Mesut Altan, Emre Albayrak, Müjdat Ayva, Uğur Ünlütürk, Tomris Erbas
{"title":"Assessment of urological complications in male patients with diabetes: Insights from a survey of healthcare providers.","authors":"Mesut Altan, Emre Albayrak, Müjdat Ayva, Uğur Ünlütürk, Tomris Erbas","doi":"10.1016/j.pcd.2025.09.007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aimed to investigate healthcare professionals' practices, attitudes, and challenges in assessing and managing urological complications, including lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTSs) and erectile dysfunction (ED), in male patients with diabetes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A 12-question online survey, distributed between April 2023 and January 2024, gathered responses from 370 physicians in Turkey. Participants represented various specialties, including endocrinology, internal medicine, family medicine, and general practice. The survey evaluated how frequently physicians inquired about symptoms, their use of validated assessment tools, and their management strategies for ED and LUTSs in male patients with diabetes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the participants, 40.3 % frequently asked about LUTSs, whereas 42.4 % reported rarely or never addressing these symptoms. More than 20 years of experience was significantly associated with higher inquiry rates (p = 0.001). Only 0.8 % of participants used validated symptom assessment tools. Concerning ED, 89.5 % of physicians noted that male patients with diabetes seldom reported related complaints, and only 20.3 % routinely asked about ED. Endocrinologists were significantly more likely to inquire about ED, with 36.2 % reporting such inquiries compared to 10.5 % among other specialties (p < 0.001). Most participants (53.5 %) preferred referring patients with ED to urology specialists for further management.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Urological complications in male patients with diabetes are under-assessed, with significant gaps in the use of validated tools and structured approaches. The study underscores the importance of raising awareness and implementing multidisciplinary strategies, such as regular symptom screening and timely interventions, to enhance patient outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":94177,"journal":{"name":"Primary care diabetes","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Primary care diabetes","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pcd.2025.09.007","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to investigate healthcare professionals' practices, attitudes, and challenges in assessing and managing urological complications, including lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTSs) and erectile dysfunction (ED), in male patients with diabetes.
Methods: A 12-question online survey, distributed between April 2023 and January 2024, gathered responses from 370 physicians in Turkey. Participants represented various specialties, including endocrinology, internal medicine, family medicine, and general practice. The survey evaluated how frequently physicians inquired about symptoms, their use of validated assessment tools, and their management strategies for ED and LUTSs in male patients with diabetes.
Results: Of the participants, 40.3 % frequently asked about LUTSs, whereas 42.4 % reported rarely or never addressing these symptoms. More than 20 years of experience was significantly associated with higher inquiry rates (p = 0.001). Only 0.8 % of participants used validated symptom assessment tools. Concerning ED, 89.5 % of physicians noted that male patients with diabetes seldom reported related complaints, and only 20.3 % routinely asked about ED. Endocrinologists were significantly more likely to inquire about ED, with 36.2 % reporting such inquiries compared to 10.5 % among other specialties (p < 0.001). Most participants (53.5 %) preferred referring patients with ED to urology specialists for further management.
Conclusion: Urological complications in male patients with diabetes are under-assessed, with significant gaps in the use of validated tools and structured approaches. The study underscores the importance of raising awareness and implementing multidisciplinary strategies, such as regular symptom screening and timely interventions, to enhance patient outcomes.