Hostname: page-component-6b989bf9dc-md2j5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-15T02:34:03.344Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

THE PREVALENCE OF CONSANGUINEOUS MARRIAGES AND AFFECTING FACTORS IN TURKEY: A NATIONAL SURVEY

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2016

Sena Kaplan ,
Gul Pinar ,
Bekir Kaplan ,
Filiz Aslantekin ,
Erdem Karabulut ,
Banu Ayar  and
Ugur Dilmen
Sena Kaplan*
Affiliation:
Nursing Department, Yildirim Beyazit University Faculty of Health Sciences, Ankara, Turkey
Gul Pinar
Affiliation:
Nursing Department, Yildirim Beyazit University Faculty of Health Sciences, Ankara, Turkey
Bekir Kaplan
Affiliation:
Republic of Turkey Ministry of Health Directorate General Health Research, Ankara, Turkey
Filiz Aslantekin
Affiliation:
Republic of Turkey Ministry of Health Directorate General Health Research, Ankara, Turkey
Erdem Karabulut
Affiliation:
Department of Biostatistics, Hacettepe University Faculty of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey
Banu Ayar
Affiliation:
Republic of Turkey Ministry of Health Directorate General Health Research, Ankara, Turkey
Ugur Dilmen
Affiliation:
Republic of Turkey Ministry of Health Directorate General Health Research, Ankara, Turkey
*
1Corresponding author. Email: ataykaplan1@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

This study was carried out by the Turkish Republic Ministry of Health to determine the prevalence of consanguineous marriage and its correlates with socio-demographic and obstetric risk factors in women in Turkey. The cross-sectional, national-level study was carried out from October to December 2013. The study population was composed of women between the ages of 15 and 65 years living in Turkey. The sample size was calculated as 9290 houses within Turkey’s 81 provinces so as to improve the Turkish rural–urban expectations by means of systematic stack sampling according to the Turkish Statistical Institute’s address-based vital statistics system. The target sample size was 6364, but only eligible 4913 women, who had been married, were included in the study. The consanguineous marriage frequency in the sample was found to be 18.5%, and of these 57.8% were first cousin marriages. Women living in an extended family and whose education level and first marriage ages were low, and whose perceived economic status was poor, had higher frequencies of consanguineous marriage (p<0.001). Consanguineous marriage frequencies were higher (p<0.001) for women who had spontaneous abortions and stillbirths or who had given birth to infants with a congenital abnormality. In this context, it is important to develop national policies and strategies to prevent consanguineous marriages in Turkey.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Biosocial Science , Volume 48 , Issue 5 , September 2016 , pp. 616 - 630
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

Akbayram, S., Sari, N., Akgun, C., Dogan, M., Tuncer, O., Caksen, H. & Oner, A. F. (2009) The frequency of consanguineous marriage in eastern Turkey. Journal of Genetic Counseling 20, 207–214.Google Scholar
Akin, G. (2000) Consanguineous marriage frequency and affecting factors at rural section of Denizli. Ankara University, Faculty of Languages, History and Geography Journal 40, 67–80.Google Scholar
Alper, O. M., Erengin, H., Manguoglu, A. E., Bilgen, T., Cetin, Z., Dedeoglu, N. & Luleci, G. (2004) Consanguineous marriages in the province of Antalya, Turkey. Annales de Génétique 47, 129–138.Google Scholar
Assaf, S. & Khawaja, M. (2009) Consanguinity trends and correlates in the Palestinian Territories. Journal of Biosocial Science 41, 107–124.Google Scholar
Ayan, D., Beder, S. R., Unal, G. & Yurtkuran, S. (2001) Consanguineous in Ankara. Journal of Family and Society Education Culture and Research 1, 7–26.Google Scholar
Baki, A., Karaguzel, A., Beser, E., Cakmakci, T., Ucar, F. & Omeroglu, A. (1992) Consanguineous marriages in the province of Trabzon, Turkey. East African Medical Journal 69, 94–96.Google Scholar
Balci, O., Taviloglu, Z. S., Yilmaz, A. F., Coskun, M. E., Varan, C., Almacioglu, M. et al. (2012) Frequencies and distribution of congenital abnormalities within our university hospital. Gaziantep Medical Journal 18, 81–84.Google Scholar
Barbour, B. & Salameh, P. (2009) Consanguinity in Lebanon: prevalence, distribution and determinants. Journal of Biosocial Science 41, 505–517.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bhasin, P. & Kapoor, S. (2014) Impact of consanguinity on cardio-metabolic health and other diseases: findings from an Afro-Indian tribal community. Journal of Community Genetics doi 10.1007/s12687-014-0207-z.Google Scholar
Bittles, A. H. (1994) The role and significance of consanguinity as a demographic variable. Population and Development Review 20, 561–584.Google Scholar
Bittles, A. (2001) Consanguinity and its relevance to clinical genetics. Clinical Genetics 60, 89–98.Google Scholar
Coimbra, L. C., Figueiredo, F. P., Silva, A. A. M., Barbieri, M. A., Bettiol, H., Caldas, A. J. M. et al. (2007) Inadequate utilization of prenatal care in two Brazilian birth cohorts. Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research 9, 1195–1202.Google Scholar
COSIT (2006) Iraq Living Conditions Survey 2004. Vol. II: Analytical Report. Central Organization for Statistics and Information Technology, Ministry of Planning and Development Cooperation, Baghdad.Google Scholar
Denic, S., Agarwal, M. M. & Nagelkerke, N. (2012) Growth of consanguineous populations: effect of family and group size. Asian Pacific Journal of Tropical Disease 2, 227–232.Google Scholar
Donbak, L. (2005) Consanguinity in Kahramanmaras city, Turkey, and its medical impact. Saudi Medical Journal 25, 1991–1994.Google Scholar
Ersoy, F., Ersoy, M. & Yalcin, M. (1999) A review of congenital malformations. Turkish Journal of Family Practice 3, 40–46.Google Scholar
Goossens, G., Kadji, C. & Delvenne, V. (2015) Teenage pregnancy: a psychopathological risk for mothers and babies? Psychiatria Danubina 27, 499–503.Google Scholar
Gunaid, A. A., Hummad, T. A. & Tamim, K. A. (2004) Consanguineous marriage in the capital city Sana’a, Yemen. Journal of Biosocial Science 36, 111–121.Google Scholar
Hamamy, H., Antonarakis, E. S., Cavalli-Sforza, L. L., Temtamy, S., Romeo, G., Kate, L. P. et al. (2011) Consanguineous marriages, pearls and perils: Geneva International Consanguinity Workshop Report. Genetics in Medicine 13, 841–847.Google Scholar
Hamamy, H., Jamhawi, L., Al-Darawsheh, J. & Ajlouni, K. (2005) Consanguineous marriages in Jordan: why is the rate changing with time? Clinical Genetics 67, 511–516.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hamamy, H. A., Masri, A. T., Al-Hadidy, A. M. & Ajlouni, K. M. (2007) Consanguinity and genetic disorders, profile from Jordan. Saudi Medical Journal 28, 1015–1017.Google Scholar
Hussain, R. (1999) Community perception of reasons for preference for consanguineous marriages in Pakistan. Journal of Biosocial Science 31, 449–461.Google Scholar
Hussain, R. & Bittles, A. H. (2000) Sociodemographic correlates of consanguineous marriage in the Muslim population of India. Journal of Biosocial Science 32, 433–442.Google Scholar
Hussain, R. & Bittles, A. H. (2004) Assessment of association between consanguinity and fertility in Asian populations. Journal of Health, Population, and Nutrition 22, 1–12.Google Scholar
Islam, M. M. (2013) Effects of consanguineous marriage on reproductive behaviour, adverse pregnancy outcomes and offspring mortality in Oman. Annals of Human Biology 40, 243–255.Google Scholar
Jabeen, N. & Malik, S. (2014) Consanguinity and its sociodemographic differentials in Bhimber District, Azad Jammu and Kashmir, Pakistan. Journal of Health, Population, and Nutrition 32, 301–313.Google Scholar
Jaber, L., Merlob, P., Gabrieli, R. & Shohat, M. (1997) Effect of consanguineous marriage on reproductive outcome in an Arab community in Israel. Journal of Medical Genetics 34, 1000–1002.Google Scholar
Joseph, N., Pavan, K. K., Ganapathi, K., Apoorva, P., Sharma, P. & Jhamb, J. A. (2015) Health awareness and consequences of consanguineous marriages: a community-based study. Journal of Primary Care & Community Health 6, 121–127.Google Scholar
Karabulut, A., Güler, Ö. T., Karahan, H. T., Özkan, S., Koyuncu, H. & Demirciler, I. (2015) Premarital screening of 466 Mediterranean women for serum ferritin, vitamin B12, and folate concentrations. Turkish Journal of Medical Sciences 45, 358–363.Google Scholar
Kelmemi, W., Chelly, I., Kharrat, M. & Chaabouni-Bouhamed, H. (2015) Consanguinity and homozygosity among Tunisian patients with an autosomal recessive disorder. Journal of Biosocial Science 47, 718–726.Google Scholar
Khoury, S. A. & Massad, D. (1992) Consanguineous marriage in Jordan. American Journal of Medical Genetics 43, 769–775.Google Scholar
Koc, I. (2008) Prevalence and socio-demographic correlates of consanguineous marriages in Turkey. Journal of Biosocial Science 40, 137–148.Google Scholar
Kulkarni, M. L. & Kurian, M. (1990) Consanguinity and its effect on fetal growth and development: a South Indian study. Journal of Medical Genetics 27, 348–352.Google Scholar
Liascovich, R., Rittler, M. & Castilla, E. E. (2001) Consanguinity in South America: demographic aspects. Human Heredity 51, 27–34.Google Scholar
Leslie, K. (1965) Survey Sampling. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York.Google Scholar
Modell, B. & Darr, A. (2002) Genetic counselling and customary consanguineous marriage. Nature Reviews Genetics 3, 225–229.Google Scholar
Mohammadi, M., Hooman, H. A., Afrooz, G. A. & Daramadi, P. S. (2012) The relationship between consanguineous marriage and death in fetus and infants. Journal of Research in Medical Sciences 17, 448–451.Google Scholar
Morton, N. E. (1958) Empirical risks in consanguineous marriages: birthweight, gestation time, and measurements of infants. American Journal of Human Genetics 10, 344–349.Google ScholarPubMed
Mumtaz, G., Tamim, H., Kanaan, M., Khawaja, M., Khogali, M., Wakim, G. & Yunis, K. A. (2007) Effect of consanguinity on birth weight for gestational age in a developing country. American Journal of Epidemiology 165, 742–752.Google Scholar
Othman, H. & Saadat, M. (2009) Prevalence of consanguineous marriages in Syria. Journal of Biosocial Science 41, 685–692.Google Scholar
Ozcan, F. (1997) Consanguineous marriage in Manisa (Turkey) and its evaluation from the aspect of family medicine. Turkish Journal of Family Practice 1, 208–212.Google Scholar
Reddy, P. G. (1988) Consanguineous marriages and marriage payment: a study among three South Indian caste groups. Annals of Human Biology 15, 263–268.Google Scholar
Republic of Turkey Ministry of Health (2005) General Directorate of Mother and Child Health/Family Planning. Safe Motherhood Participant Book. Sexual Health Reproductive Health, Publication No. 2B, Prenatal Care and Preconception Care, Ankara, pp. 17–22.Google Scholar
Saedi-Wong, S., Al-Frayh, A. H. & Wong, H. Y. (1989) Socioeconomic epidemiology of consanguineous matings in the Saudi Arabian population. Journal of Asian African Studies 24, 247–252.Google Scholar
Samli, H., Toprak, D. & Solak, M. (2006) Prevalence of consanguineous marriage in Afyonkarahisar and its relation with the occurrence of congenital anomalies. Medical Journal Kocatepe 7, 69–74.Google Scholar
Shami, S. A., Grant, J. C. & Bittles, A. H. (1994) Consanguineous marriage within social/occupational class boundaries in Pakistan. Journal of Biosocial Science 26, 91–96.Google Scholar
Shami, S. A., Schmitt, L. H. & Bittles, A. H. (1989) Consanguinity related prenatal and postnatal mortality of the populations of seven Pakistani Punjab cities. Journal of Medical Genetics 26, 267–271.Google Scholar
Sibert, J. R., Jadhav, M. & Inbaraj, S. G. (1979) Fetal growth and parental consanguinity. Archives of Disease in Childhood 54, 317–319.Google Scholar
Statistics Netherlands (2013) Marriages and Partnership Registrations; Key Figures. URL: http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/publication/?DM=SLEN&PA=37772eng&D1=047&D2=0,10,20,30,40,50,(l-1)-l&LA=EN&VW=T.Google Scholar
TDHS (2008) Turkey Demographic and Health Survey 2008. Population Surveys Institute, Hacettepe University. URL: http://www.hips.hacettepe.edu.tr/tnsa2008/.Google Scholar
TDHS (2013) Turkey Demographic and Health Survey. 2013. Population Surveys Institute, Hacettepe University. URL: http://www.hips.hacettepe.edu.tr/TNSA_2013_ana_rapor.pdf/Erişim tarihi (accessed 27th April 2014).Google Scholar
TFSS (2011) Family Structure in Turkey Survey, Ministry of Family and Social Policy (Turkey) (2011). URL: http://www.cocukhaklariizleme.org/wp-content/uploads/turkiyenin-aile-yapisi-arastirmasi-20111.pdf.Google Scholar
Tuncbilek, E. & Koc, I. (1994) Consanguineous marriage in Turkey and its impact on fertility and mortality. Annals of Human Genetics 58, 321–329.Google Scholar
Tuncbilek, E. & Ulusoy, M. (1988) Consanguinity in Turkey. Turkish Journal of Population Studies 11, 35–46.Google Scholar
Tuzun, C. & Elyas, H. (1996) Consanguineous marriages incidence within city center of Elazig. Fırat Medical Journal 1, 60–65.Google Scholar
UNECE (2011) United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. URL: http://w3.unece.org/pxweb/quickstatistics/readtable.asp?qs_id=300.Google Scholar
WHO (1992) International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th revision. World Health Organization, Geneva.Google Scholar
WHO (2014a) Global Health Observatory (GHO) Data. URL: http://www.who.int/gho/urban_health/services/antenatal_care_text/en/.Google Scholar
WHO (2014b) World Health Statistics 2014. URL: http://www.who.int/gho/publications/world_health_statistics/EN_WHS2014_TOC.pdf.Google Scholar
Yakinci, C., Kutlu, N. O., Pac, A., Durmaz, Y., Gul, A. & Egri, M. (1999) Consanguineous marriages within city center of Malatya and its impact on child deaths. MN Clinical Sciences & Doctor 5, 110–112.Google Scholar
Yuksel, S., Kutlubay, A., Karaoglu, L. & Yologlu, S. (2009) The prevalence of consanguineous marriages in the city of Malatya, Turkey. Turkish Journal of Medical Sciences 39, 133–137.Google Scholar
Zegers-Hochschild, F., Adamson, G. D., Mouzon, J., Ishihara, O., Mansour, R., Nygren, K. et al. (2009) The international committee for monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technology (ICMART) and the WHO revised glossary of ART terminology. Human Reproduction 24, 2683–2687.Google Scholar