Observational studyBMJ open2026
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.
Observational study in BMJ open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo 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.
designA cross-sectional online survey.
settingCommunity-based, UK.
participantsFrom 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).
interventionsNone (observational survey study). PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Healthcare provider consulted; assessments (eg, history, bladder diary, examinations, tests); management (eg, behavioural, pharmacological); referrals/follow-up; satisfaction; associations via χ
resultsAmong 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.
conclusionsThese 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.