Gazi Gülbaş1 2Department of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation, Faculty of Health Sciences, İzmir Bakırçay University, İzmir, Türkiye
3Department of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation, Faculty of Health Sciences, Biruni University, İstanbul, Türkiye
4Department of Chest Diseases, Faculty of Medicine, Kahramanmaras Sutcu Imam University, Kahramanmaraş, Türkiye
5Department of Chest Diseases, Yedikule Chest Diseases and Thoracic Surgery Education and Research Hospital, University of Health Sciences, İstanbul, Türkiye
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIM: Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) is a cornerstone of chronic respiratory disease management; however, its organization and accessibility vary widely across countries. National data on PR practices in Türkiye are limited. This study aimed to describe the current landscape of PR services in Türkiye and to identify key organizational characteristics and barriers to implementation.
METHODS: A cross-sectional, web-based survey was conducted by the XXX. The questionnaire was distributed to healthcare professionals involved in PR and explored institutional infrastructure, team composition, program components, assessment practices, target patient populations, and perceived barriers to PR delivery.
RESULTS: Responses were obtained from 40 centers. Fifteen centers (38%) had an active PR unit, while 16 (40%) provided PR through staff-delivered or consultation-based services. Among centers offering PR (n=31), 58% reported reimbursement through the national social security system. Only 35% met the minimum recommended core interdisciplinary team requirements. PR programs were delivered through multiple service delivery models, most commonly in inpatient (71%) and outpatient (52%) settings, and primarily targeted patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and other chronic lung diseases. Exercise training and patient education were included in nearly all programs, whereas nutritional counseling (39%) and psychosocial support (23%) were less frequently offered. The mean patient acceptance rate for prescribed PR programs was 60% (standard deviation: 31). Major barriers to PR implementation included transportation difficulties, financial constraints, and lack of patient motivation.
CONCLUSIONS: Pulmonary rehabilitation services in Türkiye have expanded but remain heterogeneous in structure and delivery. Only approximately one-third of centers providing PR meet the recommended minimum core team composition. Our findings highlight the need to strengthen workforce capacity and to standardize PR delivery nationwide.
