“When I began looking into the topic of women’s health in more detail about three years ago, together with a former colleague, there was already some awareness of endometriosis,” explains Dr Sarah Eitze. “We then looked into it more closely and saw that there are social, individual and systemic barriers preventing those affected from receiving a prompt diagnosis and, consequently, the best possible treatment. Through the research in the junior research group, I would like to help change that.”

Aim of the research project

The END-DELAY project aims to reduce diagnostic delays in endometriosis and to find solutions for better patient-centred care. To this end, individual, social and structural causes of diagnostic delays will be systematically investigated. In an initial online survey, 1,500 women aged between 16 and 40 who have symptoms but no diagnosis will be surveyed. The aim is to investigate whether these women are more likely to visit a doctor’s surgery and seek support if they receive feedback on their symptoms. After approximately six months and approximately twelve months, the women will be asked about their efforts to seek a diagnosis in the meantime and the outcomes of these efforts. A further online survey involving 1,200 people is aimed at the general public. The influence of the social environment plays a major role in determining whether pain is downplayed and the topic is treated as a taboo, or whether support is provided, such as offers of counselling, help with finding medical information and accompaniment to doctor’s appointments. Another reason for the delay may lie with doctors. In interviews, gynaecologists and GPs are asked about how endometriosis is managed in their practice. Based on this, specialised training materials are being developed jointly. The aim is for doctors to recognise the symptoms earlier and not to dismiss them as normal ailments.

Prospects for clinical practice

The researchers intend to present their findings annually to an expert advisory board comprising medical professionals, journalists and patient organisations. The insights from the END-DELAY project are intended to help improve the standard of care for women with endometriosis. The aim is to formulate recommendations on how to support those affected in their search for a diagnosis and ensure they are better prepared for this process. Furthermore, the findings are also intended to provide direct support to women at various levels. This is because the development of evidence-based training materials for initial care in general practice and gynaecology helps to raise practitioners’ awareness of possible diagnostic and treatment options for endometriosis. The health messages developed as part of the project to promote social support and reduce stigmatisation could then be used in future initiatives.

Women remain under-represented in science and research. As part of its programme “Zia – Visible Women in Science & Humanities” (Zia = *Arabic: ‘the radiant one’, *Latin: the seed) ZEIT publishing house therefore offers female scientists a one-year fellowship that enables them to further their professional and personal development – through workshops on topics such as communication and rhetoric, body language and media logic, but also through the exchange of experiences and networking amongst themselves, as well as with female role models and institutional supporters from academia, business and the public sector. The aim is to empower young female academics within the academic system and, furthermore, to promote equal opportunities. Eva Thomm has now prevailed over outstanding fellow candidates in the internal selection process. She particularly impressed the committee with her research into topics relevant to the future.

Dr Eva Thomm: “I am delighted to have been given this opportunity by the University of Erfurt through the funding of this fellowship. I am particularly looking forward to networking with female researchers from other disciplines and to the opportunity this exchange offers to gain new perspectives on issues of research communication and the role of science in the public sphere – topics that also feature prominently in my own research.”

Six researchers from the Institute for Planetary Health Behaviour (IPB) will also be presenting papers there, showcasing the breadth of their collaborative research – ranging from health communication and vaccination decisions, and trust in the WHO, to climate justice, sustainable behaviour and the acceptance of health policy measures.

At the HeatFuture Lab, visitors were able to experience, discuss and help shape what a hot summer of the future might look like. Using AI-generated visions based on real views of Erfurt, alongside accessible information on heat and health, the lab explored how heat affects our daily lives and well-being – and how cities, health communication and healthcare can respond more effectively in the future.

But the experience went beyond simply looking and learning: visitors developed their own visions of the future, shared ideas and wishes for dealing with heat, and engaged in conversations with the researchers on site. Across the three event weekends, this created a diverse picture of what concerns people about increasingly hot summers and what changes they would like to see in the future.

With around 1,100 visitors, the response to the HeatFuture Lab truly exceeded our expectations. We were particularly pleased by the willingness of visitors not only to explore the exhibition but also to actively get involved. Through the many conversations, visions and contributions, we gained valuable insights into what concerns people about heat and what they hope for from cities, health communication and the medicine of the future.

says Dr Dominik Daube, co-head of the Lab.

However, the project did not end with the close of the exhibition. The team at the Institute for Planetary Health Behaviour is now scientifically analysing the data collected through the participatory activities in the lab. The findings will, among other things, inform a policy brief aimed at making the results accessible to policymakers and practitioners. At the same time, key content and findings from the HeatFuture Lab will be made available digitally and shared widely with the public through the Institute for Planetary Health Behaviour.

The HeatFuture Lab Thüringen has demonstrated how science communication can become a shared process of research and co-creation: members of the public were not merely an audience, but actively contributed their perspectives, experiences and ideas. For the project team, these insights provide an important basis for further exploring how prevention, health information and healthcare can be designed to meet the challenges of increasing heat.

The HeatFuture Lab Thüringen was funded by Wissenschaft im Dialog as part of the university competition for the Wissenschaftsjahr 2026 – Medicine of the Future.

• 07.08. – 09.08. from 1 to 8pm
• 14.08. - 16.08. from 1 to 8 pm
• 21.08. - 23.08. from 1 to 8 pm

"The idea for the HeatFuture Lab came from the ongoing project HEATCOM project and now offers the opportunity to further deepen scientific findings and disseminate them to the population – in the spirit of participatory research and population-oriented research communication," explains Dr Dominik Daube. He works as a postdoctoral researcher on the HEATCOM project at the University of Erfurt, which focuses on the question of how people in Germany behave in heat situations, which factors influence their protective behaviour and how interventions can contribute to health-promoting adaptation. Together with his colleague Sarah Pelull and student assistants, he has planned the HeatFuture Lab Thuringia.

"We offer an interactive dialogue and experience space in which visitors can think together with young researchers about what a hot summer of the future could look like – and what options there are for dealing better with heat. Using AI-generated images of the future from real city photos and vivid representations of heat stress as well as individual audiovisual elements, visitors will be able to understand how heat can affect well-being, everyday life and health risks. At the centre of all this is the question of how we as a society can better prepare ourselves for hot summers: e.g. through cities that deal better with heat, through comprehensible information and everyday protection options – and through a medicine of the future that supports people in the heat in a preventive, advisory and low-threshold manner. This could include digital warning and counselling services, telemedical consultation hours on hot days or heat-sensitive care structures in GP surgeries and care settings.

The HeatFuture Lab Thuringia is funded by “Wissenschaft im Dialog”.

The study highlights the campaign by the French health authority, Santé publique France, as particularly successful. In contrast to traditional, risk-oriented messages, it adopts a positive, benefit-oriented approach and provides practical, everyday recommendations, such as cooling living spaces or improving sleep quality during heatwaves. A survey of more than 3,000 participants before and after the campaign showed that the positive framing generated greater engagement than traditional, threat-based communication. Almost half of those surveyed stated that they had implemented at least one recommended protective measure, whilst more than 70 per cent expressed their intention to do so in future.

The Netherlands is also setting a good example: the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM) has carried out the first comprehensive evaluation of the Dutch Heat Action Plan for 2024 and 2025 in 20 years. The findings led to an adjustment of the communication strategy – moving away from purely self-protection information towards the message “Look out for one another when it’s hot”, which appeals in particular to carers and family members.

However, these two examples remain the exception. In most of the countries studied, communication measures are neither tested before their introduction nor evaluated after their implementation in terms of their impact on knowledge, risk perception or protective behaviour. Often, monitoring of success is limited to simple metrics such as website clicks. The study also shows that most campaigns continue to rely on fear-based, loss-oriented messages, whilst a differentiated approach to target groups – such as older people living alone, tourists or workers in particularly high-risk sectors – is rare.

Another key finding is that there has so far been little exchange between European countries regarding effective strategies, materials or evaluation methods. Existing European networks and institutions have so far been underutilised for this purpose. The researchers therefore advocate a more data-driven, theory-based approach to campaign development. Specifically, they recommend:

• the systematic pre-testing of communication materials prior to their publication,
• mandatory impact evaluation following roll-out, based on clear, verifiable objectives,
• the establishment of a Europe-wide database of evidence-based, previously evaluated materials for shared use,
• closer cooperation between European health authorities to pool resources and learn from one another.

The HEATCOM project, funded by the Federal Ministry of Health at the Institute for Planetary Health Behaviour at the University of Erfurt, which coordinated the expert meetings, already provides a data infrastructure for this purpose: in Germany, representative data on the population’s knowledge of heat, risk perception and protective behaviour are collected regularly. This data shows, for example, that around two-thirds of people in particularly vulnerable groups are completely unaware of their increased risk – a finding that underlines the urgency of more targeted communication.

Conclusion: In view of increasing heatwaves, it is not enough simply to disseminate warnings and safety advice – their effectiveness must also be demonstrated. The researchers are therefore calling on European health authorities to systematically test, evaluate and coordinate communication strategies across national borders in future in order to protect human lives.

The following projects will receive funding:

• “Resisting the initial impulse: Cognitive reflection as a prerequisite for environmentally conscious behaviour in a generational context”
  Olivia Dax, Stefanie Lindow, Thomas Lauer
• “GHOST – Gender and Heat: Ignorance, Scepticism & Resistance: Why do individuals ignore evidence-based health information about heat?”
  Sarah Eitze, Holger Futterleib, Anne Tänzer, Cera Lohse & Leonie Otten

With its internal project grant, the IPB is supporting interdisciplinary research in the field of Planetary Health Behaviour for the third time. The program is designed to foster collaboration across professorships and academic disciplines.

To be eligible for funding, project teams must include members from different professorships and academic disciplines, and at least one team member must be a doctoral researcher or postdoctoral researcher affiliated with the IPB.

We wish both research teams every success in implementing their projects and look forward to their findings and results.

The three-year project brings together research from the fields of mosquito and virus biology, environmental and climate research, and behavioural science. In addition to the BNITM, the Leibniz Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries (Berlin), the University of Erfurt, the University of Heidelberg and the University of Bamberg are involved. The total funding amounts to around 1.2 million euros.

“Artificial light at night is an environmental factor that has so far been scarcely taken into account systematically in infection research,” says Professor Esther Schnettler, head of the Mosquito Virus Interactions research group at the BNITM and coordinator of the network. “We assume that light pollution, together with rising temperatures, alters the behaviour of mosquitoes – for example, their activity, biting behaviour or overwintering patterns. This may have implications for the risk of virus transmission.”

The network is divided into four closely interlinked subprojects:

• At the BNITM, researchers are investigating how artificial light and temperature influence the biology of Culex pipiens, the main vector of the West Nile virus in Germany – from gene regulation to transmission potential.
• Researchers at the Leibniz Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries in Berlin are analysing how light, temperature, water quality and microorganisms in urbanised habitats influence the development and fitness of mosquitoes.
• The Health Communication Research Group (BNITM / University of Erfurt) is investigating how people perceive risks posed by mosquitoes and how they adjust their protective measures and exposure behaviour in everyday life.
• At the University of Heidelberg, the data collected is integrated into mathematical models to create spatially and temporally resolved risk maps and scenarios for future developments.
• The University of Bamberg is contributing its expertise in digital health research and providing the technical infrastructure for an app designed to record protective behaviour and mosquito exposure in everyday life.

The aim is to bring together biological, ecological and social data in order to assess transmission risks more realistically. The One Health Platform is supporting the project as an inter- and transdisciplinary network. The research findings are intended to lay the foundations for improved infection prevention, for example through surveillance systems, evidence-based communication strategies or the use of lighting in urban areas. Plans include open datasets, digital tools and contributions from citizen science initiatives.

Majorities are underestimated, minorities overestimated

In five studies with a total of more than 5,000 participants from Germany and the USA, the research team investigated how people assess the attitudes and behaviour of others with regard to climate protection. This initially confirmed a familiar pattern: the vast majority of respondents supported climate protection measures in principle, and this majority was underestimated by others. However, when the researchers examined actual, comparatively rare climate protection behaviour for the first time, the opposite pattern emerged: the participants significantly overestimated how many others actually donated money for climate protection or were politically active.

The researchers explain this simultaneous underestimation and overestimation through a general psychological mechanism: people tend to mentally shift extreme values "towards the centre". As a result, large majorities are underestimated and small minorities overestimated.

"Part of what has so far been labelled pluralistic ignorance – the assumption that other people are less willing to protect the climate than they actually are – could be due to very general thought processes when estimating proportions," explains Tiede. "This changes the perspective on a field of research that has grown considerably in recent years – and also the conclusions we can draw from it."

Greater focus on communicating solutions and political framework conditions

The results are particularly relevant for the public debate on climate communication. In recent years, it has often been suggested that informing people about the broad support for climate protection could trigger more social commitment. However, in the studies, correcting such misperceptions did not increase the willingness to donate money for climate protection. "Our results suggest that correcting misperceptions alone is not enough to promote actual climate protection behaviour," says Tiede.

Rather, it is necessary to tackle practical hurdles, a lack of knowledge about effective measures or political framework conditions that facilitate climate-friendly behaviour. Tiede continues: "Support for climate protection already exists in many areas and this finding is very robust. However, the key challenge may be less about convincing people and more about facilitating climate-friendly behaviour and making effective solutions visible."

Publication
Tiede, K. E., Maur, K. & Betsch, C. (2026). People systematically under- and overestimate public engagement in climate action. Nature Climate Change. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-026-02668-z

The Institute for Planetary Health Behaviour investigates how people act in ways that benefit both health and the climate, and how behaviour can be changed through communication, policy and interventions. The jury considered the combination of a clear mission, interdisciplinary research (8 professorships, 41 members) and targeted knowledge transfer to be worthy of recognition. Interdisciplinary teams, dialogue formats and international networks promote cooperation, practical relevance and the early involvement of early-stage researchers. The Advisory Board particularly commends the combination of research and practice-oriented knowledge transfer.

Professor Cornelia Betsch, Director of the IPB: “I am proud of this award – but above all that it was initiated by our early-career researchers. It shows that the IPB’s vision – research and impact as part of a vibrant society – is coming to fruition and is valued. And everyone contributes to this, every day.”

The Institute for Planetary Health Behaviour at the University of Erfurt studies how people act in ways that protect health and the climate, and how behaviour can be changed through communication, policy, and interventions. The jury found that the institute's excellence lies in combining a clear mission with interdisciplinary research (8 professorships, 41 members) and strong knowledge transfer. Interdisciplinary teams, dialogue formats, and international networks foster collaboration, practical relevance, and early involvement of early-career researchers. An Advisory Board particularly values the link between research and real-world impact.

Shortlist page of the Institute for Planetary Health Behaviour

I am proud of this award—but above all, I am proud that our young researchers initiated it. It shows that the IPB’s vision—research and impact as part of a vibrant society—is taking root and is valued. And everyone contributes to this every day.

says Prof. Dr. Cornelia Betsch, director of the IPB, celebrating this recognition.

On 27 June 2026, five research environments will be drawn at random from this shortlist, each receiving €10,000 in prize money.

"However, this stability seems deceptive," explains Professor Cornelia Betsch, Director of the Institute for Planetary Health Behaviour at the University of Erfurt. "The population wants more climate protection in principle, but has less and less confidence in the political system." At around 16 per cent, trust in government climate action is at its lowest level since measurements began. "If government programmes, such as the German government's new climate protection programme, are perceived as inadequate, the perceived responsibility shifts further into the private sphere: Existing asymmetries ('my actions have more impact than the government's') are slightly reinforced. Overall, we observe that responsibility tends to be individualised, e.g. also in that discourses move away from regulation and towards individual incentives, and thus in the broader perception climate protection seems to be a private rather than a state task."

Details of the results can be found on the PACE website.(in German only)

Federal Environment Minister Carsten Schneider and Professor Dr Cornelia Betsch will address these questions at a public discussion event in the Haus der Weimarer Republik – Forum für Demokratie, a project of Weimarer Republik e.V. Together they will discuss how democracy and climate protection are compatible, which communication strategies can create trust and which political paths appear suitable for winning social majorities for necessary changes.

The event is in German and will be moderated by freelance journalist Sebastian Haak.

Monday, 18 May 2026, 7:30 pm
Haus der Weimarer Republik – Forum für Demokratie, Theaterplatz 4, 99423 Weimar

The event is open to the public, admission is free. Admission begins 30 minutes before the start of the event (from 7 pm) via Zeughofgasse. Registration is mandatory and possible by e-mail to veranstaltungen@hdwr.de.
 

HEATCOM is a research project of the University of Erfurt and the University of Bamberg. Since 2024, the researchers involved have been investigating how heat protection communication in Germany can be made more effective - including with regard to psychological factors, communication behaviour, risk perception, trust, addressing target groups and specific protective measures.

At the expert dialogue Dr Mirjam Jenny, Dr Dominik Daube, Sarah Pelull (University of Erfurt) and Robert Bruckmann (University of Bamberg) presented current results and discussed with stakeholders from politics and practice how heat protection in Germany can be communicated in a more visible, coordinated and target group-orientated way in the future. Representatives from ecolo, the German Climate Change and Health Alliance (KLUG), the Robert Koch Institute, the Federal Institute of Public Health (BIÖG), Healthy Earth - Healthy People and the Helmholtz Centre Munich were among the participants .

The focus was on questions such as: How do heat warnings actually reach the population? What role do multipliersplay as trustworthy senders? Which messages promote not only risk perception but also specific protective behaviour? And how can existing guidelines, toolkits and communication services be better utilised and bundled?

The discussion has made it clear that heat protection communication needs more than just information. Understandable messages, trust, suitable channels, everyday recommendations and strategies that support people in actually implementing protective behaviour are crucial. Robert Bruckmann summarises:

'Our results from HEATCOM show: Risk perception should not be the primary endpoint of heat protection communication. It is crucial to strengthen people's ability to act: to understand which measures work well for whom and how they can be anchored in everyday life and under stress.

Women's health and gender bias 

At the centre of her stay at the IPB is a historical pharmaceutical case with high social relevance. The drug is still suspected of having caused malformations in unborn babies. Many of those affected are still fighting for recognition.

For März, the case is more than just a medical history issue. It raises fundamental questions about gender bias in medicine, structural inequalities in healthcare and social power relations. Diseases that predominantly affect women are historically and currently often under-researched and stigmatised.

During her stay, she would like to examine the following questions in particular: Would a comparable case still be possible today? What psychological, social, political and economic factors influence women's health? And how do access to healthcare, reproductive rights or migration affect medical care and research?

Interdisciplinary exchange at the IPB

At the IPB, Sigrid März is planning a close dialogue with scientists from different disciplines. She would particularly like to build on the work in the field of women's health, stigmatisation and empowerment. The interdisciplinary orientation of the institute – with expertise from medicine, psychology, social sciences and public health – offers an important resonance space for her project.

With the "Journalist in Residence" programme, the IPB strengthens the dialogue between research and journalism – and creates space for a differentiated, evidence-based examination of socially highly relevant health topics.