Two key factors of dementia risk that outweigh all others
Addressing vision loss, treating depression and doing plenty of exercise are all ways of reducing the risk. Now Swiss scientists, who tracked more than 30,000 adults, have revealed a significant link between hearing loss, loneliness and memory decline. Writing in the journal Communications Psychology, scientists at the University of Geneva said: 'Addressing hearing impairment alongside loneliness—even in socially integrated individuals—may be crucial for promoting cognitive health in later life. With increasing longevity, understanding the relationship between hearing impairment and cognitive functioning is of utmost importance for ageing societies.'
In the study, the researchers analysed 33,741 adults aged 50 and over enrolled in the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE). Over a 17 year period they found that older adults who said they felt lonely—even if they were not socially isolated—showed steeper cognitive decline as their hearing deteriorated compared to socially integrated individuals. Participants who were both isolated and lonely consistently performed worse across all cognitive tasks including immediate and delayed recall and verbal fluency. According to the researchers, this could be because memory processes like retrieving information are used more by people who interact with others on a regular basis.
Additionally, researchers found that lonely individuals found hearing loss more distressing than their non-lonely peers, highlighting the psychological burden of the condition which could contribute to memory loss. The researchers concluded that their findings support the theory that both objective and subjective social isolation are relevant to dementia risk. 'Our design uncovered a significant role for loneliness in shaping the extent to which sensory decline is linked to cognition,' the researchers added. However, the researchers acknowledged that causality could not be inferred. They added: 'Our findings indicate that both hearing impairment and psychosocial factors such as loneliness and social isolation may be relevant to cognitive functioning in later life. This underscores the importance of a holistic approach that combines auditory health with psychosocial support to maintain cognitive health in later life.'
In response to studies such as this, experts at Alzheimer's Research UK are now calling on the government to include a hearing check in the NHS Health Check for over-40s. Dr Isolde Radford, from the charity, said: 'We don't yet know if hearing loss directly causes dementia or whether it causes other conditions that, in turn increase our risk. What we do know is that hearing loss, like dementia, isn't an inevitable part of ageing. This simple step could help millions identify hearing loss earlier and take appropriate action, such as wearing hearing aids, that may help reduce their risk of dementia.'
It comes as a landmark study last year also suggested almost half of all Alzheimer's cases could be prevented by tackling 14 lifestyle factors. To reduce dementia risk throughout life, the commission also made 13 recommendations for both people and governments. These include making hearing aids available for all those who need it, reducing harmful noise exposure, and increased detection and treatment access for high cholesterol among the over-40s.
Experts claimed the study, published in medical journal The Lancet, provided more hope than 'ever before' that the memory-robbing disorder that blights the lives of millions can be prevented. Alzheimer's Disease is the most common form of dementia and affects 982,000 people in the UK.
It is thought to be caused by a build-up of amyloid and tau in the brain, which clump together and from plaques and tangles that make it harder for the brain to work properly. Eventually, the brain struggles to cope with this damage and dementia symptoms develop.
Memory problems, thinking and reasoning difficulties and language problems are common early symptoms of the condition, which then worsen over time. Alzheimer's Research UK analysis found 74,261 people died from dementia in 2022 compared with 69,178 a year earlier, making it the country's biggest killer.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
13 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Britain must stop subsidising pensioners to save the NHS
The Government recently produced a paper on the NHS entitled 'Fit for the Future – The 10 Year Health Plan for England'. It included many radical ideas and didn't pull its punches in regard to the need for reform. It said: 'The choice is stark: reform or die'. And, if nothing is done, it said, the NHS could become 'a poor service for poor people'. Despite its radical tone and many good ideas, this report did not go far enough. In particular, it accepted the continuation of the current system of funding whereby just about the whole cost of the Service is borne by the taxpayer. In a report published last week by Policy Exchange entitled 'The NHS – a Suitable Case for Treatment?', I and two co-authors went much further and called for an end to the system of predominantly taxpayer funding which has been the model since the NHS was founded in 1948. In the mid-1950s the government spent about 3pc of its GDP on healthcare. Today the figure is 9pc (excluding the private sector), amounting to almost a fifth of all government spending. If nothing is done, by 2070 we could end up spending more than a fifth of our GDP on the NHS. This is unacceptable. If we allowed this to happen, other sorts of public spending would have to be squeezed and/or taxes would have to be raised to eye-watering levels. This would have a devastating effect on incentives and therefore a materially depressing effect on the economy. The funding system is the first of the NHS's major problems. The second is inadequate quality. Many British people think that the NHS delivers a first-class service. Yet, it is clear that the NHS offers neither the best nor the worst healthcare in the world. Admittedly, at its best, it is superb, but the standard is hit and miss, and at its worst, it is pretty bad. Among a group of countries of comparable economic development (Australia, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Singapore, Switzerland and the US), on both life expectancy and healthy life expectancy the UK comes in second to last. Only the US scores worse. On preventable and treatable mortality, the UK again comes in second to last, ahead of only the US. On the proportion of patients waiting over a year to see a specialist, the UK is the highest in the group. We also perform badly on the ease of securing an appointment with a GP and access to GPs out of hours. What is to be done? Whenever someone criticises the NHS and suggests that we need to move to a different model, a chorus of voices loudly proclaims that we must not become like America. Indeed not. The US health system pulls off a remarkable double whammy. Although some of the best healthcare in the world is to be found in the United States, average health outcomes for the population as a whole are simply dire. Meanwhile, the system is about the most expensive in the world. However bad the NHS may seem, it is infinitely preferable to the American system. Under no circumstances should we consider copying the US. But we don't have to. There are many countries in the world which operate a different system for funding healthcare and enjoy better average health outcomes than the UK. The essence of their approach is to combine charging and co-payments with a system of social insurance. That is to say, compulsory purchasing of medical insurance, covering everyone in the population, with concessionary rates or even full reimbursement available for poor people. The state remains involved as both a partial funder, co-ordinator and regulator of the system. But governments spend much less on healthcare in these countries than we do, and thereby place a much smaller burden on their taxpayers. Countries that run such a system include Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Singapore and Switzerland. The most outstandingly successful of these is Singapore. It spends only about 5pc of its GDP on healthcare and of that, not much more than a half comes from government. Meanwhile, Singapore achieves just about the best health outcomes in our comparator group. Yet Singapore is a very special case, with a particular political and social model. For an example that would serve the UK well, we should probably look closer to home. The obvious place to look is the Netherlands, not least because it underwent a radical reform of its health system in 2006. It delivers high standards of healthcare yet the government spends only 1pc of GDP on health. Some people will argue that we already have a system of insurance to pay for healthcare, namely National Insurance. Despite its name, however, this is not really a system of insurance. It is rather another form of tax. The amount of money the state pays for healthcare is not restricted by the amount of National Insurance contributions coming into the Treasury. Moreover, unlike pensions, where eligibility is connected with National Insurance contributions, a person's ability to access the NHS is not circumscribed by their NI contribution record. Moving from a system of funding through taxation to one based largely on social insurance is going to be a tough ask. It cannot be completed overnight. The place to start a programme to reform the financing of the NHS is with the introduction of a small charge for GP appointments and an end to the automatic entitlement to free prescriptions for pensioners, regardless of their financial circumstances. Doubtless many people will say that these proposals destroy the essence of the NHS as it was established in 1948. But the provision of healthcare in this country cannot be treated as a sort of museum exhibit. We can adhere to the spirit of the NHS in creating a system that delivers excellent healthcare for all within a funding framework that is right for the 21 st century.
The Guardian
13 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Is it true that … cracking your knuckles causes arthritis?
'This is a common question I get asked over the dinner table,' says Kimme Hyrich, a rheumatologist and professor of epidemiology at the University of Manchester. And it's no wonder – as many as 54% of us are habitual knuckle crackers, regularly making those distinctive popping noises as we manipulate the joints. 'The knuckle joint is a very tight space and there's a little bit of fluid in it. When people crack their knuckles, they very temporarily enlarge the space,' says Hyrich. 'The pressure drops and gas that's dissolved in that fluid forms bubbles – and it's the bursting of those bubbles that causes the sound.' The type of arthritis people tend to worry about is osteoarthritis – the most common form. It's a painful condition that causes swelling and stiffness in the joints, and becomes more common as we age. 'We don't fully understand the cause,' Hyrich says, 'but genetics play a large role. Joint trauma is also a risk factor.' It's probably this association with injury that fuels concerns about knuckle-cracking. 'People are likely worried they're damaging the joint,' she says. But is there any actual harm? According to Hyrich, the evidence says no. 'Researchers have looked at people with and without arthritis and asked whether they cracked their knuckles – there's been no difference. Others have compared people who do and don't crack their knuckles using X-rays – again, no difference.' Perhaps the most famous example is a US physician who, in an effort to prove his mother wrong, cracked the knuckles on just one hand every day for over 60 years. When he finally had both hands assessed, there were no signs of arthritis in either. So what kinds of trauma do increase your risk of osteoarthritis? 'Sporting injuries,' Hyrich says, 'such as breaking a bone near your joint, or tearing ligaments.' People who already have another kind of arthritis, such as the autoimmune condition rheumatoid arthritis, are also more prone to osteoarthritis. Her best advice for avoiding it? 'Maintain a healthy lifestyle, stay active, and keep to a healthy weight.'
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Burkitt review – fascinating film intertwines lives of patient and trailblazing surgeon
In Éanna Mac Cana's probing documentary, two lives are entwined with fascinating results. The seeds for the film were first planted when Mac Cana was diagnosed with Burkitt's lymphoma, a rare and aggressive cancer; his diaristic videos capture the loneliness of his treatment, spent within the cold, yellow walls of hospital rooms. Through the lens of his digital camera, he occasionally takes in the distant, blurry sight of tower blocks, or his mother cycling to the clinic. The world outside appears impenetrable; all the while, the film reaches beyond what the eyes can see. Then, turning to the past, Mac Cana juxtaposes his lived experience of illness with the life story of Denis Burkitt, the trailblazing Irish surgeon after whom Mac Cana's condition was named. From archival materials as well as interviews with experts and Burkitt's family, Mac Cana charts the trajectory of the scientist's career in Africa. Cartography is, in fact, central to Burkitt's research into the disease: like his father, a keen amateur ornithologist who documented bird migration, Burkitt traced the geographical distribution of the then-unknown paediatric cancer in the continent. Mac Cana's stylistic choices become another form of mapping, with Burkitt's charts and drawings occasionally laid over the film-maker's own images. The effect resembles a visual tree branch, one that connects the past and the present, the scientific and the personal. Burkitt's colossal archive of photographs makes for another link, even if the scientist's colonial gaze gets not much more than a mention. Still, this is far from a work of hagiography: by highlighting some of the more melancholic chapters of Burkitt's private life, Mac Cana lends a human element to the legacy of a pioneer. Burkitt is on True Story from 25 July.
