Despite the critical public health implications of viral disease transmission, limited public understanding of virology often fosters widespread misinformation, inadequate risk perception, and stigma. This study describes ‘Viruscopia,’ an interdisciplinary public health communication initiative that bridges biology and art, using physical 3D models as a narrative tool intended to support health literacy and viral risk awareness. During the Loja International Festival of Living Arts (FIAVL 2025 in spanish) in Ecuador, ten high-fidelity physical 3D models representing viral structures were exhibited to the public through guided interactive tours. Public perception of the intervention was assessed after the visit through a mixed-methods approach, using an ad hoc questionnaire with high internal consistency (α = 0.88) voluntarily completed by 480 of approximately 800 visitors. Descriptive results showed a predominant positive perception, with median scores of 5.0 across most items, indicating a marked ceiling effect. Inferential analysis using the Kruskal–Wallis test revealed significant age-based variations in the “Reflection” variable (p < 0.05), with the over–65 cohort showing a strong concentration of responses at the maximum score (Me = 5.0; IQR = 0.00) compared with participants aged 12–17. No significant differences were found regarding biological sex. The results suggest that integrating physical 3D models with artistic interpretation was well received as a public health risk communication resource. From this perspective, art goes beyond simple illustration; combined with scientific content and guided explanations, it can serve as a preventive communication tool that helps demystify complex pathogen structures and may support viral health literacy and informed reflection on public health challenges. Consequently, this approach offers a useful model for making complex scientific knowledge more accessible to the public, although, given the single-group, post-visit design, these findings reflect self-reported perceptions rather than objectively measured learning outcomes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Cruz et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: