Adequate digital health literacy is a key determinant of an individual’s ability to navigate the vast online information ecosystem and to cope with disinformation. In a scenario in which Nuclear Medicine and the Theranostic model play central roles, disinformation can represent a critical barrier to cancer prevention and care. Understanding different target audiences – by identifying information-seeking patterns, levels of trust in sources, and the practical application of information – is essential for designing effective science communication strategies. To measure public understanding of cancer prevention, diagnosis, and treatment with an emphasis on nuclear technologies; to assess the ability to search for and apply health information; and to map the main areas of uncertainty and vulnerability to misinformation in the studied population. Cross-sectional observational study conducted through an online questionnaire adapted from digital health literacy scales (eHealth Literacy Scales). Data collection, between September and November 2025, yielded 505 responses (499 individuals in the analytical sample), including sociodemographic data, information consumption habits, and respondents’ positions (agreement, disagreement, or neutrality) regarding factual and false information circulating on the internet. This preliminary analysis focuses on identifying strengths (consolidated knowledge), weaknesses (conceptual gaps), and information-related risk behaviors. The data reveal social media use with skepticism: although 24.2% of participants use social media to seek cancer information still only 9.8% trust these platforms. Additionally, physicians remain central, with 75.9% of respondents stating that they understand the health information provided by professionals and 53.3% reporting that they can distinguish a physician from an impostor. From a technical standpoint, the studied population recognizes that Nuclear Medicine uses radiation (76.2%) and radiopharmaceuticals (62.8%); however, 79.8% do not know or are unsure of what “Theranostics” means. Regarding disinformation, 22.6% believe that radiation is a human invention (ignoring natural radiation), and 10.8% are uncertain; 38.7% of participants could not say whether the drug omeprazole causes stomach cancer (which is false); and 36.5% were neutral regarding the statement that radiopharmaceuticals are sold in pharmacies (also false). Finally, despite high connectivity (93% use the internet daily), only 27.2% report applying online information to decision-making about their own health. A highly educated audience – 87.2% of the sample has a higher education degree, with 67.9% holding postgraduate qualifications – demonstrates selective discernment: it rejects alarmist myths (such as the alleged link between vaccines and cancer, rejected by 87.4%) but remains vulnerable to uncertainties in technical topics and newer concepts such as Theranostics. The low instrumental use of and trust in online information suggest that, without physician mediation, digital content fails to translate into practical health actions within this sample. Future science communication strategies developed by the Dissemination of Knowledge area of the CEPID CancerThera should incorporate new approaches to translating innovations at the research center and to confronting disinformation related to cancer prevention, diagnosis, and treatment.
Osthues et al. (2026) studied this question.