Stakeholder Identification: Improving Access to Pulmonary Rehabilitation for Seniors with COPD

This blog post explores the key individuals and groups who should be involved in efforts to improve access to pulmonary rehabilitation for seniors living with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Identifying stakeholders with relevant knowledge, lived experience, influence, or decision-making power is an important step in building a meaningful and inclusive health initiative. The following guiding questions help highlight whose voices should be involved in planning, delivering, and supporting PR programs, ensuring that both professional expertise and community perspectives are reflected in the process.

Who knows about the health issue and its causes?

There are many people with expertise who can help inform this work. Healthcare providers like respiratory therapists, pulmonologists, and geriatricians understand COPD and how pulmonary rehabilitation can improve the lives of people living with it. Public health staff and researchers can offer insights into the broader challenges seniors face, like transportation or digital barriers (Camp et al., 2015; Sami et al., 2021). It’s also helpful to include researchers who study home-based or virtual care models, as they can share what’s worked in other communities (Mendes Xavier et al., 2022).

Who brings diverse or community perspectives?

It’s important to involve the people most affected—seniors living with COPD, especially those in rural or underserved areas. Family caregivers, home care nurses, and staff at community organizations can also share what they see day-to-day. These perspectives are key for understanding what makes programs work in real life, not just in theory. Huffstetler et al. (2021) point out that having a mix of voices, including patients and front-line providers, leads to more useful and realistic plans. It’s also good to include people who may raise concerns—like those worried about digital access or privacy—so those issues can be addressed early on.

Who has the responsibility or authority to make changes?

Program planners at local health authorities, regional healthcare managers, and government health departments often make decisions about what services are offered and funded. They would play an important role in supporting or expanding PR programs. Primary care providers are also key, since they often refer patients to PR. Other important players include organizations like the Canadian Thoracic Society or the Lung Health Foundation, which help guide care standards and provide educational resources (Chopra et al., 2024).

Who influences others?

Some people and groups are especially good at bringing others on board. These might include respected clinicians, researchers, or leaders in the community who others listen to. Community organizations like senior centers or cultural associations can also be powerful partners, helping connect with people who might otherwise be missed. Huffstetler et al. (2021) found that when trusted voices are involved, programs tend to gain more support and buy-in from both professionals and the community.

Who is passionate and committed to this issue?

Many respiratory therapists, nurses, and educators who work with seniors and people with COPD care deeply about making care more accessible. Researchers focused on aging and chronic disease management are also likely to be enthusiastic partners. Community-based organizations that support older adults, especially those serving lower-income or isolated communities, often bring a strong sense of purpose and local knowledge. According to Huffstetler et al. (2021), people who feel personally connected to the issue often bring a level of energy and creativity that helps projects move forward.

References

Aburub, A., Darabseh, M., Badran, R., et al. (2024). The effects of digital health interventions for pulmonary rehabilitation in people with COPD: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Medicine, 60(6), 963. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina60060963

Camp, P. G., Hernandez, P., Bourbeau, J., et al. (2015). Pulmonary rehabilitation in Canada: A report from the Canadian Thoracic Society COPD Clinical Assembly. Canadian Respiratory Journal, 22(3), 147–152. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/369851

Chopra, S., Rana, S., Patel, R., et al. (2024). Diversity in pulmonary rehabilitation clinical trials: A systematic review of the literature. Expert Review of Respiratory Medicine, 18(1–2), 49–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/17476348.2024.2324086

Fien, S., Dowsett, C., Hunter, C., et al. (2022). Feasibility, satisfaction, acceptability and safety of telehealth for First Nations and culturally and linguistically diverse people: A scoping review. Public Health, 207, 119–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2022.04.007

Huffstetler, A. N., Shadowen, H., Brooks, E. M., Hinesley, J., Huebschmann, A. G., Glasgow, R. E., Bohannon, A., & Krist, A. H. (2021). Stakeholder input on a care planning tool to address unhealthy behaviors, mental health needs, and social risks: The value of different stakeholder perspectives. Journal of Clinical and Translational Science, 5(1), e188. https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2021.864

Mendes Xavier, D., Galvão, E. L., Fonseca, A. A., et al. (2022). Effects of home-based pulmonary rehabilitation on dyspnea, exercise capacity, quality of life and disease impact in COPD patients: A systematic review. COPD, 19(1), 18–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/15412555.2021.2020234

Sami, R., Salehi, K., Hashemi, M., & Atashi, V. (2021). Exploring the barriers to pulmonary rehabilitation for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A qualitative study. BMC Health Services Research, 21(1), 828. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-021- 06814-5