A hypothetical intervention on the use of hearing aids for the risk of dementia in people with hearing loss in UK Biobank.

IF 5 2区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH American journal of epidemiology Pub Date : 2024-12-16 DOI:10.1093/aje/kwae452
J Mur, M Klee, H R Wright, A Solomon, C Johnson, T J Littlejohns, G Muniz-Terrera, A K Leist
{"title":"A hypothetical intervention on the use of hearing aids for the risk of dementia in people with hearing loss in UK Biobank.","authors":"J Mur, M Klee, H R Wright, A Solomon, C Johnson, T J Littlejohns, G Muniz-Terrera, A K Leist","doi":"10.1093/aje/kwae452","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Observational studies have reported that hearing aid (HA) use is associated with a reduced risk of dementia diagnosis, suggesting a possible protective effect. However, extant observational studies do not explicitly model causal effects, while randomised controlled trials on the effect of HA on dementia exhibit short follow-up. Here we used self-report, hearing tests, and healthcare records in UK Biobank to design a hypothetical intervention for the effect of HA use on the risk of dementia diagnosis in people with incident hearing loss (HL). HA users exhibited a higher risk of dementia diagnosis than non-users (RR=1.43, 95%CI=1.08-1.88). Associations between HA use and dementia diagnosis were robust across sensitivity analyses (RRs: 1.34-1.59) but adjustment for primary healthcare utilisation (0.77, 0.44-1.33) or primary and secondary care utilisation (0.68, 0.39-1.18) substantially decreased the observed effect. The decrease in effect estimates upon adjustment for primary (1.30, 0.95-1.78) and primary and secondary healthcare utilisation (1.30, 0.94-1.78) was smaller when participants with relatively early diagnoses of HL were included in the sample compared to when they were not. While the findings are not conclusive, they suggest residual confounding by healthcare utilisation and dating of HL diagnosis in participants without primary care data in UK Biobank.</p>","PeriodicalId":7472,"journal":{"name":"American journal of epidemiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American journal of epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwae452","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Observational studies have reported that hearing aid (HA) use is associated with a reduced risk of dementia diagnosis, suggesting a possible protective effect. However, extant observational studies do not explicitly model causal effects, while randomised controlled trials on the effect of HA on dementia exhibit short follow-up. Here we used self-report, hearing tests, and healthcare records in UK Biobank to design a hypothetical intervention for the effect of HA use on the risk of dementia diagnosis in people with incident hearing loss (HL). HA users exhibited a higher risk of dementia diagnosis than non-users (RR=1.43, 95%CI=1.08-1.88). Associations between HA use and dementia diagnosis were robust across sensitivity analyses (RRs: 1.34-1.59) but adjustment for primary healthcare utilisation (0.77, 0.44-1.33) or primary and secondary care utilisation (0.68, 0.39-1.18) substantially decreased the observed effect. The decrease in effect estimates upon adjustment for primary (1.30, 0.95-1.78) and primary and secondary healthcare utilisation (1.30, 0.94-1.78) was smaller when participants with relatively early diagnoses of HL were included in the sample compared to when they were not. While the findings are not conclusive, they suggest residual confounding by healthcare utilisation and dating of HL diagnosis in participants without primary care data in UK Biobank.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
观察性研究报告称,使用助听器(HA)与痴呆症诊断风险的降低有关,这表明助听器可能具有保护作用。然而,现有的观察性研究并未明确建立因果效应模型,而有关助听器对痴呆症影响的随机对照试验的随访时间较短。在此,我们利用英国生物库中的自我报告、听力测试和医疗记录,设计了一种假设性干预措施,以研究使用听力损失辅助设备对痴呆症诊断风险的影响。听力损失患者被诊断为痴呆症的风险高于非听力损失患者(RR=1.43,95%CI=1.08-1.88)。在敏感性分析中,使用医管局与痴呆症诊断之间的关系是稳健的(RRs:1.34-1.59),但对初级医疗保健利用率(0.77,0.44-1.33)或初级和二级医疗保健利用率(0.68,0.39-1.18)的调整大大降低了观察到的效应。当样本中包括较早诊断出 HL 的参与者时,与不包括这些参与者时相比,对初级医疗利用率(1.30,0.95-1.78)和初级及中级医疗利用率(1.30,0.94-1.78)进行调整后,效果估计值的下降幅度较小。虽然这些研究结果并不具有决定性,但它们表明,在英国生物库中没有初级保健数据的参与者中,医疗保健利用率和HL诊断日期可能会造成混淆。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
American journal of epidemiology
American journal of epidemiology 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
7.40
自引率
4.00%
发文量
221
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: The American Journal of Epidemiology is the oldest and one of the premier epidemiologic journals devoted to the publication of empirical research findings, opinion pieces, and methodological developments in the field of epidemiologic research. It is a peer-reviewed journal aimed at both fellow epidemiologists and those who use epidemiologic data, including public health workers and clinicians.
期刊最新文献
Correction to: Comparison of caffeine consumption behavior with plasma caffeine levels as exposure measures in drug-target mendelian randomization. Multimorbidity patterns, sociodemographic characteristics, and mortality: Data science insights from low-resource settings. Non-Fatal Suicidal Self-Directed Violence among U.S. Veterans (2022): The Assessing Social and Community Environments with National Data (ASCEND) for Veteran Suicide Prevention Study. A hypothetical intervention on the use of hearing aids for the risk of dementia in people with hearing loss in UK Biobank. Labor and delivery unit practices and racial and ethnic disparities in severe maternal and neonatal morbidity among nulliparous individuals with low-risk pregnancies.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1