Ethical approval was obtained from the University of Nottingham Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences Ethical Review Board.
Design
A cross-sectional study was used to examine the prevalence of misophonia. An optional, anonymous, closed online questionnaire was used to assess misophonia prevalence and severity.
Participants
Participants were recruited from the School of Medicine at the University of Nottingham. The study was advertised in person (at lectures), by poster advertisement, and on social media sites. Advertisements provided participants with a link for anonymous participation in the online questionnaire where they were screened to ensure they met the inclusion criteria for the study. Criteria for inclusion were that participants spoke English, were aged over 18 years and were University of Nottingham medical students. Participants were advised not to take part in the study if they thought there was a possibility of experiencing a severe negative emotional response to the content of the questionnaire. The demographic characteristics of the University of Nottingham medical student population were that they were young (97% aged 18–24 years), Caucasian (66%), Asian (18%) or black (8%), and the majority were female (73%). There were no incentives for participants.
Materials
The Amsterdam Misophonia Scale (A-miso-S) is a 7-item subjective, self-report measure which uses a 5-point Likert scale for participants to rate their response to each item [15]. The final item of the questionnaire requires a free text response from the respondent. The A-Miso-S is an adapted version of the Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale (YBOCS) [15, 26]. Scores are categorised into ranges of sub-clinical (0–4), mild [5,6,7,8,9], moderate [10,11,12,13,14], severe [15,16,17,18,19] and extreme [20,21,22,23,24]. Total scores of 4 or less are considered subclinical, whereas scores of 5 or more are considered clinically significant. The scale assesses how much time people are preoccupied with the sounds, how much interference they have in daily activities, how much distress is associated with the trigger sound, how much effort a sufferer makes to resist thinking of the sounds, how much control sufferers have over their thoughts, and their avoidance of the stimuli.
A calculated necessary sample size of 58 was found to be required for sufficient statistical power in the study using a cross-sectional study sample size formula and values of 95% confidence, 20% estimated prevalence (based on previous studies [6, 7]) and 5% precision [27]. The functionality of the survey tool as tested by the principal investigator prior to its release to participants.
Procedure
Participants were provided with a participation information sheet with relevant details. They then proceeded to the questionnaire and consented to participate. Participants then completed each item and submitted the questionnaire. The collective results were exported to Excel for analysis. Data collection was done between the 22nd of October 2019 and the 4th of November 2019.
Analytical Strategy
Statistical analyses were carried out using IBM SPSS Statistics 26 (Routeledge, Armonk NY).
Statistical significance was set at 5% for all statistical testing.
Prevalence of clinically significant misophonia was presented as a proportion with 95% confidence interval and was compared to a similar study (REF) using the z-test. For each question of the A-Miso-S, scores were summarised using the mean, SD, median, mode and frequencies of endorsement for each option. A-Miso-S scores in responders to the free text question were compared to score of non-responders using a Mann-Whitney-U test.
A thematic analysis guided by Braun and Clarke [28] was undertaken to analyse the final item of the survey which was an open-ended text-based response in order to deduce key themes that people with and without the condition experience to provide the study with a qualitative element.
A-Miso-S questionnaire data were subjected to a factor analysis which involved calculation of KMO values to determine if a factor Analysis was worthwhile, Chronbach’s alpha to measure agreement of questions and an initial exploratory factor analysis to produce a scree plot. Correlation matrices were produced by conducting a more detailed factor analysis with the data from the exploratory testing. Kendal’s Tau was conducted to assess the significance of correlations. Residual correlation testing was also conducted. There was no missing data to account for.