This article examines the relationship between the general public’s understanding of science and the attitude towards public funding of scientific research. It applies a multivariate and discriminant analysis (Wilks’ Lambda), in addition to a more commonly used bivariate analysis (Cramer’s V), to data compiled from the Third National Survey on the Social Perception of Science and Technology in Spain (FECYT, 2006). The general conclusion is that the multivariate analysis produces information complementary to the bivariate analysis, and that the variables commonly applied in public perception studies have limited predictive value with respect to the attitude towards public funding of scientific research.

To review the hoaxes’ characteristics spread through WhatsApp in Spain during COVID-19 lockdown and identify what kind of substances were promoted for consumption or application. A phone number was activated to receive hoaxes via WhatsApp. A total of 2353 messages were collected, and among those 584 different hoaxes were identified and validated, between March 18 and April 18, 2020. From these 584 hoaxes, a sub-sample of 126 was selected, exclusively related to the object of study, and a content analysis table with fourteen registration fields was applied. Besides, the averages and medians of the quantitative fields were extracted. Most of the messages received were texts (39%) and videos (30%). In the majority, the acting subject was presented as medical personnel (36.5%) or as an anonymous person (30.9%). The videos lasted between 2’ 40” and 18’ 18”, while the audios ranged between 1’ 35” and 7’ 48”. Regarding the gender of the informant, there was a significant difference, with 45.2% being male, and 13.5%, female and 41.3% non-identifiable. One out of five false health claims received was about prevention or cure of the coronavirus, based on the principle of medical authority, and basically promoting the use and consumption of substances of natural origin.

Science communication continues to grow, develop and change, as a practice and field of research. The boundaries between science and the rest of society are blurring. Digitalization transforms the public sphere. This JCOM special issue aims to rethink science communication in light of the changing science communication landscape. How to characterize the emerging science communication ecosystem in relation to the introduction of new media and actors involved? What new practices are emerging? How is the quality of science communication maintained or improved? We present a selection of papers that provide different perspectives on these questions and challenges.

LTC and socio-economic deprivation of families are two relevant issues in international debate. The economic or time investment made by families in caregiving has an impact on the socio-economic status of family members in terms of economic means and social inclusion. This study analyzes the practices that are supported by home LTC, examining their characteristics, identifying their strengths, weaknesses, drivers, and barriers, as well as identifying social innovation aspects. The study provides a qualitative interpretative comparison of 22 practices from eight countries, representing the four LTC care models existing in Europe. Cross-studies aid in the development of sustainable policies. The study highlights the differences and similarities between selected practices. The results indicate the effectiveness of integrative and coordination strategies at the macro, meso, and micro levels for the development of supportive policies for family members with burdens of care. Nevertheless, the results underline the lack of a genuine focus on families’ socio-economic support for providing care. The partial support provided by compensatory cash benefits or unpaid care leave schemes partially addresses the difficulties of familial burden of care. The study recommends that fair economic compensation and social security benefits be incorporated into innovative and sustainable strategies for supporting caregiving in LTC and welfare schemes.

Institutional offices for the communication and dissemination of science are gaining in importance at Spanish universities, and their activities can contribute to increasing the visibility and reputation of researchers. The objective of this study is to analyze the relations between the institutional communication of research results to the public and the impact and academic visibility of scientific papers. For this purpose, science communication and dissemination undertaken through press releases on R+D+i results from the Science Culture and Innovation Unit (SCIU) at Universidad Carlos III de Madrid (UC3M) were selected as a case study. This SCIU was chosen because it has published yearly reports for more than a decade on the impact in the media of its press releases. Press dossiers of the last five years available (2014-2018) were examined, and a database was created of the citations received by texts published in scientific journals indexed in the Web of Science as well as their mentions on social networks through the company Altmetric.com. After that, this information was statistically analyzed. The main results show that the journal impact index is important for obtaining academic citations or appearing in Twitter conversations. However, the influence of the journal impact factor turns out to be lower when it comes to popularizing scientific publications in the media. Furthermore, the statistical evidence points to the fact that scientific publications disseminated through the SCIU receive proportionally more citations than research that has not been disseminated through the institutional channel. Resumen Las oficinas de comunicación y divulgación pública de la ciencia están ganando importancia en las universidades españolas y las actividades que realizan pueden contribuir al incremento de la visibilidad y reputación del personal de investigación. El objetivo de este estudio es analizar las relaciones entre la comunicación institucional pública de los resultados de investigación y el impacto y visibilidad académica de las publicaciones científicas. Para ello, se ha seleccionado como estudio de caso la comunicación y diseminación que realiza la Unidad de Cultura Científica y de Innovación (UCC+i) de la Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. Se ha escogido esta UCC+i porque publica anualmente, desde hace más de una década, informes sobre el impacto que generan en medios de comunicación las notas de prensa que difunden. Se han examinado los dosieres de los últimos cinco años (2014-2018) y se ha creado una base de datos que incluye las citas recibidas por los documentos difundidos en revistas científicas indexadas en la Web of Science y las menciones en redes sociales utilizando Altmetric.com. Posteriormente se ha realizado un análisis estadístico de la información obtenida. Los principales resultados muestran que el factor de impacto de las revistas es importante para conseguir citaciones académicas o para figurar en la conversación que se genera en Twitter. Sin embargo, la influencia del factor de impacto de la revista resulta menor a la hora de conseguir que la publicación científica obtenga popularidad en medios de comunicación. Además, las pruebas estadísticas muestran que las publicaciones científicas divulgadas a través de la UCC+i obtienen proporcionalmente más citas que las que no han sido divulgados por vía institucional.

Background: Long-term care (LTC), poverty, and socioeconomic deprivation are globally significant social issues. Ongoing population aging trends and the recent social and health emergencies caused by the COVID-19 pandemic crisis have highlighted the need for macro-level LTC and welfare system sustainability strategies. Aims: This scoping review (ScR) explores the relationship between LTC needs, the health status of older people, and the risk of socioeconomic deprivation for their households. Methods: The methodology considers different relevant sources: (a) the guidelines for ScR proposed by Lockwood et al.; (b) the recommendations of Munn et al.; (c) the PRISMA guideline for scoping reviews; and (d) the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) checklist. Sixty-three papers are included in the mixed-methods analysis. Results: The findings reveal the existence of a debate that seeks to understand the different characteristics of the relationship between the investigated issues. Relevant gaps in the literature are identified in terms of the concepts and approaches of the studies analyzed. Conclusions: The results indicate that the reciprocal relationship between LTC needs, supply, and the risk of socioeconomic deprivation is understudied. Future studies should focus on the causal relationship between the two phenomena and identify any internal factors that may be involved.