Patients and Professionals Perspectives on Minimum Data for Pulmonary Rehabilitation: Insights from a Delphi Study

Background Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) requires standardized documentation to monitor outcomes and ensure international comparability. Minimum Data Sets (MDS) are central to this process, but alignment between patients’ and professionals’ priorities remains unclear. Methods We conducted a secondary analysis of a two-round Delphi study including 40 PR professionals and 7 patients with chronic respiratory diseases. Items were rated on a 9-point Likert scale; consensus was defined as ≥ 70%. Items were classified as mutual, patient-only, professional-only, or no consensus. Results Retention was 75% for professionals and 43% for patients. Mutual consensus was achieved for 12 items (71%), including lung function, functional capacity, and quality of life. Five items reached patient-only consensus, mostly psychosocial and socioeconomic aspects (emotional well-being, social support, and financial burden). No professional-only consensus emerged. Statistically significant differences were observed in sociodemographic data, risk factors, psychological status, and economic impact (p < 0.05). Conclusions Patients and professionals share core priorities for PR documentation but diverge on psychosocial and socioeconomic aspects. The absence of professional-only consensus highlights alignment on clinical outcomes, while divergences underscore the need for co-designed, patient-centered MDS frameworks. These findings should be considered preliminary due to limited patient participation and require validation in larger, multidisciplinary, and multicenter studies.