Home › Research › Prevention and risk
Hearing intervention versus health education control to reduce cognitive decline in older adults with hearing loss in the USA (ACHIEVE): a multicentre, randomised controlled trial
Lin FR, Pike JR, Albert MS, et al. (ACHIEVE Collaborative Research Group). The Lancet, 2023-09-02
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
This randomized trial gave hearing aids plus counseling, or only general health education, to 977 older adults with untreated hearing loss, then tracked cognition for three years. Across the whole study group, hearing treatment did not significantly slow cognitive decline overall, but a planned subgroup of participants already at higher risk of decline showed meaningfully less decline with hearing treatment. This nuance matters: the overall null result and the subgroup benefit are both real findings from the same RCT, not competing claims.
Key findings
- 977 adults aged 70-84 with untreated hearing loss randomized to hearing intervention (counseling + hearing aids) vs. health education control
- Overall 3-year cognitive change was not significantly different between groups across the full cohort
- Effect differed by recruitment subgroup: benefit appeared in the higher-risk (ARIC) subgroup but not in healthier volunteer participants
- In the higher-risk subgroup, hearing intervention was associated with roughly 48% less cognitive decline over 3 years (per secondary/subgroup analyses)
Why it matters
Across the whole group of 977 older adults with hearing loss, hearing treatment did not significantly slow cognitive decline over three years, but a planned higher-risk subgroup showed roughly 48% less decline with hearing treatment. Both the overall null result and the subgroup benefit are findings from the same randomized trial.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Prevention →
Study details
- Study designRCT
- Participants977
- Effect sizeNo significant overall difference; ~48% less decline in the pre-specified higher-risk (ARIC) subgroup
- Evidence strengthModerate
Limitations
The overall (whole-cohort) result was null; the beneficial finding comes from a subgroup analysis (higher-risk ARIC participants), which is hypothesis-generating rather than confirmatory.
How this study scored 73/100
Published in a top-tier journal, and it is a randomised controlled trial. Scored zero for indexed in PubMed because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record, multi-centre collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 45 of the 62 points we could judge it on, which is 73 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 10 / 10 | Tier 1 — top-tier general journal (The Lancet) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 11 / 12 | A randomised controlled trial |
| 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 | 3 / 5 | 2023 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 2 / 4 | 977 participants |
| Effect reported | 2 / 3 | Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| Randomised / blinded | 1 / 2 | Randomised (as stated in the record) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | 0 / 6 | No other study in this library cites it |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 0 / 2 | No PubMed ID and no DOI — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 45 / 62 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 45 of the 62 points we could judge it on is 73 out of 100. |
| Total | 73 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. This record has no DOI, so the citation leaves it out. 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.
APA 7th
Lin, F. R., Pike, JR., Albert, M. S., et al. (2023). Hearing intervention versus health education control to reduce cognitive decline in older adults with hearing loss in the USA (ACHIEVE): a multicentre, randomised controlled trial. The Lancet.
Vancouver
Lin FR, Pike JR, Albert MS, et al. Hearing intervention versus health education control to reduce cognitive decline in older adults with hearing loss in the USA (ACHIEVE): a multicentre, randomised controlled trial. The Lancet. 2023. PMID: 37478886.
BibTeX
@article{lin2023-4ecff333,
author = {Lin, F. R. and Pike, JR. and Albert, M. S. and others},
title = {{Hearing intervention versus health education control to reduce cognitive decline in older adults with hearing loss in the USA (ACHIEVE): a multicentre, randomised controlled trial}},
journal = {The Lancet},
year = {2023},
pmid = {37478886}
}
Studies this one cites
Referenced by this study and also in the alzhub library, so you can read them here.
Later studies that cite this one
27 studies in the alzhub library list this one in their references. Showing the 8 highest-scoring.
Related studies in Prevention and risk
Also tagged “cognitive-function”
1,118 studies in the library carry the topic tag “cognitive-function”; 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.