Skip to main content
2026 Prospectus
Search

World Lung Day 2026: Turn a Public Campaign into Accountable Action

Greg Wahlstrom, MBA, HCM
World Lung Day 2026 executive healthcare observance hero.

September 25, 2026 · A Lifetime of Lung Health

Turn one day of visibility into a lifetime operating model for lung health.

World Lung Day is an invitation to look beyond a campaign message. For healthcare leaders, it is a practical test of whether prevention, clean-air protection, timely diagnosis, medication access, acute care, transitions, and pulmonary rehabilitation work as one accountable system across every stage of life.

World Lung Day is observed on September 25. The Forum of International Respiratory Societies identifies the 2026 theme as A Lifetime of Lung Health. The theme matters because lung health is shaped over time. Prenatal and childhood exposures, school readiness, tobacco and occupational risk, access to primary and specialty care, infection prevention, correct medication use, exacerbation response, rehabilitation, and continuity in later life are connected rather than isolated episodes.

A health system cannot control every exposure or social condition. It can decide whether respiratory risk is noticed, whether people can reach the right assessment, whether an inhaler or cessation referral becomes usable care, whether transitions preserve ownership, and whether improvement data reveal who is being missed. Those decisions convert an observance into an operating commitment.

The evidence reviewed for this article spans school-based asthma access, air pollution, inhaler adherence, smoking cessation, portable spirometry, hospital-to-home transitions, and pulmonary rehabilitation. It includes qualitative studies, observational analyses, randomized and quasi-experimental studies, modeling, and systematic reviews. No single study supplies a universal playbook. Together, they support a leadership approach that makes exposure, access, handoffs, and participation visible while protecting against overclaiming.

The leadership signal

Lung health is accumulated across a lifetime, but responsibility is often divided by setting.

Healthcare organizations commonly organize respiratory work around departments, diagnoses, encounters, or age groups. People experience a different reality. A child may depend on family education, school personnel, access to a rescue medication, and an understandable action plan. A working adult may face tobacco exposure, workplace hazards, unstable coverage, or delayed evaluation. An older adult may be managing COPD, anxiety, multiple medications, transportation, a recent hospitalization, and a rehabilitation referral at the same time.

The life-course lens does not require one centralized program. It requires shared design rules. The organization should know how respiratory risk enters the system, how a concern becomes a confirmed assessment, how the person obtains and can use recommended treatment, how worsening symptoms trigger a response, and how the next team accepts responsibility. The same rules should be understandable to people and observable to leaders.

Recent school-health research makes the fragmentation visible. Qualitative interviews with 23 school nurses and administrators in five high-asthma-burden counties described concerns about emergency management, incident tracking, family education, staff training, resources, and policy implementation. A separate Chicago analysis included 517 district-run schools and more than 266,000 students. It found variation in asthma prevalence and support plans across student characteristics while examining the equitable scale-up of stock inhalers. These studies are not interchangeable and do not prove a single intervention will close disparities. They show that access depends on policy, workflow, training, data, and local relationships, not simply on the existence of a medication.1, 3

In Maricopa County, a public-health practice-facilitation model supported school implementation across 324 participating schools. Among 153 schools reporting a stock-inhaler event, 1,310 events were documented across four school years and 78% were compliant with the administration protocol. This is implementation evidence from one county, not a clinical outcome benchmark. Its operational value is the demonstration that adoption and fidelity require coaching, partnerships, and repeated measurement.2

A respiratory clinician demonstrates a portable spirometer and inhaler spacer to a school-age child and caregiver in a bright clinic.
Illustrative image. Childhood lung-health access can depend on understandable education, caregiver partnership, assessment capacity, medication availability, school protocols, and a usable response plan. The scene represents an evidence-informed care concept, not a named organization or measured result.1, 2, 3, 15

Access that changes behavior

Reduce the distance between a clinical opportunity and the next usable action.

An order, referral, or recommendation is only the beginning of access. The person may still need an appointment, transportation, coverage, language support, confidence, a working phone, or help resolving competing priorities. The pathway should therefore distinguish between a recommendation that was documented, an offer that was made, a service that was scheduled, an encounter that occurred, and a plan that continued.

A 2024 open-label randomized trial in Türkiye enrolled 397 adults who smoked and had chronic airway disease. Participants were assigned to usual advice to contact a smoking-cessation clinic or to an appointment scheduled immediately. Within one week, 18.1% of the usual-advice group and 77.3% of the immediate-appointment group had sought help from the clinic. The reported odds ratio was 13.38 with a 95% confidence interval from 8.00 to 22.38. The result is striking, but the study was preliminary, open-label, conducted in one national context, and measured near-term help-seeking rather than long-term abstinence. Leaders should treat it as evidence that friction can matter, not as a guaranteed local effect size.18

A 2025 randomized pilot tested proactive text-message outreach with phone-based care coordination among people with COPD who smoked. Of 697 invited people, 125 were randomized. The study showed the approach was feasible, but the difference in possible treatment use was uncertain and the confidence interval crossed the null. Fifty otherwise eligible people lacked a text-capable phone. That exclusion is an important design warning. A digital channel can create a new route while also removing people from the denominator if the organization does not preserve a non-digital alternative.14

Figure 1

Immediate scheduling and one-week smoking-cessation help-seeking

Exact values displayed in Figure 1
Study groupParticipants randomizedSought help within one week
Usual advice19918.1%
Immediate appointment19877.3%
Source: Karadoğan et al., 2024.18 Applicability: near-term help-seeking after a smoking-cessation referral among adults with chronic airway disease. Limitation: preliminary, open-label, setting-specific trial; the chart does not show abstinence, durability, or a universal effect. This evidence chart is a planning signal, not a benchmark.

One connected pathway

Define the handoffs that protect lung health before, during, and after illness.

A life-course model is useful only when it changes the work. The pathway begins with prevention and exposure reduction, but it must also support people who already have symptoms or disease. Timely identification should lead to a confirmed assessment, and a confirmed assessment should lead to a usable treatment and self-management plan. Worsening symptoms should trigger an escalation route. Hospital care should preserve continuity after discharge. Rehabilitation and longitudinal follow-up should remain connected to the person’s goals and practical conditions.

Portable spirometry may expand assessment capacity, but technology should not be treated as a diagnosis by itself. A 2025 multicenter randomized open-label crossover study compared a portable spirometer with a laboratory instrument. Among 126 participants producing acceptable tests, intraclass correlation coefficients were 0.994 for FEV1 and 0.993 for FVC. An additional 30 volunteers were used to assess usability after specialist instruction. Those findings support careful local evaluation of portable testing. They do not eliminate the need for standards, quality assurance, trained interpretation, clinical context, confirmatory pathways, or monitoring of who receives an acceptable test.15

The transition out of hospital is another high-risk interface. A single-blind randomized trial in South Korea included 179 people with COPD and tested a hospital-to-home transitional-care program involving discharge planning, personalized education, breathing exercises, phone counseling, home visits, and referrals to social services. The intervention improved patient-centered outcomes in that setting. It does not prove that every component is necessary or that the same result will occur elsewhere. It supports a broader principle: a discharge summary alone is not a complete transition model.17

Figure 2

Proposed life-course lung-health process flow

  1. ProtectOwner: community and prevention partnersReduce tobacco, pollution, infection, home, school, and occupational exposure.
  2. RecognizeOwner: every access pointNotice symptoms, risk, repeated acute use, and missed preventive opportunities.
  3. AssessOwner: trained clinical teamComplete appropriate history, testing, interpretation, and referral.
  4. Activate treatmentOwner: clinician, pharmacy, and access teamMake medication, education, cessation support, and action plans usable.
  5. RespondOwner: named acute and ambulatory teamsProvide a clear route for worsening symptoms and rescue needs.
  6. RestoreOwner: rehabilitation and longitudinal careSupport function, confidence, activity, recovery, and self-management.
  7. LearnOwner: accountable pathway leadershipReview outcomes, exceptions, inequities, experience, and next actions.
Evidence basis: school implementation, diagnosis access, transition, and rehabilitation studies.1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 15, 17 Limitation: this process flow is a proposed executive framework, not a clinical guideline. Local policy, professional standards, urgency, and scope of service govern implementation.

Environment and prevention

Treat air quality as a source-control and equity issue, not only a self-protection message.

Air pollution affects lung health across the life course. A 2026 narrative review synthesized evidence on outdoor and indoor air pollution, asthma, lung-function development, and decline. It described heightened susceptibility during pregnancy and childhood and concluded that emissions reduction at the source remains the cornerstone of prevention. Because it was a narrative review and the underlying evidence was heterogeneous, it cannot establish a single local effect estimate. Its prevention hierarchy is still important: personal behavior and household practices should support, not replace, structural air-quality action.9

A 2026 systematic review and meta-analysis of 27 randomized controlled trials evaluated personal-level interventions such as air purifiers and respirators in non-occupational settings. The interventions reduced measured indoor particulate matter, yet pooled analyses did not show significant improvement in FEV1, peak expiratory flow, FVC, respiratory symptoms, or blood pressure. One inflammatory marker improved modestly. The study does not show that personal protection is useless. It shows why leaders should not equate a reduced exposure measure with a proven clinical outcome or shift responsibility away from source reduction.11

Place and work conditions also matter. A cross-sectional study compared 193 children living near artisanal brick production with 193 unexposed peers in Guanajuato, Mexico. Impaired lung function was reported in 13.5% of exposed children and 4.1% of unexposed children. Residence in the brickyard was associated with higher odds of impairment. The cross-sectional design cannot establish causation, exposure classification may not capture every risk, and the findings should not be generalized to all communities. The study nevertheless demonstrates why occupational, environmental, pediatric, and public-health data may need to be viewed together.4

Modeling can help estimate the possible scale of cleaner-air benefits, but modeled values are not observed local outcomes. A Swedish health-impact assessment projected changes associated with hypothetical reductions in PM2.5 and nitrogen dioxide. The authors estimated benefits across mortality and conditions including COPD, lung cancer, childhood asthma, pregnancy hypertension, and preterm birth. The model depended on exposure-response functions and assumptions drawn from prior literature. Leaders may use that kind of work to frame prevention value while keeping assumptions, uncertainty, and local applicability explicit.10

Figure 3

Contributors to preventable loss of lung health

Evidence basis: qualitative and mixed evidence across school access, air pollution, inhaler adherence, transitions, and rehabilitation.3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 16 Limitation: this is a qualitative, unranked fishbone. It does not show prevalence, causal weight, or a Pareto order.

Medication, confidence, and continuity

A prescribed inhaler is not the same as reliable treatment.

Leaders need a wider definition of medication access. The product must be available and affordable, but the person also must understand its purpose, be able to operate the device, believe the plan is worthwhile, manage concerns, and receive support when circumstances change. Pharmacy claims or prescription counts can illuminate part of the pathway while missing technique, confidence, or day-to-day use.

A 2026 prospective cohort study of 298 people with COPD identified three disease-specific anxiety profiles. The high-anxiety anticipatory profile was associated with lower inhaler medication adherence six months after treatment initiation. The observational design does not prove that anxiety caused nonadherence, and the profiles require validation in other populations. The study supports screening for concerns that a technically focused medication conversation may miss.12

Another 2026 prospective study followed 207 people with COPD after discharge and identified four adherence trajectories. Nearly one-third showed poor inhaled-medication adherence after discharge, and one month was described as a critical turning point. Health literacy, beliefs about medicines, anxiety, social support, and duration of device use were among the associated factors. Convenience sampling and a single academic center limit generalizability. The operational lesson is not to label adherence once. It is to build a reassessment point early enough to detect a changing pattern.8

Continuity also depends on a relationship, not only a contact attempt. A 2026 qualitative study interviewed nine people with COPD and seven care managers after an 18-month remote follow-up program following pulmonary rehabilitation. Participants emphasized trust, personalized support, and relational continuity. Care managers described insufficient time and limited recognition of their role. Because the sample was small and specific to one program, it should not be treated as proof of the ideal staffing model. It does show that coordination work has capacity requirements and should not be hidden as unmeasured labor.6

A qualitative review from two rural Veterans Affairs medical centers examined a pharmacist-led COPD transition-of-care service. Stakeholder perspectives highlighted multilevel factors that affected sustainability. Again, qualitative findings from two facilities are not a universal deployment recipe. They are useful for leaders because they direct attention to service integration, local context, role clarity, and the organizational conditions needed to sustain a pathway after an initial project period.7

These studies suggest a practical sequence after a new or changed inhaled therapy: verify access, teach and observe technique, confirm understanding, assess beliefs and anxiety, establish an action plan, schedule an early check, and define the owner of unresolved problems. Each step should have a reason code when it does not occur. Without that structure, leaders see only the prescription and the later exacerbation, not the failure between them.

An older adult reviews inhaler technique and a digital care plan with a clinical pharmacist and respiratory nurse in a community setting.
Illustrative image. Reliable inhaled therapy combines product access, observed technique, understandable education, confidence, early reassessment, and a named route for questions. The scene is conceptual and does not depict a measured intervention or named organization.6, 7, 8, 12, 17

Recovery and participation

Make pulmonary rehabilitation a reachable service, not a theoretical benefit.

A mixed-methods systematic review published in 2025 synthesized 29 studies on barriers and facilitators to pulmonary rehabilitation participation in COPD. It organized findings across psychological, interpersonal, and structural factors, including anxiety, health literacy, clinician communication, family support, urban-rural resource differences, and financial constraints. Mixed evidence can reveal recurring categories, but it does not supply a single participation rate or prove which intervention will work locally. Its value is to prevent leaders from treating nonparticipation as an individual failure when the pathway itself may be difficult to use.16

Alternative delivery models can help, provided choice and support remain visible. A 2025 single-center open-label randomized trial enrolled 90 adults with stable COPD and analyzed 84 at eight weeks. A nurse-led home program combined breathing and resistance exercises, an initial telemonitored session, weekly calls, and education. Functional, anxiety, sleep, and dyspnea outcomes improved compared with standard care, and no intervention-related adverse events were reported. The short follow-up, single center, and selected population limit broader inference. The trial supports careful local testing of home-based access, not replacement of every center-based option.13

A 2026 mixed-methods feasibility study examined 21 people completing an eight-week hybrid program after COPD-related hospitalization. Participants reported high satisfaction and valued accessibility, adaptation, a single care manager, and caregiver involvement, while also describing technical issues and a preference for face-to-face sessions. The sample was small and nested within an ongoing study, so effectiveness claims should remain cautious. The leadership message is clearer: digital rehabilitation should be an option within a supported model, not the only door.5

Access to pulmonary rehabilitation should therefore be measured as a conversion sequence: clinically eligible, informed, referred, accepted, scheduled, started, retained, and reassessed. Reasons for nonparticipation should distinguish choice from blocked access. Capacity, distance, transportation, coverage, technology, symptoms, caregiving, work, anxiety, and confidence should not be collapsed into an empty field or an “unreachable” label.

Figure 4

Lung-health operating system

Evidence basis: synthesis across environmental, access, adherence, transition, and rehabilitation research.5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 16, 17 Limitation: this operating-system diagram is a proposed governance model. It is not a clinical protocol, validated maturity model, or achieved outcome.

Decision-grade measurement

Measure the pathway, the missingness, and the reasons people fall out.

World Lung Day activity may generate social engagement, event attendance, education completions, or screening volume. Those measures can be useful, but they do not show whether people reached effective care. An executive scorecard should connect campaign and outreach data to a defined care pathway. It should make denominators explicit and show the difference between a person who declined, a person who was clinically ineligible, a person who could not be reached, and a person blocked by cost, capacity, transportation, language, technology, or an unaccepted referral.

Measurement also needs safeguards. A portable testing initiative should track test quality and confirmatory follow-through, not only tests completed. A school program should track protocol fidelity and incident response without exposing students. An inhaler initiative should include observed technique and an early reassessment opportunity. A transition measure should require receiving-owner acceptance rather than assuming that a transmitted document completed the handoff. A rehabilitation measure should report the full conversion sequence and a structured reason for nonparticipation.

Equity review requires sufficient governance and humility. Segment outcomes only when lawful, ethical, and analytically responsible. Protect small groups and privacy. Report missing data. Avoid interpreting an observed difference as proof of bias or causation without further investigation. The purpose is to detect where the system may need to listen, test, and redesign, not to attach blame to people or communities.

Targets must be local. The studies in this evidence set use different populations, settings, measures, and follow-up periods. Their numeric results should not become enterprise benchmarks. Establish a current baseline, define the local numerator and denominator, confirm data quality, and select a change target that fits clinical risk, capacity, and the chosen pathway.

Figure 5

Proposed executive lung-health scorecard

Illustrative measures requiring local definition and validation
DomainDecision question and possible measureAccountable reviewRequired guardrail
Prevention and exposureAre identified tobacco, home, school, work, or pollution risks linked to a usable intervention or partner response?Population health and community leadership, quarterlyDo not shift structural responsibility onto individual behavior.
Recognition and diagnosisPeople completing an acceptable assessment and documented next step ÷ people entering the defined diagnostic pathway.Primary and respiratory clinical leads, monthlyTrack test quality, interpretation, confirmatory needs, and loss to follow-up.
Medication accessPeople confirming product access, observed technique, and an early reassessment ÷ people starting or changing inhaled therapy.Clinical and pharmacy leaders, monthlySeparate affordability, availability, technique, beliefs, anxiety, and choice.
Acute and transitionDischarges with a receiving owner, scheduled next action, and early status confirmation ÷ eligible respiratory discharges.Hospital and ambulatory operations, weeklyA sent record is not an accepted handoff.
RehabilitationEligible, informed, referred, accepted, started, retained, and reassessed as separate conversion stages.Rehabilitation and service-line leaders, monthlyPreserve channel choice and structured reasons for nonparticipation.
Experience and equityCan people and caregivers explain the plan, identify the next owner, and use the pathway under real conditions?Experience, equity, and community partners, quarterlyReport response rate, missingness, privacy controls, and qualitative context.
Evidence basis: proposed measures informed by the 18 reviewed studies and their limitations. Limitation: this structured table does not establish targets, comparative benchmarks, or causal attribution. Every definition, interval, owner, and stratifier requires local approval and data validation.

The 90-day executive agenda

Use World Lung Day to begin one accountable improvement cycle.

Choose one pathway with meaningful risk, volume, inequity, patient burden, or repeated handoff failure. A reasonable focus might be pediatric rescue access, tobacco-cessation scheduling, spirometry follow-through, inhaler activation after discharge, COPD transition continuity, or pulmonary rehabilitation participation. Do not launch several lightly governed initiatives at once. Select one route that can be observed from entry to next action.

During days 1 through 30, create a small cross-functional team with an executive sponsor, operational owner, clinical authority, frontline participants, data support, and people who use the pathway. Follow real cases. Observe where risk is recognized, how decisions are explained, what must happen outside the electronic record, and how exceptions are handled. Establish one local denominator and one failure state. Pair operational data with structured listening so the team can see both measured loss points and unrecorded friction.

During days 31 through 60, co-design one change. The intervention might be immediate appointment scheduling, a receiving-owner acceptance rule, portable-testing quality workflow, a stock-inhaler coaching package, an inhaler-technique and anxiety check, a pharmacist transition role, a hybrid rehabilitation option, or a non-digital alternative to text outreach. Define who does what, under which conditions, within what interval, and how the pathway responds when the preferred route fails. Test the workflow with different shifts, populations, and practical circumstances.

During days 61 through 90, implement at controlled scale. Monitor adoption, workload, safety, privacy, access, and equity. Review people who did not reach the next step and verify reason categories rather than filling blanks with assumptions. Compare the early signal with the baseline, but do not claim a durable clinical outcome from a short test. Correct the workflow before expanding it. Report what changed, what did not, what remains uncertain, and who owns the next review.

A multidisciplinary lung-health team and community representative map a color-coded pathway on a glass wall overlooking a city and trees.
Illustrative image. A life-course lung-health pathway requires clinical, pharmacy, rehabilitation, public-health, operational, community, and patient-family perspectives to examine the same handoffs. The scene represents improvement work, not a validated workflow, dashboard, or named organization.1, 2, 6, 7, 16, 17
Figure 6

Ninety-day lung-health reliability timeline

Milestone 1

One pathway, denominator, failure state, baseline, and accountable owner are approved.

Milestone 2

The tested change passes safety, usability, workload, privacy, access, and equity review.

Milestone 3

Leaders verify adoption, exceptions, early signals, limits, and the next accountable action.

Evidence basis: implementation synthesis from scheduling, school access, diagnostic, medication, transition, and rehabilitation studies.1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 Limitation: these projected management phases are not achieved clinical or operational outcomes.

Leadership close

Keep lifetime lung health visible after September 25.

World Lung Day should recognize the people who protect respiratory health and care for those living with lung disease. Recognition is stronger when it is connected to reliable operations. Make exposure and prevention opportunities visible. Reduce the distance between recommendation and action. Protect diagnostic quality. Treat medication access as more than a prescription. Preserve ownership across discharge. Offer rehabilitation through usable channels. Measure who reaches the next step and who does not.

The strongest one-day commitment is narrow enough to complete and important enough to matter. Choose one pathway, one failure state, one accountable owner, and one 90-day test. Use evidence without turning a single study into a promise. Publish what the organization learned, including what remains uncertain. A lifetime of lung health is not delivered by one team or one event. It is protected when every handoff keeps the next useful action alive.

One-day commitmentAuthorize one 90-day lung-health reliability cycle that makes access, ownership, exceptions, and follow-through observable.

Continue the work

Related executive resources

World Asthma Day 2026Connect communication, partnership, action plans, and follow-through. National Asthma & Allergy Awareness Month 2026Build a reliable path from awareness to action. Pulmonary Rehabilitation Week 2025Connect recovery, access, participation, and long-term lung health. National Cancer Prevention Month 2026Build tobacco prevention and early action into routine operations. Official World Lung Day eventConfirm the September 25, 2026 observance and FIRS campaign overview. Official 2026 theme announcementReview FIRS guidance for “A Lifetime of Lung Health.”

Evidence reviewed

Scholarly references

  1. Patwa M, Cushman J, Lane R, Hardy P, Dhakal S, Zolfo S, et al. A data-driven approach to stock inhaler programming implementation in Chicago Public Schools. Discover Public Health. 2026;23(1):1-15. doi:10.1186/s12982-026-02207-3.
  2. Lowe AA, Mottern N, DiGioia O, Dobbins D, Ivich K, Jovich R, et al. Breathing Easy in Maricopa County, Arizona: Empowering K-12 schools with a novel nurse coaching model to facilitate implementation of a county-wide school-based stock albuterol inhaler program. Journal of School Nursing. 2026;42(3):260-270. doi:10.1177/10598405241312129.
  3. Edenfield K, Hingston D, Hardy P, Ongtengco A, Wilt E, Saggar A, Martin MA, Pappalardo AA. Breathing Easy: A qualitative analysis of school nurse and administrator perspectives on stock inhalers and school-based asthma management. Journal of School Nursing. 2026;42(3):232-241. doi:10.1177/10598405241311137.
  4. Linares Segovia B, Bermúdez Pérez RS, Monroy-Torres R, Jiménez Garza OA, Amador Licona N, Guízar-Mendoza JM, et al. Allergic diseases and impaired lung function in children exposed and unexposed to artisanal brick production. Children. 2026;13(6):734. doi:10.3390/children13060734.
  5. Gephine S, Meto E, Le Rouzic O, Launois R, Grosbois JM. Is a hybrid pulmonary rehabilitation programme feasible and effective in individuals with COPD after an exacerbation-related hospitalisation: A mixed methods study. Journal of Clinical Nursing. 2026;35(6):2658-2671. doi:10.1111/jocn.70234.
  6. Moine E, Brusseau M, Alexandre F, Gendrault S, Heraud N. Shared experiences in post-rehabilitation COPD care management: A qualitative study from patient and care manager perspectives. Health Expectations. 2026;29(3):1-11. doi:10.1111/hex.70680.
  7. Portillo EC, Parham T, Maurer M, Erdelt D, Vande Hey J, Jacobson N, et al. Sustaining a pharmacist-led COPD transition of care service in the rural context: A qualitative review of multilevel stakeholder perspectives from two Veterans Affairs medical centers. Frontiers in Health Services. 2026:1-8. doi:10.3389/frhs.2026.1715917.
  8. Xu H, Liang W, Liang Y, Zeng Q, Huang J, Li R. Inhaled medication adherence trajectory and its associated factors in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A group-based trajectory modeling. Patient Preference and Adherence. 2026;20:1-19. doi:10.2147/PPA.S594228.
  9. Carvalho PA, Paciência I, Moreira A, de Castro Mendes F. Air pollution, asthma and diet: From mechanisms to prevention strategies. Nutrients. 2026;18(4):639. doi:10.3390/nu18040639.
  10. Oudin A, Flanagan E, Forsberg B. Projected health benefits of air pollution reductions in a Swedish population. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health. 2026;54(1):56-63. doi:10.1177/14034948241264099.
  11. Mudgal SK, Kumar S, Varikasuvu SR, Varshney S, Huda RK, Sharma SK, et al. Effectiveness of personal-level protective measures against air pollution on respiratory health: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Indian Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. 2026;30(1):13-24. doi:10.4103/ijoem.ijoem_328_25.
  12. Chen M, Gong Z, Wang J, Hu Y, Zhang Q, Huang S, et al. High anxiety in COPD: A barrier to effective inhaler medication adherence and disease management. Journal of Clinical Nursing. 2026;35(1):208-218. doi:10.1111/jocn.17819.
  13. Coşkun S, Şimşek NY, Arslan Y. Effects of home-based pulmonary rehabilitation on walking, anxiety and sleep in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A randomized controlled trial. International Journal of Nursing Practice. 2025;31(6):1-14. doi:10.1111/ijn.70085.
  14. Melzer AC, Kaplan A, Campbell M, Nelson D, Hagedorn H, Fu SS. Proactive text messaging outreach for tobacco cessation among patients with COPD who smoke: A randomized pilot. Tobacco Use Insights. 2025;18:1-11. doi:10.1177/1179173X251394351.
  15. Gao Y, Liang B, Su X, Rao W, Cheng H, Fan C, et al. Reliability and usability of a portable spirometer compared to a laboratory spirometer. BMC Pulmonary Medicine. 2025;25(1):228. doi:10.1186/s12890-025-03690-1.
  16. Qin H, Jia P, Yan Q, Li X, Zhang Y, Jiang H, et al. Barriers and facilitators to pulmonary rehabilitation in COPD: A mixed-methods systematic review. BMC Pulmonary Medicine. 2025;25(1):314. doi:10.1186/s12890-025-03769-9.
  17. Park Y, Kim WJ, Han SS, Heo YJ, Moon DH, Kwon O, et al. Effect of hospital-to-home transitional care for COPD on patient-centered outcomes. Respiratory Care. 2025;70(1):81-91. doi:10.1089/respcare.11924.
  18. Karadoğan D, Telatar TG, Kaya İ, Atlı S, Kabil NK, Marım F, et al. Effectiveness of immediate appointment scheduling in smoking cessation clinics for patients with chronic airway diseases: Preliminary results from a randomized trial. Tobacco Induced Diseases. 2024;22:1-9. doi:10.18332/tid/191782.

Leave us a Comment