Prevalence and Risk Factors of Consanguineous Marriage

Yıl 2014, , 248 - 255, 01.12.2014

Fariba Heidari Saeed Dastgiri Rahman Akbari Zhila Khamnian Elham Khanlarzadeh Maryam Baradaran Soheila Jabbary-fam Shafigheh Badrazar Mohammad Heidarzadeh Nazila Tajaddini

https://doi.org/10.15197/sabad.1.11.81

Öz

Consanguineous marriage is a global health problem with several health-related and social adverse outcomes. In this study we aimed to identify the prevalence and epidemiologic features of consanguineous marriage. This case-control study was carried out at the premarital advisory centers in Tabriz city in the North-West of Iran. The participants consisted of 1532 subjects (766 couples) with166 couples as the case group. The one year occurrence rate of consanguineous marriage was 13.80%. After adjustment for other variables, age at marriage for both women (OR=0.90, 95%CI=0.86-0.94) and men (OR=0.87, 95%CI=0.82-0.93), and level of knowledge for both women and men were significantly related to consanguineous marriage. Father\'s profession, participant's level of income, and parent\'s consanguinity were independent predictors of consanguineous marriage in men but not in women. The frequency of consanguineous mating is still high, so it seems necessary to design and implement special preventive interventions including multi-level educational programs in order to address the problem.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Consanguinity, marriage, determinants, prevalence

Prevalence and Risk Factors of Consanguineous Marriage

Öz

Akraba evliliği çeşitli sağlık sorunları ve sosyal olumsuz sonuçları ile küresel bir sağlık sorunudur. Bu çalışmada akraba evliliği sıklığı ve epidemiyolojik özelliklerini belirlemeyi amaçladık. Bu vaka-kontrol çalışması İran Kuzey-Batı Tebriz kentinde evlilik öncesi danışma merkezlerinde gerçekleştirilmiştir. Katılımcı olarak 1532 kişi (766 çift) ve vaka grubu olarak 166 çift alındı. Akraba evliliğinin bir yıllık oluşma oranı 13.80% olmuştur. Diğer değişkenler için düzeltme yapıldıktan sonra hem kadın (OR = 0.90,% 95 CI = 0,86-0,94) hem erkekler (OR = 0.87,% 95 CI = 0,82-0,93) için evlenme yaşı ve bilgi düzeyi önemli ölçüde akraba evliliği ile ilgili idi. Baba mesleği, katılımcının gelir seviyesi ve ebeveynin akrabalığı erkeklerde akraba evliliğinin bağımsız göstergesi olup bu kadınlarda gösterilememiştir. Akraba evliliği sıklığı hala yüksek olup, bu yüzden tasarım ve sorunu çözmek için çok düzeyli eğitim programları dahil olmak üzere özel koruyucu müdahalelerin uygulanması gerekli görülmektedir

Anahtar Kelimeler

Akrabalık, evlilik, belirleyiciler, sıklık

Kaynakça

• Obeidat BG, Khader YS, Amarin ZO, Kassawneh M, AlOmari M. Consanguinity and adverse pregnancy out- comes: the north of Jordan experience. Matern Child Health J 2010;14(2);283-9.
• Akrami SM, Montazeri V, Shomali SR, Heshmat R, Larijani B. Is there a significant trend in prevalence of consan- guineous marriage in Tehran? A review of three genera- tions. J Genet Couns 2009;18(1):82-6.
• Alvarez G, Quinteiro C, Ceballos F. Inbreeding and Genetic Disorder. Advances in the Study of Genetic Disorders 2011. Available from: http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs/23704/ InTech-Inbreeding_and_genetic_disorder.pdf.
• Shawky RM, El-Awady MY, Elsayed SM, Hamadan GE. Consanguineous matings among Egyptian population. Egypt J Med Human Genet 2011;12(2):157-63.
• Hamamy H, Antonarakis SE, Cavalli-Sforza LL, et al. Consanguineous marriages, pearls and perils: Geneva International Consanguinity Workshop Report. Genetics in Medicine. Genet Med 2011;13 (9):841-7.
• Tayebi N, Yazdani K, Naghshin N. The prevalence of con- genital malformations and its correlation with consan- guineous marriages. Oman Med J 2010;25(1):37-40.
• Mosayebi Z, Movahedian AH. Patterns of congenital malformations in consanguineous marriages in Kashan, Islamic Republic of Iran. Eastern Mediterranean Health J 2007;13(4):868-75.
• Bittles AH, Black ML. The impact of consanguinity on neonatal and infant health. Early Human Development 2010;86(11):737-41.
• Aboualsoltani F, Rahmani SA, Pourbarghi M, Dolatkhah H, Aghazadeh AM. The frequency of consanguineous mar- riages and their effects on offsprings in Tabriz city. Egypt J Med Hum Genet 2009;10(2):198-207.
• Posch A, Springer S, Langer M, Blaicher W, Streubel B, Schmid M. Prenatal genetic counseling and consanguinit. Prenatal Diagnosis 2012;32(12):1133-8.
• Bittle AH, Black ML. Consanguinity, human evolution, and complex diseases. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2010;107 (s1):1779-86. 12. Mobaraki AEH, Söderfeld B. Gender inequi- ty in Saudi Arabia and its role in public health. Eastern Mediterranean Health J 2010;16(1):113-8.
• Masood SN, Jamil N, Mumtaz SN, Masood MF, Muneer S. Congenital malformations in newborns of consanguineous and non-consanguineous parents. Pak J Med Sci 2011;2:1- 5.
• Tadmouri GO, Nair P, Obeid T, et al. Consanguinity and reproductive health among Arabs. Reproductive Health 2009;6(17).
• Davati A, Jafari F, Kholdi N, Sedaghat M. Frequency of consanguineous marriage in Tehran and some related fac- tors. J Semnan Univ Med Sci 2009;10(4):287-94.
• Sedehi M, Keshtkar A, Golalipour MJ. The Knowledge and the Attitude of Youth Couples On/Towards Consanguineous Marriages in the North of Iran. J Clin Diagnostic Res 2012;6(7):1233-6.
• Koc I. Prevalence and socio-demographic correlates of consanguineous marriages in Turkey. J Biosoc Sci 2008;40(1):137-48.