ArticleScientific reports2026
Exploring the perspectives of pulmonologists on referrals for pulmonary rehabilitation in India: insights into current practices.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) is an evidence-based treatment for chronic respiratory diseases that improves physical and psychosocial health. However, global referral rates remain low, especially in resource-limited settings where unique barriers complicate the referral process. This survey examined the facilitators of and barriers to PR referral among pulmonologists in India. A cross-sectional survey of pulmonologists in India was conducted via a validated questionnaire (content validation index of 0.93) with open- and closed-ended questions on facilitators and barriers to the referral of an individual to a PR. A total of 114 pulmonologists participated in the survey. Among the pulmonologists, facilitators of PR referrals included the availability of a PR centre within the hospital or nearby (n = 71, 81%), the availability of trained professionals at the PR centre (n = 67, 76%), positive beliefs about PR (n = 64, 73%) and major barriers were limited centres offering PR (n = 70, 80%), and financial constraints for patients (n = 58, 66%). According to the pulmonologists, the factors that facilitated patients’ participation in the PR program were good family support (n = 73, 86%), patients’ level of motivation (n = 68, 80%), easy accessibility to the rehabilitation centre (n = 66, 78%), and the barriers were a lack of awareness of the benefits of the PR (n = 59, 69%), and inaccessibility to the rehabilitation program (n = 55, 65%). Our survey identified various facilitators and barriers encountered by pulmonologists while referring patients to PRs. These factors can inform the development of context-specific referral pathways to improve PR access in resource-limited settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.