alzhub.org
Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

Home › Research › Risk factors

The effects of improving hearing in dementia

Allen NH, Burns A, Newton V, Hickson F, Ramsden R, Rogers J, Butler S, Thistlewaite G et al.. Age and ageing, 2003-03-01

This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. Risk factors

Topic: Health services, long-term care and technology

Background audiological function is impaired in people with dementia and poor hearing is known to exaggerate the effects of cognitive deficits. Objective the objective of this study was to assess the effects of increasing auditory acuity by providing hearing aids to subjects with dementia who have mild hearing loss. Method subjects were screened for hearing impairment and fitted with a hearing aid according to standard clinical practice. Measures of cognition and psychiatric symptoms, activities of daily living, and burden on carers were made over 6 months. Hearing aid diaries were kept to record the acceptability of the hearing aids to the subjects. Results more than 10% of eligible subjects were excluded as removal of wax restored hearing. Subjects showed a decline in cognitive function, no change in behavioural or psychiatric symptoms over the study period. Forty-two percent of subjects showed an improvement on an independently rated measure of change. The hearing aids were well accepted. Both carers and subjects reported overall reduction in disability from hearing impairment. Conclusions all patients with hearing impairment require thorough examination. The presence of dementia should not preclude assessment for a hearing aid as they are well tolerated and reduce disability caused by hearing impairment. Hearing aids do not improve cognitive function or reduce behavioural or psychiatric symptoms. There is evidence that patients improved on global measures of change.

Key findings

New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Risk factors, ranked →

Study details

How this study scored 36/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 0 of 12; Strength of evidence 1 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 1 of 5; Sample size 0 of 4; Effect reported 0 of 3; Studied in people 0 of 3; Randomised / blinded 0 of 2; Times cited left out, no data; Citations per year left out, no data; Impact for its field and year left out, no data; Cited by studies here left out, no data; Still being cited left out, no data; Senior author's track record left out, no data; Institution's track record left out, no data; Multi-centre collaboration left out, no data; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read 0 of 2. 21 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 36 of 100. Total 36 of 100.21 of the 58 points we could judge = 36 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded 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, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 21 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 36 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Age and ageing)
Journal's citation record — / 4 No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design 0 / 12 No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Strength of evidence 1 / 5 Rated “low” in our summary
Peer-review validation 10 / 10 Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent 1 / 5 2003 — older than 20 years, still counted
Sample size 0 / 4 Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Effect reported 0 / 3 No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Studied in people 0 / 3 Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Randomised / blinded 0 / 2 No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
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 — / 6 Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score
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 2 / 2 Indexed in PubMed (PMID 12615563)
Free to read 0 / 2 Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points 21 / 58 Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 21 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 36 out of 100.
Total 36 / 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. 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

Allen, N. H., Burns, A., Newton, V., Hickson, F., Ramsden, R., Rogers, J., et al. (2003). The effects of improving hearing in dementia. Age and ageing. https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/32.2.189

Vancouver

Allen NH, Burns A, Newton V, Hickson F, Ramsden R, Rogers J, et al. The effects of improving hearing in dementia. Age and ageing. 2003. doi:10.1093/ageing/32.2.189. PMID: 12615563.

BibTeX

@article{allen2003-12615563,
  author  = {Allen, N. H. and Burns, A. and Newton, V. and Hickson, F. and Ramsden, R. and Rogers, J. and Butler, S. and Thistlewaite, G. and others},
  title   = {{The effects of improving hearing in dementia}},
  journal = {Age and ageing},
  year    = {2003},
  doi     = {10.1093/ageing/32.2.189},
  pmid    = {12615563},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/32.2.189}
}

Related studies in Risk factors

Also tagged “hearing”

118 studies in the library carry the topic tag “hearing”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 118 tagged studies.

Similar studies

More on Risk factors

See all studies in Risk factors →