Pregnancy can be a time of joy and anticipation. But it can also be a nerve-wracking experience, with many factors affecting when and how a baby arrives.

A new study, published today, suggests when pregnant women are exposed to high levels of humid heat during pregnancy, they are more likely to have a preterm birth.

However, this study also found taking aspirin at low doses during pregnancy could help reduce this risk. But pregnant women should speak to a doctor before taking aspirin or other medications.

What is a preterm birth?

Preterm birth is when a baby is born prematurely, before 37 weeks of pregnancy. Globally, roughly 10% of babies – or about 13 million infants – are born preterm each year.

Tragically, about one million of these babies do not survive. That makes preterm birth the leading cause of death in children under five.

There are three different types of preterm births:

• extremely preterm, referring to a live birth before 28 weeks
• very preterm, when a baby is born between 28 and 32 weeks
• moderate to late preterm, meaning delivery between 32 and 37 weeks.

Read more: 20% of pregnant Australian women don’t receive the recommended mental health screening

What causes it?

It’s unclear what exactly causes preterm birth. And many cases happen spontaneously, meaning there are no signs a baby will be born early.

However, certain factors may increase a woman’s risk of giving birth prematurely. These include genetics, various infections and chronic conditions such as diabetes and high blood pressure. These risk factors all cause inflammation in the body, which current evidence suggests significantly increases preterm birth risk.

Pregnant women who are exposed to environmental pollutants – such as bushfire smoke and pesticides – may also be more likely to give birth prematurely. This is because these pollutants can contribute to inflammation.

Read more: Pregnant women should take extra care to minimise their exposure to bushfire smoke

The effect of humidity

A growing body of evidence suggests exposure to extreme heat may be another environmental factor that increases preterm birth risk.

Extreme heat can increase levels of specific proteins – known as shock proteins – in the blood of pregnant women. These proteins can trigger inflammation by activating the body’s immune response.

High temperatures may also reduce blood flow to the placenta, limiting the oxygen and nutrients the baby receives.

Humidity adds to this risk. When the air is humid, sweat doesn’t evaporate as easily, making it harder for the body to cool down. This can place extra strain on pregnant women and has been linked to a higher risk of preterm birth.

This may help to explain the high rates of preterm birth in regions that are also most affected by climate change, such as South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. In these places, where temperatures are high and heatwaves are common, even small increases in heat can impact the health of mothers and newborns.

Read more: Extreme heat can be risky during pregnancy. How to look after yourself and your baby

What this new study involved

A newly published study examined how humid heat exposure during pregnancy affects the risk of preterm birth. It also investigated whether low-dose aspirin might help reduce this risk, possibly because aspirin can improve blood flow and reduce inflammation.

This research was carried out across several countries with hot climates, including the Democratic Republic of Congo, Zambia, Kenya, Guatemala, Pakistan and parts of India.

More than 11,500 pregnant women participated in this trial. About half of them were given a low daily dose of aspirin (81mg) from when they joined the study through to when they were 36 weeks pregnant. The other half received a placebo – a pill with no active ingredients – over the same period. The researchers then compared the birth outcomes of the two groups, and came up with three main findings.

1. Overall, the rate of preterm birth was lower in women who took low-dose aspirin (11.6%) compared with those who took a placebo (13.1%).

2. Among women who were not taking aspirin, each 1°C increase in temperature translated to a noticeable increase (5%) in the risk of preterm birth. This pattern was not seen in women taking low-dose aspirin.

3. Exposure to more heat later in pregnancy was linked to a greater chance of preterm birth in the placebo group, but not in the low-dose aspirin group.

Read more: More and more women in Australia are having their labour induced. Does it matter?

Limitations of this study

This study has two main limitations.

First, it generalised data about temperatures in different cities that may not fully reflect what each woman experienced day-to-day – for example, if their house was hotter or cooler than average. It may also underestimate the length and/or severity of heatwaves. This is because scientists measure temperature in various ways, and may not have access to accurate data from certain locations.

Second, the researchers were not able to determine the exact reasons why some women gave birth early, or whether these differed between the low-dose aspirin and placebo groups.

Overall, this study adds to growing evidence that high temperatures and humidity may increase the risk of preterm birth. It also suggests low-dose aspirin, taken early in pregnancy, may help reduce the risk of heat-related preterm birth.

However, more and larger studies are needed to replicate these findings. And if you’re a pregnant woman who is concerned about preterm birth risk, visit your doctor before taking any aspirin or other medications.

Where to next?

Unfortunately, heatwaves will only become more frequent and intense. So future work should focus on identifying which population groups are most at risk, and how heat affects different stages of pregnancy. Researchers must also test other simple, low-cost strategies that could protect pregnant women from the effects of heat.

Stacey Savin receives funding from DiaMedica Therapeutics, but for research that is unrelated to the topics discussed in this article.

Sir David Attenborough has mastered the craft of storytelling. He has undoubtedly inspired generations of people around the globe to love and care for the natural world. And in doing so, he’s become one of the most recognisable – and most trusted – faces on our screens.

Now, he’s celebrating his 100th birthday and a lifetime of wildlife filmmaking. As part of The Conversation UK’s climate storytelling strand, four experts critique how he has influenced everything from conservation and documentary production to the communication of the biggest story of all – climate change.

Scientific insight

Ben Garrod, science broadcaster and Professor of Evolutionary Biology and Science Engagement at the University of East Anglia, has presented alongside Attenborough in several landmark documentaries. Here he reflects on Attenborough’s passion for furthering our scientific understanding of the natural world.

I once sat on a remote beach with Attenborough, near the very tip of South America. I can still clearly remember the warmth of the rounded, flat stones beneath me. We sat only a metre or so apart. We’d just spent the morning filming the excavation of the largest dinosaur ever discovered.

Over lunch, Attenborough had recalled we were close to a beach he’d filmed at years before, where grey whale mothers drew in close to shore with their calves to rub against the stone in the shallows to exfoliate their skin. As luck would have it, it was the perfect time of year and before long, there we were watching a mother and calf just a few metres offshore.

Facts and figures bubbled out of Attenborough excitedly, not at all like the calm and more measured way we’re all so used to. For those few minutes, he was childlike in his wonder and excitement at the scene in front of us and I marvelled at how he has not only maintained that love for the natural world for so long but how he has always so passionately shared it with the rest of us.

For a century now, Attenborough’s life has been intimately interwoven not only with humanity’s growing scientific understanding of the natural world but also its accelerating loss. Spanning over 70 years, Attenborough has been our most trusted and prolific mediator between scientific knowledge and the public.

His early landmark BBC series Life on Earth: A Natural History (1979) did something few academic texts ever could. It made the complexity of evolutionary biology accessible. Across his work, natural selection, adaptation, ecology and behaviour are not presented as intangible concepts but as organic processes shaping form, function and ultimately survival across the natural world.

In doing so, Attenborough helped normalise evolutionary thinking for hundreds of millions of viewers worldwide, embedding complex scientific principles into popular culture, right in our living rooms.

Central to his work has been a commitment to scientific accuracy. Attenborough’s programmes have been developed in close collaboration with academics and field researchers, ensuring narratives about animal behaviour, ecosystems and biodiversity reflect current evidence.

This relationship between science and storytelling has been crucial because rather than dumbing down complexity, Attenborough’s “everyday” approach demonstrates audiences can engage with content that could all too easily be written off as belonging to more academic and scientifically literate viewers.

The Insights section is committed to high-quality longform journalism. Our editors work with academics from many different backgrounds who are tackling a wide range of societal and scientific challenges.

Yet the tone of his work has changed. His early documentaries were characterised by a sense of abundance and discovery. Over time, as scientific evidence for biodiversity loss and climate change mounted, his work shifted accordingly. More recently, his documentaries increasingly shine a light on human impact, habitat destruction and extinction risk. This evolution of change in his own tone mirrors the science itself, highlighting Attenborough’s credibility as a communicator willing to adjust his message as the evidence demands.

Attenborough’s contribution to conservation has not come through activism alone. Research shows that an emotional connection to nature precedes any behavioural change. Attenborough has actively helped build the public conditions necessary for conservation policy and action by fostering wonder, curiosity and empathy for the natural world. His influence can be traced in the generations of scientists, conservationists and educators who cite his programmes as formative experiences.

For many, particularly those without access to wild spaces, Attenborough’s work provides an opportunity and gateway to encounter wild animals and remote ecosystems but also local habitats, helping give us all access to the wonder he perceives in the world around him.

As he turns 100, Attenborough’s legacy is surely inseparable from the global environmental challenges we now face. He has helped society understand not only how life evolved, but, more importantly, why it matters that we protect it now. In an era defined by ecological crisis, his work reminds us that scientific knowledge is most powerful when it connects people to the living world so strongly, it compels us to care enough to protect it, so that we might carry on his legacy and, just like him, act as stewards.

Natural history filmmaking

Jean-Baptiste Gouyon, Professor of Science Communication at the UCL Department of Science and Technology Studies, explains the impact Attenborough has had on natural history television.

In the early 1950s, television was taking off across Britain, but the BBC was still finding its visual voice. Its controller, Cecil McGivern, warned in June 1952 that there was “far too much emphasis…on the spoken word and far too little on the thing seen”. Most early television producers had come from BBC radio and initially made programmes that resembled radio with pictures.

Into this world stepped a young David Attenborough, unencumbered by a career in sound, ready to invent a new language for television and, in the process, reshape natural history filmmaking. At 26, he earned his first natural history credit as producer of The Coelacanth (1953), a 20-minute programme prompted by the capture of a live coelacanth “living fossil” fish off Madagascar.

Eschewing sensationalism, Attenborough tied the story to Darwin’s theory of evolution. This use of wildlife programmes to communicate scientific ideas became his trademark.

The programme blended prerecorded footage with live studio sequences featuring evolutionary biologist Julian Huxley, who used the coelacanth to illustrate life’s transition from sea to land.

With the Zoo Quest series (1954), Attenborough began reshaping wildlife television. For these programmes, he travelled to exotic places with staff from the London Zoo to capture animals for the collection. Each episode relied on prerecorded film linked by live studio sequences, allowing tighter narrative control. The hero in the films, shot by Charles Lagus, was Attenborough himself, who back in London also presented the studio sequences. By assuming all the roles of hero, producer, narrator and presenter, Attenborough became the central performer in the story.

From then on, Attenborough’s fluid on-screen performances gained him much acclaim. A very hard worker, he put much effort in producing highly detailed scripts, which left little to chance. Indeed, by the early 1960s, he had all but lost faith in live television, writing to a BBC colleague:

To begin with I got a tremendous kick out of the excitement of putting out programmes live. But it wore off after a bit and really, except for challenging interviews with lots of ‘immediacy’, I’m for film or some other sort of controlled recording process every time. It is so maddening to miss an effect because of some small mechanical hitch, as so often happens live.

Consistently high ratings encouraged others to emulate his method, and live formats became less fashionable. Film-based production also allowed programmes to be stockpiled, repeated and sold, supporting a more sustainable business model.

After Attenborough moved into BBC management in 1965, his goal was to turn natural history television into a science communication genre. He argued that it was “important” to move away from programmes that simply showcased the beauty of nature and instead engage viewers “to examine in a serious and critical way new trends and ideas in zoology”. Returning to hands-on programme-making a decade later, he embedded this vision in his magnum opus, Life on Earth (1979).

In the early 1950s, when Attenborough joined the BBC, natural history television had been mostly conceived of as a specialist genre catering for amateur naturalists to share in the aesthetic and emotional enjoyment of nature. By the 1980s, he had helped transform it into one of the most popular genres of TV programming and a powerful conduit for science communication. This influence continues in his later work, including Planet Earth II, Blue Planet II and Our Planet, which combine cinematic storytelling with urgent environmental themes.

As he celebrates his 100th birthday, Attenborough’s legacy endures, defining natural history television as one of the most powerful forms of science communication and inspiring generations to look at the living world with wonder and understanding.

Communicating research

Saffron O'Neill researches climate communication and public engagement. She explains the ways Attenborough has shaped climate communication techniques across the world.

Attenborough is one of the few voices on climate change that almost everyone is willing to listen to. Over seven decades, his work has transformed how scientific knowledge is communicated, combining advances in broadcasting with powerful storytelling.

Research by Climate Outreach in 2020 found that Attenborough is trusted by people across the political spectrum, from “progressive activists” to “backbone conservatives”. More than 95% of people surveyed recognise him and his programmes reach an exceptionally diverse audience, even in today’s competitive media landscape.

My colleague, PhD researcher Kate Holden, is exploring how young people engage with marine sustainability through online video, from traditional nature documentaries to YouTubers like MrBeast. Attenborough still stands out as an expert young people take seriously.

Part of his appeal lies in his willingness to meet audiences where they are, adapting to changing media habits. He joined Instagram in 2020 (breaking the Guinness World Record for the fastest time to reach one million followers) and has collaborated with Netflix to stream shows.

Attenborough has shown the power of the media to shape how we see the natural world. Although there is little evidence for the appealing notion that watching a documentary like Blue Planet II directly drives behavioural change (such as reducing peoples’ plastic consumption), nature documentaries can certainly drive both public and policy interest via increased media attention.

Engaging the public on climate and nature requires moving beyond a simple notion of “getting the message across” and towards recognising the complexity and power of storytelling. For this, Attenborough’s success is an invaluable model.

His programmes combine top-class storytelling with pioneering technology. The visual appeal of his richly crafted documentaries is matched by compelling stories about little-known species. His work forms a substantial archive of success – many of the most popular TV programmes of all time are his nature documentaries.

In a highly cited paper from 2007, a team led by environmental social scientist Irene Lorenzoni defined engagement with climate change. They claimed that: “It is not enough for people to know about climate change in order to be engaged; they also need to care about it, be motivated and able to take action.”

Early Attenborough programming focused on increasing peoples’ knowledge about the natural world and as part of this, implicitly providing a reason to care about it. Increasingly though, he has moved to a more explicit stance about the climate emergency and our moral and ethical duty to act. An analysis of Attenborough’s use of language carried out in the late 2010s demonstrates this. It shows how he now uses emotional appeals to action. During an appearance on the Outrage + Optimism podcast he said: “we have an obligation on our shoulders and it would be to our deep eternal shame if we fail to acknowledge that.”

When a communicator like activist Greta Thunberg makes an appeal to morality, it can polarise audiences. Attenborough’s broad popularity makes his message reach wider audiences. His trustworthiness, storytelling mastery and innovative use of technology helps explain why he continues to have such a lasting impact on science and environmental communication, seven decades after his first broadcast.

Speaking up about climate change

Chloe Brimicombe, Climate Scientist at the University of Oxford, explores whether Attenborough’s on-screen attention to the climate crisis could have started earlier.

In his early documentaries, Attenborough focused on the wonder of the natural world.

He did go on to warn of the dangers of how humans were damaging the environment, but much of his early messaging reflected the belief that climate change can be linked to overpopulation. This is not demonstrated by the evidence. In fact, the richest in society are the most polluting but the smallest population group.

However, in recent years his beliefs changed with the science and more of his films started to cover climate change directly. For example, Climate Change: The Facts in 2019 and Perfect Planet 2021.

Attenborough’s works are part of the culture of the UK and the world. In my own life Attenborough’s works have always been present. During my undergraduate degree at Aberystwyth University, I was shown Frozen Planet in a lecture about glaciers and ice sheets because my lecturer was featured in the series. That moment stuck with me as I started my career as a climate scientist.

During my PhD in environmental sciences at the University of Reading, my fellow researchers were all big fans of Attenborough and of what could be achieved through the power of documentary film-making. In 2025, I was lucky enough to attend the film premier of Ocean with David Attenborough, something I consider a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.

As well as inspiring audiences with awe and wonder, documentaries can be an important way to communicate what is happening to our changing climate. They reach audiences that might not otherwise engage on the subject. Documentary making has drawn critique for focusing on a producer’s interest instead of capturing the scientific background behind a certain issue.

This has led to schemes such as the Wellcome Trust Public Engagement Scheme being setup to help bring scientists and documentary makers together.

In Attenborough’s A Life on Our Planet (2020), he talks about the changes he has seen in the natural environment and his concern for the future of the planet. In the film Ocean with David Attenborough, the 2025 premier took place just before the UN’s ocean summit in Nice, France. This helped lead to real policy discussions and changes. That includes supporting the global ocean’s treaty, a landmark international agreement which creates a network of protected ocean sanctuaries.

Attenborough may have been late in communicating specifically on climate change. But, in recent years he has changed to being a strong advocate. Now, it’s time to make sure that message is heard and acted upon so that the world’s wonders remain for many generations to come.

The climate crisis has a communications problem. How do we tell stories that move people – not just to fear the future, but to imagine and build a better one? This article is part of Climate Storytelling, a series exploring how arts and science can join forces to spark understanding, hope and action.

Chloe BrimicombeI is part-funded by the ESRC research council and she is a heat ambassador for shade the UK.

Jean-Baptiste Gouyon received funding from The Leverhulme Trust and the AHRC

Saffron O'Neill receives funding from the ESRC (UKRI3360 and ES/W00805X/1). She also receives funding for C3DS (Centre for Climate Communication and Data Science) from the Children’s Investment Fund Foundation (grant: 2210–08101) and the University of Exeter. The funders had no role in the conceptualization, design, data collection, analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript and therefore the findings and conclusions are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the positions or policies of the funders.

Ben Garrod does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Imagine receiving a test result that tells you your body is biologically five years older than your chronological age. You exercise regularly, get good sleep, eat healthy meals and have a happy personal life. What have you been doing wrong? Can this test be trusted?

Dozens of companies are marketing products that promise to reveal a person’s “true” biological age – that is, how well your body is functioning – for a price ranging from around US$30 to over $1,000. These products are based on epigenetic aging clocks, which are research tools that estimate age based on a person’s DNA. These clocks are reshaping how scientists study aging and how the public thinks about it.

But while epigenetic clocks are highly effective research tools to study aging at the population level, they aren’t designed to make claims about the health of individuals.

We are biobehavioral health scientists who study how early development and environmental factors across the lifespan shape biological aging, influencing health and disease decades later. As researchers who use epigenetic clocks in our work, we have found them to be highly informative tools when studying large numbers of people. But these clocks can provide faulty results at the individual level, and they do not meet the standards required of common medical tests.

What are epigenetic clocks?

Measuring reversible chemical changes to DNA, known as epigenetic marks, can provide information about how your body is aging.

Using DNA obtained from routine blood draws, researchers can measure millions of these epigenetic marks in an individual. Running statistical algorithms on this information can produce a single value that represents that person’s epigenetic age, analogous to chronological age.

Epigenetic clocks work because the chemical marks on DNA can shift over time and are influenced by lifestyle, stress and the environment. These changes capture aspects of aging that chronological age alone may not reflect.

In this way, epigenetic clocks help scientists identify the experiences, exposures and behaviors that may accelerate or slow biological aging.

Not for individual health decisions

Why can’t epigenetic clocks provide reliable results about biological age for individual people?

First, there are dozens of different types of epigenetic clocks, each designed for a specific purpose. Some are used to predict a person’s age, while others are used to predict how fast someone is aging or how many years until they die. These different clocks do not always agree with one another, even when used on the same person.

Second, epigenetic changes are dynamic, making age predictions sensitive to short-term fluctuations in diet, environmental exposures, illness, time of day and other transient factors. As a result, estimated age could vary substantially depending on when someone is tested.

Third, constructing epigenetic clocks is technically challenging, and there is no established gold-standard method for generating clocks across laboratories. For example, testing epigenetic age in saliva versus blood samples can yield substantially different results for the same person. The technologies used to measure epigenetic marks have also evolved over time and will likely continue to improve. As these methods change, the original algorithms designed for specific measurement platforms may not perform the same way.

Fourth, scientists do not universally agree on what aging means, in part because it is a very complex process. Reducing that complexity to a single number, such as an epigenetic age, can be misleading.

Finally, epigenetic clocks are influenced by a person’s history of trauma, discrimination and early life adversity. This makes their use at the individual level potentially problematic. On average, marginalized communities tend to show signs of accelerated aging when assessed with epigenetic clocks. If insurance companies began using epigenetic age estimates to set premiums, many people could face higher costs for biological differences shaped by circumstances beyond their control, potentially deepening existing health disparities.

Studying how aging unfolds over time

While epigenetic clocks are not appropriate tools for individual health decisions, this does not mean they lack value.

Researchers have used epigenetic clocks to discover lifestyle habits that can, on average, slow down aging. Some examples include reducing daily calorie intake, exercising regularly, maintaining a healthy diet, getting enough sleep and avoiding smoking.

Epigenetic clocks can also help test new drug therapies aimed at slowing down specific aging processes. For example, researchers have shown that rapamycin, a drug connected to various aging processes, can reduce the epigenetic age of human skin cells. There is also some evidence that a treatment designed to regenerate the thymus may slow or even reverse epigenetic aging after one year of treatment. However, researchers have seen these effects only when looking at groups rather than individuals.

Epigenetic clocks are helping scientists advance scientific research on the aging processes, but they aren’t medical tests to measure individual health. In the future, epigenetic measurements may play a useful role in guiding personal health decisions. But for now, epigenetic clocks sold as biological age tests are best used and refined by researchers who are studying populations rather than individual people.

Idan Shalev receives funding from The National Institutes of Health.

Abner Apsley receives funding from the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation.

As social media becomes a central part of young people’s lives, concerns are growing about its impact on their mental health. Yet public debates and measures tend to treat adolescents as one homogeneous group. We frequently ignore the fact that social media use does not affect all young people in the same way – nor does it have the same impacts on their wellbeing.

In a recent chapter of the World Happiness Report 2026, published by the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network in partnership with the University of Oxford, we have examined how problematic social media use relates to the wellbeing of adolescents from different socioeconomic backgrounds.

We looked at 43 countries spanning six broad regions – Anglo-Celtic, Caucasus-Black Sea, Central-Eastern Europe, Mediterranean, Nordic, and Western Europe – covering mainly European countries and their immediate neighbouring areas.

Using data from over 330,000 young people, we found a clear and consistent pattern: higher levels of problematic social media use – that is, compulsive or uncontrolled engagement with social media – are associated with poorer wellbeing.

Teenagers who report more problematic use tend to experience more psychological complaints, such as feeling low, nervous, irritable, or having difficulty sleeping. They also have lower life satisfaction, a measure of how positively they evaluate their lives as a whole.

This pattern appears across all countries in our study, but its strength varies from one country to another. It is particularly pronounced in Anglo-Celtic countries such as the UK and Ireland, while it is comparatively weaker in the Caucasus-Black Sea region.

Socioeconomic background matters

The story does not end with geography. Globally, teenagers from less advantaged backgrounds tend to be more vulnerable to the negative consequences of problematic social media use than their more advantaged peers.

This means socioeconomic status – the material and social resources available to a household, such as income and living conditions – actively shapes the risks and opportunities that young people experience as a result of online environments.

Interestingly, these inequalities are especially visible when we look at life satisfaction. Differences between socioeconomic groups are smaller when it comes to psychological complaints, but much clearer and more consistent for how adolescents evaluate their lives overall.

One likely reason is that life satisfaction is more sensitive to social comparisons. Social media exposes young people to constant benchmarks – what others have, do, and achieve – which can amplify differences in perceived opportunities and resources.

At the same time, these patterns are not identical everywhere. For instance, socioeconomic differences in psychological complaints tend to be modest in most regions including continental European countries such as France, Austria or Belgium, but are more clearly observed in Anglo-Celtic countries such as Scotland and Wales.

In contrast, socioeconomic gaps in life satisfaction appear across most regions, although they tend to be weaker in Mediterranean countries such as Italy, Cyprus and Greece.

A growing problem

We also examined how these patterns have evolved over time. Between 2018 and 2022, the link between problematic social media use and poor adolescent wellbeing became stronger.

This suggests that the risks linked to problematic use may have intensified in recent years, possibly reflecting the growing role of digital technologies in young people’s daily lives, particularly during and after the Covid-19 pandemic.

Importantly, this intensification has affected teenagers across socioeconomic groups in broadly similar ways in most regions. In other words, while inequalities remain they have not widened over this period.

Leer más: Social media addiction disrupts the sleep, moods and social activities of teens and young adults

No one-size-fits-all solution

While public debates about social media and mental health often treat adolescents as a single demographic group, our results show a more complex reality. Problematic social media use is linked to poorer wellbeing across countries, but its effects are shaped by social realities. They vary depending on where young people live and what resources are available to them.

Not all teenagers experience the digital world in the same way, and not all are equally equipped to cope with its pressures. Recognising this is essential for designing policies that are not only effective, but also equitable, ensuring that interventions reach those adolescents who are most vulnerable to digital risks.

A weekly e-mail in English featuring expertise from scholars and researchers. It provides an introduction to the diversity of research coming out of the continent and considers some of the key issues facing European countries. Get the newsletter!

Roger Fernandez-Urbano receives funding from the Spanish Government’s Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities and the State Research Agency through Ramón y Cajal (RYC) grant. Roger is a member of the International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies (ISQOLS).

Maria Rubio-Cabañez's involvement in this research was supported by the DIGINEQ (Digital Time Use, Adolescent Well-Being and Social Inequalities) project (Grant agreement ID: 101089233), funded by the European Research Council Consolidator Grant.

Pablo Gracia's involvement in this research was supported by the DIGINEQ (Digital Time Use, Adolescent Well-Being and Social Inequalities) project (Grant agreement ID: 101089233), funded by the European Research Council Consolidator Grant.