Bridging the evidence gap: a qualitative COM-B analysis of facilitators and barriers to evaluating heat-health action plans in Germany
- 1Division of Public Health, Social and Preventive Medicine, Center for Preventive Medicine and Digital Health (CPD), Medical Faculty Mannheim of the University of Heidelberg, Mannheim, Germany
- 2Youth Welfare Office and Health Department, City of Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany
Abstract
Background: Extreme heat and heat waves are increasing in intensity, duration, and frequency. The World Health Organization recommends the development of heat-health action plans (HHAPs) for public health protection. In Germany, districts and federal states have started to implement HHAPs. However, reports on ongoing evaluations as well as evidence on the effectiveness and efficiency of planned or implemented measures are scarce. We aimed to explore the perspectives of professionals in heat and health protection on current evaluation practices, focusing on perceived facilitators of and barriers to the evaluation of HHAPs at different stages.
Methods: We interviewed 23 professionals with expertise or leadership responsibility from the field of heat and health working in public administration at the district, federal state, and national level, or nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) throughout Germany. By conducting thematic analysis following a hybrid combination of deductive and inductive coding within the COM-B model, we derived and categorized facilitators of and barriers to evaluating HHAPs. Additionally, we clustered them into individual, organizational, and policy levels based on the Socioecological Model.
Results: Although all interviewees perceived the evaluation of HHAPs as important, evaluation procedures were rarely systematically realized in practice. Interviewees emphasized the importance of opportunities such as political support as well as a clear mandate and assignment for evaluation. Moreover, structural conditions, like the absence of guidelines and standards for evaluation, data infrastructure, personnel, and funding, were reported to often hinder evaluation, resulting in limited experience and knowledge in evaluating complex interventions such as HHAPs. Collaboration and networks were reported as facilitative in process evaluation. While individual motivation was not reported as a reason for not evaluating HHAPs, a combination of identified barriers often contributed to feeling overwhelmed with the task of evaluation.
Conclusions: Our findings suggest that evaluation is not consistently institutionalized in German heat-health action planning. Barriers to evaluating HHAPs are not primarily related to individual or district-level motivation, but rather limited by opportunity and capability shaped within political and institutional conditions. To institutionalize HHAP evaluation, greater political commitment, supportive structures, data infrastructures, and guidance for evaluation, as well as targeted funding and personnel are required.
Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-026-15869-1.
Related
- Barriers and Facilitators in the Implementation of Digital, Blended, and Analog Evidence-Based Osteoarthritis Care: International Qualitative Expert Interview Study.
- Barriers and facilitators to telerehabilitation adherence in young and middle-aged stroke survivors: a qualitative COM-B analysis
- Barriers and Facilitators Influencing Physiotherapists’ Adherence to Clinical Practice Guidelines and Return to Sport Criteria after Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Qualitative Study in Austria.
- A decade of implementing comprehensive child development services in Northwest Iran: a qualitative study of provider perspectives on barriers and facilitators
- Barriers and Facilitators to Continuity of Care in Rural Geriatric Rehabilitation: A Qualitative Study in Malaysia
BibTeX
@article{lintener2026bridging,
title = {{Bridging the evidence gap: a qualitative COM-B analysis of facilitators and barriers to evaluating heat-health action plans in Germany}},
author = {Hannah Lintener and Alice Hoeppe and Marike Andreas and Lisa Kellermann and Sophie Busalt and Peter Schäfer and Falko F. Sniehotta},
journal = {BMC Health Services Research},
year = {2026},
month = nov,
doi = {10.1186/s12913-026-15869-1},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-026-15869-1},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Bridging the evidence gap: a qualitative COM-B analysis of facilitators and barriers to evaluating heat-health action plans in Germany
AU - Hannah Lintener
AU - Alice Hoeppe
AU - Marike Andreas
AU - Lisa Kellermann
AU - Sophie Busalt
AU - Peter Schäfer
AU - Falko F. Sniehotta
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/11/02
JO - BMC Health Services Research
DO - 10.1186/s12913-026-15869-1
UR - https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-026-15869-1
AB - Background: Extreme heat and heat waves are increasing in intensity, duration, and frequency. The World Health Organization recommends the development of heat-health action plans (HHAPs) for public health protection. In Germany, districts and federal states have started to implement HHAPs. However, reports on ongoing evaluations as well as evidence on the effectiveness and efficiency of planned or implemented measures are scarce. We aimed to explore the perspectives of professionals in heat and health protection on current evaluation practices, focusing on perceived facilitators of and barriers to the evaluation of HHAPs at different stages. Methods: We interviewed 23 professionals with expertise or leadership responsibility from the field of heat and health working in public administration at the district, federal state, and national level, or nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) throughout Germany. By conducting thematic analysis following a hybrid combination of deductive and inductive coding within the COM-B model, we derived and categorized facilitators of and barriers to evaluating HHAPs. Additionally, we clustered them into individual, organizational, and policy levels based on the Socioecological Model. Results: Although all interviewees perceived the evaluation of HHAPs as important, evaluation procedures were rarely systematically realized in practice. Interviewees emphasized the importance of opportunities such as political support as well as a clear mandate and assignment for evaluation. Moreover, structural conditions, like the absence of guidelines and standards for evaluation, data infrastructure, personnel, and funding, were reported to often hinder evaluation, resulting in limited experience and knowledge in evaluating complex interventions such as HHAPs. Collaboration and networks were reported as facilitative in process evaluation. While individual motivation was not reported as a reason for not evaluating HHAPs, a combination of identified barriers often contributed to feeling overwhelmed with the task of evaluation. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that evaluation is not consistently institutionalized in German heat-health action planning. Barriers to evaluating HHAPs are not primarily related to individual or district-level motivation, but rather limited by opportunity and capability shaped within political and institutional conditions. To institutionalize HHAP evaluation, greater political commitment, supportive structures, data infrastructures, and guidance for evaluation, as well as targeted funding and personnel are required. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-026-15869-1.
SN - 1472-6963
ER -