ArticleFrontiers in public health2026
Health misinformation, digital health literacy, and attitudes toward science among university students: an exploratory cross-sectional survey.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The spread of health misinformation through digital platforms poses an increasing challenge for public health. University students are among the most exposed groups, given their heavy reliance on online environments for health-related information. Objective: This study investigated health information sources, digital health literacy skills, criteria for evaluating information quality, use of homeopathic and alternative remedies, and attitudes toward science among students at the University Magna Graecia of Catanzaro (UMG), Italy. Methods: An exploratory cross-sectional survey was conducted on 407 UMG students (277 females, 68.06%; mean age 23.23 ± 6.15 years), enrolled in Nursing (65.36%), Medicine and Surgery (23.34%), Engineering (2.46%), and other programmes (8.85%). Data were collected via a structured self-administered questionnaire distributed through Google Forms. Descriptive statistics, independent-samples Results: Social media was the most frequently used health information source (75.43%), yet only 12.78% of students considered it reliable. The physician was identified as the most trustworthy source by 94.10% of participants. Basic digital health behaviors were common, but advanced self-reported critical evaluation abilities were markedly limited: only 15.72% self-reported the ability to critically select online health content. Attitudes toward science were generally positive. Chi-square analyses revealed sex differences in response distributions for several items, and logistic regression showed that female sex was positively associated with sensitivity to the ethical dimension of scientific work (OR = 1.61). Conclusions: Positive scientific attitudes coexisted with underdeveloped self-reported critical evaluation abilities. These findings support the integration of digital health literacy training into university curricula to better prepare students to navigate the contemporary infodemic environment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.