1887
Volume 2015, Issue 2
  • ISSN: 0253-8253
  • E-ISSN: 2227-0426

Abstract

Research on the attitudes of Saudi adults towards consanguinity is scarce. The study aimed to explore the attitudes towards consanguinity and its associations with socio-demographic characteristics in a sample of Saudi adults. A cross-sectional study was conducted using a self-administered questionnaire. A total of 386 outpatient waiting-area attendees at King Abdul-Aziz Medical City-Riyadh were included. Participants were asked about their socio-demographic characteristics, attitude towards consanguinity and the reasons behind this. The positive attitude towards consanguinity among the study respondents was 48.1% with 95% confidence interval (42.91–53.33%). Social and traditional culture (59.9%) were found to be the predominant reasons for favoring consanguinity in Saudi Arabia. Evidence against a positive attitude towards consanguinity was noted in respondents who received medical information about consanguinity versus those who had not received medical information (42.3% vs. 57%, p-value = 0.008). According to the multivariate logistic model, the odds of a positive attitude towards consanguinity were 2 times higher for males (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 2.2; 95% CI: 1.147, 4.290) and 4.1 times higher in respondents in consanguineous marriages (aOR: 4.1; 95% CI: 2.350, 7.156). The odds of a positive attitude towards consanguinity were 50% less in respondents who received health information on consanguinity compared to those who had not received health information about consanguinity (aOR: 0.50; 95% CI: 0.253, 0.863). One in every two Saudi adults favors consanguinity however, Saudi men and women differ in their attitudes towards consanguinity. Receiving health information on consanguinity was associated with a negative attitude towards this practice.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5339/qmj.2015.12
2015-12-31
2019-11-12
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/qmj/2015/2/qmj.2015.12.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.5339/qmj.2015.12&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Joseph N, Pavan KK, Ganapathi K, Apoorva P, Sharma P, Jhamb JA. Health awareness and consequences of consanguineous marriages: A community-based study. J Prim Care Community Health. 2015; 6:2:121127.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Warsy AS, Al-Jaser MH, Albdass A, Al-Daihan S, Alanazi M. Is consanguinity prevalence decreasing in Saudis?: A study in two generations. Afr Health Sci. 2014; 14:2:314321.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Ottenheimer M. Forbidden relatives: The American myth of cousin marriage. University of Illinois Press: Chicago, Illinois. 1996.
  4. Bittles AH. A community genetics perspective on consanguineous marriage. Community Genet. 2008; 11::324330.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bener A, Alali KA. Consanguineous marriage in a newly developed country: The Qatari population. J Biosoc Sci. 2006; 38::239246.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Al-Awadi SA, Moussa MA, Naguib KK, Farag TI, Teebi AS, El-Khalifa M. Consanguinity among the Kuwaiti population. Clin Genet. 1985; 27::483486.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Al-Gazali LI, Bener A, Abdulrazzaq YM, Micallef R, Al-Khayat AI, Gaber T. Consanguineous marriages in the United Arab Emirates. J Biosoc Sci. 1997; 29::491497.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. El-Mouzan MI, Al-Salloum AA, Al-Herbish AS, Qurachi MM, Al-Omar AA. Regional variations in the prevalence of consanguinity in Saudi Arabia. Saudi Med J. 2007; 28:12:18811884.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Hussain R. Community perceptions of reasons for preference for consanguineous marriages in Pakistan. J Biosoc Sci. 1999; 31:4:449461.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Al Husain M, Al Bunyan M. Consanguineous marriages in a Saudi population and the effect of inbreeding on prenatal and postnatal mortality. Ann Trop Paediatr. 1997; 17::155160.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Al-Abdulkareem AA, Ballal SG. Consanguineous marriage in an urban area of Saudi Arabia: Rates and adverse health effects on the offspring. J Community Health. 1998; 23::7583.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. El Mouzan MI, Al Salloum AA, Al Herbish AS, Qurachi MM, Al Omar AA. Consanguinity and major genetic disorders in Saudi children: A community-based cross-sectional study. Ann Saudi Med. 2008; 28:3:169173.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Hamamy H, Antonarakis SE, Cavalli-Sforza LL, Temtamy S, Romeo G, Kate LP, Bennett RL, Shaw A, Megarbane A, van Duijn C, Bathija H, Fokstuen S, Engel E, Zlotogora J, Dermitzakis E, Bottani A, Dahoun S, Morris MA, Arsenault S, Aglan MS, Ajaz M, Alkalamchi A, Alnaqeb D, Alwasiyah MK, Anwer N, Awwad R, Bonnefin M, Corry P, Gwanmesia L, Karbani GA, Mostafavi M, Pippucci T, Ranza-Boscardin E, Reversade B, Sharif SM, Teeuw ME, Bittles AH. Consanguineous marriages, pearls and perils: Geneva International Consanguinity Workshop Report. Genet Med. 2011; 13::841847.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Sandridge AL, Takeddin J, Al-Kaabi E, Frances Y. Consanguinity in Qatar: Knowledge, attitude and practice in a population born between 1946 and 1991. J Biosoc Sci. 2010; 42::5982.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Jaber L, Romano O, Halpern GJ, Livne I, Green M, Shohat T. Awareness about problems associated with consanguineous marriages: Survey among Israeli Arab adolescents. J Adolesc Health. 2005; 36::530.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Sedehi M, Keshtkar AA, Golalipour MJ. The knowledge and the attitude of youth couples on/towards consanguineous marriages in the North of Iran. JCDR. 2012; 6::12331236.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Hosseini H, Erfani A. Ethnic differences in the attitudes and practice of consanguineous marriage among Kurds and Turks in Uromiyeh District, Iran. Journal of Comparative Family Studies. 2014; 45:3:389403.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Teeuw ME, Loukili G, Bartels EA, ten Kate L, Cornel MC, Henneman L. Consanguineous marriage and reproductive risk: Attitudes and understanding of ethnic groups practising consanguinity in Western society. Eur J Hum Genet. 2014; 22:4:452457.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Kisioglu AN, Ormeci AR, Uskun E, Ozturk M, Ongel K. Effects of a formal training programme on consanguineous marriages on high school students' knowledge and attitudes: An interventional study from Turkey. J Biosoc Sci. 2010; 42::161176.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. D'Alessandro AM, Peltier JW, Dahl AJ. A large-scale qualitative study of the potential use of social media by university students to increase awareness and support for organ donation. Prog Transplant. 2012; 22:2:183191.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Happer C, Philo G. The role of the media in the construction of public belief and social change. Journal of Social and Political Psychology. 2013; 1:1:321336.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Petrella R, Speechley M, Kleinstiver PW, Ruddy T. Impact of a social marketing media campaign on public awareness of hypertension. Am J Hypertens. 2005; 18:2:270275.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Hasanzadeh-Nazarabadi M, Rezaeetalab G, Dastfan F. Study of youths' knowledge, behavior, and attitude towards consanguineous marriages. Iranian J Public Health. 2006; 35:3:4753.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Khlat M. Consanguineous marriages in Beirut: Time trends, spatial distribution. Soc Biol. 1988; 35:3–4:324330.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Shelkamy F, Alaael-din SM, Kotb S, Sharkawy SA. Knowledge and attitude of students living in Assiut University dorms about consanguinity. The Medical Journal of Cairo University. 2013; 81:2.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.5339/qmj.2015.12
Loading
/content/journals/10.5339/qmj.2015.12
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): attitude , consanguineous marriage , consanguinity , gender and Saudi Arabia
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error