Navigating lower urinary tract symptoms and nocturia care in the UK: patient experiences and gaps in clinical assessment and management among help-seeking adults-a cross-sectional study.

Abstract

To investigate real-world healthcare experiences of individuals in the UK who consulted health and care professionals for nocturia. The study explored the assessments, management strategies, referrals and follow-up patterns received by patients experiencing lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTSs), as well as their level of satisfaction with those. The association of sociodemographic factors with these patterns was also analysed. A cross-sectional online survey. Community-based, UK. From 2012 completers, 453 (22.5%) reported consulting healthcare professionals for LUTS (55.0% female, 75.5% White; aged 18-65+ years; convenience sampling via online panels/networks). None (observational survey study). Healthcare provider consulted; assessments (eg, history, bladder diary, examinations, tests); management (eg, behavioural, pharmacological); referrals/follow-up; satisfaction; associations via χ² tests. Among 453 respondents who sought professional advice for LUTS, 211 reported nocturia and 143 had nocturia confirmed through the survey's follow-up questions. General practitioners were the most consulted providers (73.1%), but guideline-recommended tools such as bladder diaries were underutilised (13.9%). Only 12.1% were referred to specialists. Satisfaction with care was mixed: 59% were satisfied with assessment and 54% with treatment, but dissatisfaction was common around referrals, follow-up and cause explanation. Long-term conditions and disability were associated with greater unmet needs. Participants consistently called for more accessible information, clinician training and better self-management support. These findings suggest that patients' reported experiences of assessment and management varied, which may reflect differences in actual practice, recall or communication during consultations, particularly in relation to nocturia. However, because the data are cross-sectional and self-reported, these results should be interpreted cautiously. They highlight areas where patient assessment, communication and follow-up could potentially be improved.