Home › Research › Prevention and risk
From Hearing Aid Uptake to Hearing Aid Effectiveness: Rethinking Dementia Risk Reduction in Adults With Hearing Loss
Bamini Gopinath, Ghazal Shineh, Diana Tang. Sensory Neuroscience, 2026-06-01
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
ABSTRACT Hearing loss is a leading modifiable risk factor for dementia, yet evidence that hearing interventions reduce dementia risk has been mixed and difficult to translate into practice. Jiang and colleagues address this gap by shifting the focus from hearing aid uptake to hearing aid effectiveness in a pooled analysis of 61,089 adults with hearing loss aged 55+ across seven longitudinal cohorts from 33 countries. Hearing aid use was associated with a modestly lower risk of probable dementia overall (Hazard Ratios, HR, 0.91), but the association was confined to participants reporting improvements in hearing (HR 0.86), with no apparent benefit among those reporting poor improvement in hearing (HR 0.98). Associations were stronger in middle‐income settings (HR 0.76) and in several demographic subgroups, underscoring the potential equity and implementation implications. We argue these findings reposition quality hearing rehabilitation as the key exposure for dementia prevention in adults with hearing loss, and outline priorities to standardize effectiveness measurement, incorporate effectiveness‐oriented endpoints into trials and routine hearing care, and develop implementation strategies that optimize real‐world benefit.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Gopinath, B., Shineh, G., & Tang, D. (2026). From Hearing Aid Uptake to Hearing Aid Effectiveness: Rethinking Dementia Risk Reduction in Adults With Hearing Loss. Sensory Neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.1002/sen2.70034
Vancouver
Gopinath B, Shineh G, Tang D. From Hearing Aid Uptake to Hearing Aid Effectiveness: Rethinking Dementia Risk Reduction in Adults With Hearing Loss. Sensory Neuroscience. 2026. doi:10.1002/sen2.70034.
BibTeX
@article{gopinath2026-fcd1fddf,
author = {Gopinath, Bamini and Shineh, Ghazal and Tang, Diana},
title = {{From Hearing Aid Uptake to Hearing Aid Effectiveness: Rethinking Dementia Risk Reduction in Adults With Hearing Loss}},
journal = {Sensory Neuroscience},
year = {2026},
doi = {10.1002/sen2.70034},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1002/sen2.70034}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Hearing aid use was associated with a modestly lower risk of probable dementia overall (Hazard Ratios, HR, 0.91), but the association was confined to participants reporting improvements in hearing (HR 0.86), with no apparent benefit among those reporting poor improvement in hearing (HR 0.98).
- We argue these findings reposition quality hearing rehabilitation as the key exposure for dementia prevention in adults with hearing loss, and outline priorities to standardize effectiveness measurement, incorporate effectiveness‐oriented endpoints into trials and routine hearing care, and develop implementation strategies that optimize real‐world benefit.
Why it matters
In a pooled analysis of over 61,000 adults with hearing loss, hearing aid use was linked to a modestly lower risk of probable dementia, but this was seen only in people who reported that their hearing actually improved. The authors argue that the quality of hearing rehabilitation, not just getting a hearing aid, may matter for dementia prevention.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Prevention →
Study details
- Study designlongitudinal study
- Participants61,089
- Effect sizeHR 0.86; HR 0.98; HR 0.76
- Evidence strengthModerate
How this study scored 52/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a longitudinal study following the same people over time. Scored zero for randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on senior author's track record, so that was left out: it earned 50 of the 96 points we could judge it on, which is 52 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Sensory Neuroscience) |
| Journal's citation record | 0 / 4 | Sensory Neuroscience: journal h-index 5 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29) |
| Study design | 7 / 12 | A longitudinal study following the same people over time |
| Strength of evidence | 3 / 5 | Rated “moderate” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 5 / 5 | 2026 — within 1 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 4 / 4 | 61,089 participants |
| Effect reported | 3 / 3 | Effect reported with a statistic (interval, p-value, ratio or similar) |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | 1 / 7 | Cited 1 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10) |
| Citations per year | 0 / 5 | 0.5 citations a year over 2 year(s) since 2026 |
| Impact for its field and year | 3 / 6 | Cited 4.4× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI) |
| Cited by studies here | 0 / 6 | No other study in this library cites it |
| Still being cited | 0 / 4 | Cited 1 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex) |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | OpenAlex's profile for last-listed author Diana Tang holds only 6 work(s), too few to judge a track record — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | 1 / 3 | Macquarie University: institution h-index 704 (OpenAlex) |
| Multi-centre collaboration | 0 / 3 | OpenAlex lists 1 institution(s) in 1 country — scores zero (affiliation lists can be incomplete) |
| Indexed in PubMed | 1 / 2 | Not in PubMed, but has a DOI |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 50 / 96 | Scored on 19 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 50 of the 96 points we could judge it on is 52 out of 100. |
| Total | 52 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Full text: free to read — OpenAlex lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 6 Feb 1020).
Studies this one cites
Referenced by this study and also in the alzhub library, so you can read them here.
Related studies in Prevention and risk
Also tagged “controlled”
1,118 studies in the library carry the topic tag “controlled”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 1,118 tagged studies.