Scholarlink

Background <p>The implementation of setting-based health promotion within the framework of the German Prevention Act (PrävG) is shaped by complex funding and governance logics. The practical feasibility of these logics is increasingly being questioned.</p> Methods <p>This paper is based on a qualitative evaluation of the “WIR fördern Gesundheit” project. Drawing on semi-structured expert interviews and project documents, the study analyses how structural tensions manifest in implementation practice.</p> Results <p>The core requirements of the funding logic, particularly with regard to governance, coordination and joint negotiation processes, were only partially fulfilled during implementation. Funding regulations led to uncertainty and constrained the design of substantive measures, particularly structural interventions in line with the setting-based approach.</p> Discussion <p>The findings highlight tensions between the conceptual ambitions of setting-based health promotion and existing funding regulations. Notably, the role of statutory health insurance as a governance actor could not be realized.</p> Conclusion <p>The results highlight the structural limitations of the current funding logic, suggesting the need for a broader institutional framework for setting-based health promotion.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Gesundheitsförderung im Spannungsfeld zwischen Lebensweltansatz und Förderlogik – Evaluation des Landesprojekts „WIR fördern Gesundheit“

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年8月4日

查看全文
  • Maxi Florentine Siebert,
  • Benjamin Ewert

摘要

Background

The implementation of setting-based health promotion within the framework of the German Prevention Act (PrävG) is shaped by complex funding and governance logics. The practical feasibility of these logics is increasingly being questioned.

Methods

This paper is based on a qualitative evaluation of the “WIR fördern Gesundheit” project. Drawing on semi-structured expert interviews and project documents, the study analyses how structural tensions manifest in implementation practice.

Results

The core requirements of the funding logic, particularly with regard to governance, coordination and joint negotiation processes, were only partially fulfilled during implementation. Funding regulations led to uncertainty and constrained the design of substantive measures, particularly structural interventions in line with the setting-based approach.

Discussion

The findings highlight tensions between the conceptual ambitions of setting-based health promotion and existing funding regulations. Notably, the role of statutory health insurance as a governance actor could not be realized.

Conclusion

The results highlight the structural limitations of the current funding logic, suggesting the need for a broader institutional framework for setting-based health promotion.