in improving school-based programs. These results suggest the value of further research to better understand cancer education in school settings.

Background: Non-technical competencies are widely identified as important for health workforce readiness, yet their integration into health professions curricula remains uneven. To our knowledge, no empirical study has directly examined whether faculty perceptions of institutional incentives are associated with the integration of non-technical competencies in health professions curricula. Methods: We conducted a national cross-sectional survey of health sciences faculty across Saudi Arabia between 2 and 27 October 2025. A self-administered electronic questionnaire, distributed by the Saudi Commission for Health Specialties to a random sample of 13,800 practitioners, assessed perceptions of institutional incentive structures (teaching-promotion relevance; perceived research dominance), self-reported integration of five non-technical competency domains (communication; teamwork; leadership and management; interpersonal; customer service skills), and institutional supports and barriers. A composite integration score (mean of five items; Cronbach’s α = 0.87) was analysed using non-parametric tests and multivariable linear regression adjusted for academic rank, institution type, experience, and role load. Inferential analyses were conducted using an artificial intelligence platform that generates and executes Python code. Results: A total of 537 faculty completed the survey (3.9% of 13,800 invitations sent). Faculty who perceived teaching performance as relevant to promotion reported higher competency integration after multivariable adjustment, whereas perceiving research as more highly rewarded than teaching was not significantly associated with integration. The model explained approximately 12% of the variance in integration. Integration was higher wherever teaching was perceived as valued, whether or not research was also perceived as rewarded, and lowest where research was valued but teaching was not. Professional development access was the strongest correlate of integration, whereas perceived administrative workload was not significantly associated with integration. Conclusions: In this national cross-sectional survey, teaching recognition and professional development access were the institutional factors most strongly associated with self-reported competency integration; perceived research dominance was not. The cross-sectional design, self-reported measures, and low response rate mean that direction of effect cannot be established. These findings nonetheless suggest that adding teaching recognition alongside existing research recognition, rather than substituting one for the other, is the direction most worth testing.