Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T17:36:14.707Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

ASSESSMENT OF KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDE AND PRACTICE TOWARDS CONSANGUINEOUS MARRIAGES AMONG A COHORT OF MULTIETHNIC HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS IN SAUDI ARABIA

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 December 2016

Dhekra Alnaqeb ,
Hanan Hamamy ,
Amira M. Youssef  and
Khalid Al-Rubeaan
Dhekra Alnaqeb*
Affiliation:
Research Department, University Diabetes Center, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
Hanan Hamamy
Affiliation:
Department of Genetic Medicine and Development, Geneva University, Switzerland
Amira M. Youssef
Affiliation:
Registry Department, University Diabetes Center, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
Khalid Al-Rubeaan
Affiliation:
University Diabetes Center, College of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
*
1 Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

This study aimed to assess knowledge, attitude and practice related to consanguinity among multiethnic health care providers in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Using a cross-sectional study design, a validated, self-administered close-ended questionnaire was randomly distributed to health care providers in different health institutions in the country between 1st August 2012 and 31st July 2013. A total of 1235 health care providers completed the study questionnaire. Of the 892 married participants (72.23% of total), 11.43% were married to a first cousin, and were predominantly Arabs, younger than 40 years and male. Only 17.80% of the patients seen by the health care providers requested consanguinity related counselling. A knowledge barrier was expressed by 27.49% of the participants, and 85.67% indicated their willingness to have more training in basic genetic counselling. A language barrier was expressed as a limiting factor to counselling for consanguinity among non-Arabs. The health care providers had a major dearth of knowledge that was reflected in their attitude and practice towards consanguinity counselling. This finding indicates the need for more undergraduate and postgraduate medical and nursing education and training in the counselling of consanguineous couples. It is recommended that consanguinity counselling is included in the current premarital screening and counselling programmes in the Kingdom.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Biosocial Science , Volume 50 , Issue 1 , January 2018 , pp. 1 - 18
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press, 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abbasi-Shavazi, M. J., McDonald, P. & Hosseini-Chavoshi, M. (2008) Modernization or cultural maintenance: the practice of consanguineous marriage in Iran. Journal of Biosocial Science 40(6), 911–933.Google Scholar
Abdulrazzaq, Y. M., Bener, A., Al-Gazali, L. I., Al-Khayat, A. I., Micallef, R. & Gaber, T. (1997) A study of possible deleterious effects of consanguinity. Clinical Genetics 51, 167–173.Google Scholar
Alharbi, O. A., Al-Shaia, W. A., Al-Hamam, A. A., Al-Marzoug, H. M., Ahmed, A. E. & Bagha, M. (2015) Attitude of Saudi Arabian adults towards consanguineous marriage. Qatar Medical Journal 2015(2), 12.Google Scholar
Bittles, A. (2001) Consanguinity and its relevance to clinical genetics. Clinical Genetics 60(2), 89–98.Google Scholar
Blair, I. V., Steiner, J. F. & Havranek, E. P. (2011) Unconscious (implicit) bias and health disparities: where do we go from here? Permanente Journal 15(2), 71–78.Google Scholar
El-Hazmi, M. A., Al-Swailem, A. R., Warsy, A. S., Al-Swailem, A. M., Sulaimani, R. & Al-Meshari, A. A. (1995) Consanguinity among the Saudi Arabian population. Journal of Medical Genetics 32, 623–626.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
El-Mouzan, M. I., Al-Salloum, A. A., Al-Herbish, A. S., Qurachi, M. M. & Al-Omar, A. A. (2007) Regional variations in the prevalence of consanguinity in Saudi Arabia. Saudi Medical Journal 28(12), 1881–1884.Google Scholar
El Mouzan, M. I., Al Salloum, A. A., Al Herbish, A. S., Qurachi, M. M. & Al Omar, A. A. (2008) Consanguinity and major genetic disorders in Saudi children: a community-based cross-sectional study. Annals of Saudi Medicine 28, 169–173.Google Scholar
Guttmacher, A. E., Porteous, M. E. & McInerney, J. D. (2007) Educating health-care professionals about genetics and genomics. Nature Reviews Genetics 8(2), 151–157.Google Scholar
Halpern, G. J. & Jaber, L. (2014) Awareness and knowledge about consanguinity-related problems among members of communities where the custom is prevalent. In Jaber, L. & Halpern, G. J. (eds) Consanguinity – Its Impact, Consequences and Management. Bentham Science 19, pp. 117–135. URL: http://www.eurekaselect.com/122365/chapter/awareness-and-knowledge-about-consanguinity-related-problems-among-members-of-communities-where-the-custom-is-pre#sthash.BJQzZtN0.dpuf.Google Scholar
Hamamy, H. A. & Al-Hakkak, Z. S. (1989) Consanguinity and reproductive health in Iraq. Human Heredity 39, 271–275.Google Scholar
Hamamy, H. & Alwan, S. (2016) The sociodemographic and economic correlates of consanguineous marriages in highly consanguineous populations. In Kumar, D. & Chadwick, R. (eds) Genomics and Society: Ethical, Legal, Cultural and Socioeconomic Implications. Elsevier Academic Press, USA, pp. 335–361.Google Scholar
Hamamy, H., Antonarakis, S. E., Cavalli-Sforza, L. L. et al. (2011) Consanguineous marriages, pearls and perils: Geneva International Consanguinity Workshop Report. Genetics in Medicine 13(9), 841–847.Google Scholar
Hamamy, H. & Bittles, A. H. (2009) Genetics clinics in Arab communities: meeting individual, family and community needs. Public Health Genomics 12(1), 30–40.Google Scholar
Hussain, R. (1999) Community perceptions of reasons for preference for consanguineous marriages in Pakistan. Journal of Biosocial Science 31, 449–461.Google Scholar
Julian-Reynier, C., Nippert, I., Calefato, J. M. et al. (2008) Genetics in clinical practice: general practitioners’ educational priorities in European countries. Genetics in Medicine 10(2), 107–113.Google Scholar
Khoury, S. A. & Massad, D. F. (2000) Consanguinity, fertility, reproductive wastage, infant mortality and congenital malformations in Jordan. Saudi Medical Journal 21, 150–154.Google Scholar
Modell, B. & Darr, A. (2002) Science and society: genetic counselling and customary consanguineous marriage. Nature Reviews Genetics 3(3), 225–229.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Poppelaars, F. A., Cornel, M. C. & Ten Kate, L. P. (2004) Current practice and future interest of GPs and prospective parents in pre-conception care in The Netherlands. Family Practice 21(3), 307–309.Google Scholar
Saadat, M. (2015) Association between consanguinity and survival of marriages. Egyptian Journal of Medical Human Genetics 16, 67–70.Google Scholar
Sandridge, A. L., Takeddin, J., Al-Kaabi, E. & Frances, Y. (2010) Consanguinity in Qatar: knowledge, attitude and practice in a population born between 1946 and 1991. Journal of Biosocial Science 42(1), 59–82.Google Scholar
Sheridan, E., Wright, J. & Small, N. et al. (2013) Risk factors for congenital anomaly in a multiethnic birth cohort: an analysis of the Born in Bradford study. Lancet 382(9901), 1350–1359.Google Scholar
Tadmouri, G. O., Nair, P., Obeid, T., Al Ali, M. T., Al Khaja, N. & Hamamy, H. A. (2009) Consanguinity and reproductive health among Arabs. Reproductive Health 6, 17.Google Scholar
Teeuw, M. E., Hagelaar, A., Ten Kate, L. P., Cornel, M. C. & Henneman, L. (2012) Challenges in the care for consanguineous couples: an exploratory interview study among general practitioners and midwives. BMC Family Practice 13, 105.Google Scholar