Home › Research › Prevention and risk
Hearing aid effectiveness and probable dementia risk across 33 countries: A pooled analysis of seven cohorts
Jiang F, Dong Q, Jayakody DMP, Chen X, Mueller C, Wu B, et al.. Cell Reports Medicine, 2026-05-12
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Given the inconsistent evidence regarding hearing aid use and reduced dementia risk, this study evaluates whether hearing aid use, particularly effective use, is associated with lower probable dementia risk among hearing-impaired older adults. Using harmonized longitudinal data from 61,089 hearing-impaired participants (aged 55+ years) from seven cohorts (CHARLS, KLOSA, SHARE, ELSA, TILDA, HRS, and MHAS), we employ IPTW-corrected Cox models stratified by country income. Over a 6.5-year average follow-up (8,911 events), hearing aid use is associated with reduced dementia risk (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.91, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.88-0.94). This association is confined to participants reporting effective hearing improvement (HR = 0.86, 95% CI 0.80-0.93), whereas those reporting poor hearing improvement show no reduced risk (HR = 0.98, 95% CI 0.90-1.07). The association is stronger in middle-income countries (HR = 0.76) and among subgroup populations, including those aged <70 years, women, those who are unmarried, and those with lower education. Quality hearing rehabilitation is a potential public health priority for addressing the dementia burden.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Jiang, F., Dong, Q., Jayakody, D. M. P., Chen, X., Mueller, C., Wu, B., et al. (2026). Hearing aid effectiveness and probable dementia risk across 33 countries: A pooled analysis of seven cohorts. Cell Reports Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xcrm.2026.102802
Vancouver
Jiang F, Dong Q, Jayakody DMP, Chen X, Mueller C, Wu B, et al. Hearing aid effectiveness and probable dementia risk across 33 countries: A pooled analysis of seven cohorts. Cell Reports Medicine. 2026. doi:10.1016/j.xcrm.2026.102802. PMID: 42127901.
BibTeX
@article{jiang2026-42127901,
author = {Jiang, F. and Dong, Q. and Jayakody, D. M. P. and Chen, X. and Mueller, C. and Wu, B. and others},
title = {{Hearing aid effectiveness and probable dementia risk across 33 countries: A pooled analysis of seven cohorts}},
journal = {Cell Reports Medicine},
year = {2026},
doi = {10.1016/j.xcrm.2026.102802},
pmid = {42127901},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xcrm.2026.102802}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Given the inconsistent evidence regarding hearing aid use and reduced dementia risk, this study evaluates whether hearing aid use, particularly effective use, is associated with lower probable dementia risk among hearing-impaired older adults.
- Over a 6.5-year average follow-up (8,911 events), hearing aid use is associated with reduced dementia risk (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.91, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.88-0.94).
Why it matters
This pooled analysis of seven cohorts with 61,089 hearing-impaired participants found that hearing aid use was associated with reduced dementia risk, but only among those reporting effective hearing improvement. It suggests that effective hearing rehabilitation may help lower dementia risk, though it does not show a treatment or cure.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Prevention →
Study details
- Study designcohort
- Participants61,089
- Effect sizeHR 0.91 (95% CI 0.88-0.94) for hearing aid use; HR 0.86 (0.80-0.93) with effective use
- Evidence strengthModerate
Limitations
Self-reported hearing, aid use and effectiveness; probable dementia from cognitive and functional measures rather than clinical diagnosis; observational.
How this study scored 61/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a cohort study following 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 and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 57 of the 94 points we could judge it on, which is 61 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Cell Reports Medicine) |
| Journal's citation record | 1 / 4 | Cell Reports Medicine: journal h-index 104 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29) |
| Study design | 7 / 12 | A cohort study following 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 4 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10) |
| Citations per year | 1 / 5 | 2.0 citations a year over 2 year(s) since 2026 |
| Impact for its field and year | 4 / 6 | Cited 17.8× 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 | 1 / 4 | Cited 4 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex) |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | OpenAlex's profile for last-listed author Lei Xu holds only 5 work(s), too few to judge a track record — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | 2 / 3 | University of Cambridge: institution h-index 1,973 (OpenAlex) |
| Multi-centre collaboration | 3 / 3 | OpenAlex lists 21 institution(s) in 6 countries |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 42127901) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 57 / 94 | Scored on 18 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 57 of the 94 points we could judge it on is 61 out of 100. |
| Total | 61 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Full text: free to read — PubMed Central lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 10 Oct 2026).
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 “biobank”
1,084 studies in the library carry the topic tag “biobank”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 1,084 tagged studies.