Journalism and Media

Social media platforms are increasingly used to access health-related information, yet the terminology used in searches may be associated with differences in both the content retrieved and the discursive frames through which health conditions are represented. This study examined how hallux valgus–related content on TikTok^® and Instagram^® differs according to platform and search terminology, with particular attention to thematic framing, linguistic patterns, sentiment, and audience engagement. A cross-sectional content analysis was conducted on 254 Spanish-language videos retrieved using the terms hallux valgus and “juanetes”. Lexical, thematic, sentiment, and engagement analyses were performed, and engagement was further explored using negative binomial regression. Content clustered into seven themes and was predominantly testimonial or educational. Thematic differences were more strongly associated with search terminology than with platform. In adjusted analyses, videos retrieved using “juanetes” showed higher expected engagement than those retrieved using hallux valgus, an association that remained significant after excluding the most highly engaged videos. Textual sentiment was predominantly neutral to slightly negative. These findings suggest that search terminology is associated with differences in the type of content retrieved and its audience engagement, indicating that medical and colloquial terms may correspond to different social media health information pathways within the Spanish-language content examined. Incorporating patient-facing terminology alongside medical terminology may therefore be relevant when designing health information intended for Spanish-speaking social media audiences.

This paper delves into the popularization of scientific topics related to health and well-being from an interdisciplinary perspective, between science, journalism, language, and communication studies. To this aim, we will address a subset of the SciencePop Corpus—a corpus of spoken science-popularization speech events—including 10 broadcast interviews and 10 audiovisual interviews published on YouTube. Through a mixed-method approach and a comparative perspective, the study analyzes the questions posed by interviewers, bearing in mind the rules of conduct on news interviews and checking how far such rules are applied in science popularization in the two different interview contexts, namely mainstream broadcast interviews led by trained journalists and online digital media interviews. The data testify to both similarities and differences between broadcast and online digital media interviews, with reference to (a) the degree of compliance with the rules of conduct and (b) the techniques of audience involvement employed by the interviewers, i.e., references to their private life, expression of opinion, and confirmation to build and maintain engagement. The study allows for a better understanding of interview styles and approaches in science popularization, particularly with reference to the “posture” of interviewers.

Citizens encounter climate and science information through journalistic, digital, and interpersonal channels, yet evidence on how these combinations relate to engagement in Latin America remains limited. Study 1 analyzes 19,214 Latinobarómetro interviews in 17 countries. Weighted latent class analysis (LCA) identified five climate-information repertoires. Broader repertoires were associated with greater communication efficacy, but this H1 pattern was substantially attenuated after adjustment for environmental values. Efficacy related more strongly to environmental voice—public-facing action intended to influence others or institutions—than to private household practice (classification-corrected interaction OR = 1.094, p = 0.002). Digital-social and omni-channel profiles formed a high-voice tier. Study 2 uses 5948 Trust in Science and Science-Related Populism (TISP) respondents in 10 countries. BIC selected four science-information repertoires; five-fold prediction offered only weak additional support. Omni-channel respondents reported more science discussion, protest, and climate-scientist trust than low-intensity respondents, whereas policy-support differences were not robust. Overlap-removal analyses preserved both studies’ central results. Cross-country diagnostics favored common loadings but not thresholds, and common-profile LCAs were parsimonious despite national heterogeneity. These cross-sectional results associate cross-channel complementarity with communicative participation, not causal media effects or changed policy preferences.