Assessing Students’ Knowledge and Attitudes Regarding the Risks and Prevention of Consanguineous Marriage: A Cross-Sectional Online Survey

References

• Gyekye K. Tradition and Modernity: Philosophical Reflections on the African Experience. Oxford University Press; 1997.
   Google Scholar
• Sharma A. A Hindu Perspective on the Ethics of Marriage. In: McCarthy DM, Bongiovanni AE, editors. Marriage and the Family: Philosophical Perspectives. Rowman & Littlefield; 1998:183–194.
   Google Scholar
• Bittles AH, Black ML. Consanguinity, human evolution, and complex diseases. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2010;107(Suppl 1):1779–1786. doi:10.1073/pnas.0906079106
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hamamy H. Consanguineous marriages: preconception consultation in primary health care settings. J Commun Gene. 2012;3(3):185–192. doi:10.1007/s12687-011-0072-y
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Tadmouri GO, Nair P, Obeid T, Al Ali MT, Al Khaja N, Hamamy HA. Consanguinity and reproductive health among Arabs. Reproductive Health. 2009;6(1):17. doi:10.1186/1742-4755-6-17
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bittles AH Consanguinity in Context. Cambridge Studies in Biological and Evolutionary Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2012. Available from: https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/consanguinity-in-context/EF569931B5FE4C33D2ADBB9FA164891D. Accessed March 1, 2024.
   Google Scholar
• Sharma G. Pros and cons of different sampling techniques. Int J Appl Res. 2017;3(7):749.
   Google Scholar
• Islam MM. The changing pattern and determinants of declining consanguinity in Jordan during 1990–2012. Ann Hum Biol. 2018;45(2):140–147. doi:10.1080/03014460.2018.1429655
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaplan S, Pinar G, Kaplan B, et al. The prevalence of consanguineous marriages and affecting factors in Turkey: a national survey. J Biosoc Sci. 2016;48(5):616–630. doi:10.1017/S0021932016000055
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Islam MM. The practice of consanguineous marriage in Oman: prevalence, trends and determinants. J Biosoc Sci. 2012;44(5):571–594. doi:10.1017/S0021932012000016
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• El Goundali K, Chebabe M, Zahra Laamiri F, Hilali A. The determinants of consanguineous marriages among the Arab population: a systematic review. Iran J Public Health. 2022;51(2):253–265. doi:10.18502/ijph.v51i2.8679
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hussain R. Community perceptions of reasons for preference for consanguineous marriages in Pakistan. J Biosoc Sci. 1999;31(4):449–461. doi:10.1017/S0021932099004496
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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(1):59–82. doi:10.1017/S002193200999023X
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alnaqeb D, Hamamy H, Youssef AM, Al-Rubeaan K. Assessment of knowledge, attitude and practice towards consanguineous marriages among a cohort of multiethnic health care providers in Saudi Arabia. J Biosoc Sci. 2018;50(1):1–18. doi:10.1017/S0021932016000675
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sultana M, Perveen K, Afzal M, Gillani SA, Naseer A. Knowledge attitude and practice of rural community residents towards consanguineous marriages. IJARBSS. 2018;8(6):155–167. doi:10.6007/IJARBSS/v8-i6/4194
   Google Scholar
• Zaini RG. Sickle-cell anemia and consanguinity among the Saudi Arabian Population. Arch Med. 20162:2.
   Google Scholar
• Anwar S, Mourosi JT, Arafat Y, Hosen MJ, Cubellis MV. Genetic and reproductive consequences of consanguineous marriage in Bangladesh. PLoS One. 2020;15(11):e0241610. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0241610
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lawshe C. A quantitative approach to content validity 1. Pers Psychol. 1975;28(4):563–575. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1975.tb01393.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Polit DF, Beck CT, Owen SV. Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal and recommendations. Res Nurs Health. 2007;30(4):459–467. doi:10.1002/nur.20199
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hamamy H, Antonarakis SE, Cavalli-Sforza LL, et al. Consanguineous marriages, pearls and perils: Geneva international consanguinity workshop report. Genet Med. 2011;13(9):841–847. doi:10.1097/GIM.0b013e318217477f
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wahidiyat PA, Yo EC, Wildani MM, Triatmono VR, Yosia M. Cross-sectional study on knowledge, attitude and practice towards thalassaemia among Indonesian youth. BMJ Open. 2021;11(12):e054736. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2021-054736
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kanaan ZM, Mahfouz R, Tamim H. The prevalence of consanguineous marriages in an underserved area in Lebanon and its association with congenital anomalies. Genet Test. 2008;12(3):367–372. doi:10.1089/gte.2007.0093
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Al-Qattan HM, Amlih DF, Sirajuddin FS, et al. Quantifying the levels of knowledge, attitude, and practice associated with sickle cell disease and pre-marital genetic counseling in 350 Saudi Adults. Adv Hematol. 2019;2019:e3961201. doi:10.1155/2019/3961201
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ojha JK, Tutor M, Anusandhan O, Patra S. A study to assess the knowledge and attitude regarding health consequences of consanguineous marriage among students of a selected college of berhampur, Odisha to develop an information guide sheet on consanguineous marriage. Clin Med. 2020;7:11.
   Google Scholar
• Mahboub SM, Alsaqabi AA, Allwimi NA, Aleissa DN, Al-Mubarak BA. Knowledge and attitude towards consanguineous marriage among educated adults in Riyadh. Int J Community Med Public Health. 2018;6(1):30. doi:10.18203/2394-6040.ijcmph20185223
   Google Scholar
• Almoliky M, Abdulrhman H, Safe SH, et al. Knowledge and attitude of engaged and recently married couples toward pre-marital screening: a cross-sectional study. Inquiry. 2022;59:00469580221097424. doi:10.1177/00469580221097424
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Al-Shafai M, Al-Romaihi A, Al-Hajri N, Islam N, Adawi K. Knowledge and perception of and attitude toward a pre-marital screening program in Qatar: a cross-sectional study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(7):4418. doi:10.3390/ijerph19074418
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Memish ZA, Saeedi MY. Six-year outcome of the national pre-marital screening and genetic counseling program for sickle cell disease and β-thalassemia in Saudi Arabia. Ann Saudi Med. 2011;31(3):229–235. doi:10.4103/0256-4947.81527
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meyer BF. Strategies for the prevention of hereditary diseases in a highly consanguineous population. Ann Hum Biol. 2005;32(2):174–179. doi:10.1080/03014460500075217
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kotb MM, Hassan YA, Al-Khirat M, Hakami A. Knowledge, attitude and practices related to pre-marital screening for sickle cell Anemia in Jazan Region, Saudi Arabia. Egypt J Commun Med. 2018;36(3):103–113.
   Google Scholar
• Phadke SR, Puri RD, Ranganath P. Prenatal screening for genetic disorders: suggested guidelines for the Indian Scenario. Indian J Med Res. 2017;146(6):689–699. doi:10.4103/ijmr.IJMR_1788_15
   PubMedGoogle Scholar