Family Accommodation in Children and Adolescents With Misophonia.

Family accommodation (e.g., reassurance, modifying routines, assisting avoidance) has not been explored among youth with misophonia but may have important clinical and intervention implications. We examined family accommodation in 102 children and adolescents with interview-confirmed misophonia and compared its frequency and content to family accommodation in 95 children and adolescents with anxiety disorders. Findings showed that family accommodation was ubiquitous in pediatric misophonia and may be even more frequent than in youth with anxiety disorders. Assisting the child, participating in misophonia-related behaviors, and modifying family routines were endorsed by more than 70% of parents of children with misophonia. Further, compared to parents of children with anxiety disorders, parents of children with misophonia more frequently reported child distress and anger when they did not accommodate. Family accommodation was moderately to strongly associated with misophonia severity even when accounting for co-occurring internalizing and externalizing symptoms and sociodemographic factors. This first study of family accommodation in pediatric misophonia suggests accommodation may be an important clinical feature. A notable study limitation is that the measure of misophonia did not delineate between adaptive versus maladaptive accommodations. Excessive and maladaptive accommodation may be one potential candidate to target in interventions when considered within a broader treatment plan. Importantly, adaptive accommodations should also be considered in day-to-day management if they improve functioning and quality of life.

Measuring misophonia in youth: A psychometric evaluation of child and parent measures.

BACKGROUND: Misophonia is characterized by intense emotional reactions to specific sounds or visual stimuli and typically onsets during childhood. An obstacle for research and clinical practice is that no comprehensively evaluated measures for pediatric misophonia exist. METHODS: In a sample of 102 youth meeting the proposed diagnostic criteria of misophonia, we evaluated the child and parent-proxy versions of the self-reported Misophonia Assessment Questionnaire (MAQ; assessing broad aspects of misophonia) and the child version of the Amsterdam Misophonia Scale (A-MISO-S; assessing misophonia severity). Confirmatory and exploratory factor analysis were used to examine factor structures of the measures. Further, child-parent agreement on the MAQ and associations between both measures and misophonia-related impairment, quality of life, and misophonia-related school interference were examined to evaluate aspects of convergent validity. RESULTS: For both youth- and parent-ratings, four MAQ factors emerged: pessimism, distress, interference, and non-recognition. A-MISO-S showed a unidimensional structure, but the item 'effort to resist' did not load significantly onto the unidimensional factor. Good child-parent agreement on the MAQ scales were found and both MAQ and A-MISO-S were moderately to strongly associated with misophonia-related impairment, quality of life (inverse association), and misophonia-related school interference. LIMITATIONS: MAQ and A-MISO-S assess sensitivity to auditory but not visual stimuli, the sample size was modest, and repeated assessments were not conducted. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of MAQ and A-MISO-S shows promise as a multidimensional assessment approach for pediatric misophonia. Future evaluations should include known-groups validity, screening performance, and sensitivity to change in symptom severity.

Perceptions of various treatment approaches for adults and children with misophonia.

OBJECTIVE: Misophonia is a complex disorder characterized by a heightened reaction to certain sounds and associated stimuli. While there is no uniformly accepted treatment to date, different intervention approaches are being investigated. Individual's perceptions of different misophonia treatment methods may affect compliance and satisfaction with treatment options. We sought to gather data on patient perceptions of currently available misophonia treatments. METHODS: Using an online survey, we collected data about treatment preferences, treatment usage, and diagnosis history from parents of children with misophonia (N = 141) and adults with misophonia (N = 252). RESULTS: Most respondents were not satisfied with misophonia treatments that they or their children had previously received. Audiologic interventions including active and passive noise cancelling and lifestyle modifications were rated as most appropriate for treatment of misophonia by both parent and adult respondents. LIMITATIONS: Because of the descriptive nature of this study, we chose to use a completer-only approach to ensure the data reflect the true responses of participants, though this did result in a meaningful proportion of missing data. Participants were selected through convenience sampling and responses were self-reported. Individuals with more severe misophonia symptoms may be more likely to participate and complete a research survey. CONCLUSIONS: Most interventions are considered inappropriate by parents of youth with misophonia and by adults with misophonia. This should be interpreted in the light of a general lack of misophonia-specific interventions. Findings suggest dissatisfaction with currently available treatments and an opportunity for development of effective treatment strategies corresponding to participants' preferences. Deeper understanding of treatment preferences has the potential to guide future treatment development.