Volume: 5 Issue: 3
Year: 2017, Page: 37-42,
Introduction: Consanguineous marriage means marrying biologically related or blood relatives. Consanguinity is a deeply rooted trend in the South Indian States.
Aims and Objectives: The aim of the study is to determine the current prevalence and pattern of consanguinity, compare and estimate the health parameter in the offspring of consanguineous couples with those of non consanguineous couples, investigate attitudes and awareness of the target population regarding consanguinity and its associated reproductive risk; finally educating the target population, so that they can guide the society well. Materials & Methods: The study was done in Prathima Institute of Medical Sciences. A population of 500 students between age group of 18-25 years of both sexes, randomly selected from Telangana . A questionnaire was designed which was the key in collecting data from the target population.
Results:
• Prevalance: 41% against 59% non-consanguineous parents.
• Hindus (41.2%) preferred uncle-niece union, Muslim (51.7%) favoured 1st cousins, Christians (54.5%) opted for 2nd cousins.
• Pattern among Hindus: Uncle-niece union 41.5%, first cousins 30.7%, second cousins 15.6%.
• 19% consanguinity presented birth defects; statistically significant.
• 46.1% rural population were consanguineous; statistically significant.
• History of early death / miscarriage / still birth was found in 16.1% of consanguinity; statistically significant .
• Medicos (76.9%) were more aware of consanguinity and its effect compared to paramedical students; is statistically significant. Conclusion: This study was a preliminary step to obtain first hand information about the magnitude of consanguinity in our state. Appropriate data can guide consanguineous couples take informed decisions regarding reproductive choices.
Keywords: Awareness, Birth defects, Consanguinity, Genetic counseling.
1. G.Kumaramanickavel . Consanguinity and Ocular Genetic Diseases in South India: Analysis of a five year study. Community Genetics 2002; 5:180-185.
2. Bittles A. The global prevalence of consanguinity. Accessed une 2011. 10- 12-2011.
3. Bittles & Black, 2010. Consanguinity, human evolution, and complex diseases. National Academy of Sciences, USa.
4. Modell B, Darr A. Science & Society: Genetic counseling and customary consanguineous marriage. Nat Rev Genet. 2002; 3:225-229.
5. Hamamy H. Bittles A. Endogamy & consanguineous marriage in Arab populations. In: Teebi A , editor. Genetic disorders amon Arab populations. 2. Heidelberg: Springer; 2007.
6. Tadmouri G.O,Nair P,Obeid T, Al Ali MT,Al Khaja N, Hamamy HA. Consanguinity and reproductive health among Arabs. Reprod. Health. 2009; 6:17.
7. Emery’s Elements of Medical Genetics, 2012, 14th ed. 14, 260.
8. Journal of Community Genetics.2012 Jul; 3(3) 185-192.
9. T.S.Sathyanarayana Rao, M.R.Asha, K.sambumurthy, and K.S.Jagannatha Rao, Consanguinity: Still a challenge, Indian journal of psychiatry 2009; 51(1): 3.
10. Do, Quy Toan, Iyer Sriya; Joshi Shareen (2006). The Economics of Consanguineous Marriages. World Bank, Development Research Group, Poverty Team.
11. Tim M Berca, Gonzalo Alvarez, and Francisco C. Ceballos , Broscience; vol. 60, issue 5, pp-376 .
12. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iroquois_kinship
13. Banerjee S K & Roy T K. Parental consanguinity and offspring mortality: the search for possible linkage in the Indian context, Asia-Pacific Population Journal 2002;17(1):17-38.
14. A.H.Bittles. The impact of consanguinity on the Indian population, Indian journal of human Genetics 2002; Vol 8(2): 22.
15. A Radha Rama Devi, N Appaji Rao and A.H. Bittles. Inbreeding and the incidence of childhood genetic disorders in Karnataka, South India. Journal of Community Genetics 2002;12:223.
16. h t t p s : / / e n . w i k i p e d i a . o r g / w i k i Cousin_marriage#BittlesHussain
17. Dhanmani Medhi and Gulrukh Begum. Consanguinity among the Bengali muslims of Barpeta district, Assam. Ind. J. Phys. Anthrop. & Hum. Genet 2014; 33(1): 109- 121.
18. Ramegowda S.Ramachandra NB. Parental consanguinity increases congenital heart diseases in South India.Ann Hum Biol.2006 Sep-Dec;33(5-6):519-28.
19. Verma K.Prema A,Puri RK. Health effect of consanguinity in Pondicherry:Indian Pediatr.2002 Jun;29(6):685-92.
20. R.S.Balgir. Birth Control Necessary to Limit Family Size in Tribal Couples with Aberrant Heterosis of G-6-PD Deficiency and Sickle Cell Disorders in India: An Urgency of Creating Awareness and Imparting Genetic Counseling. Journal of association of physicians of India 2010;58: 357- 62.
21. Hemonta kr. Dutta, NC Bhattacharyya, JN Sarma, Giriraj Kusre. Congenital malformation in Assam. Journal of Indian Association of Paediatric Surgeon 2010: vol.15 (2): pp. 53-55.
22. Chinara PK & Singh S . East-West differentiation in congenital malformation in India. Ind J Pediatr 1982;49:3325-329.
23. P.Yashodhara ,N. Madhavi, Elizabeth, Jhansi Rani, A.Tirupathi Reddy, K.Rami Reddy, K.Vani Bai ,B.Deeva Kumar. An epidemiological study of congenital anomalies in consanguineous and non consanguineous marriages among patients attending pediatric ward in GGH, Guntur Journal od Indain Association of Paediatric Surgeon 2011:16:221.
24. Nitin Joseph. Health awareness and consequences of consanguineous marriages : a community based study . Journal of primary care and community health. 2014:6(2): 332.
25. B. Mahadevan and B. Vishnu bhat : Neural tube defects in Pondicherry. Indian Journal of Paediatrics 2005; 72 (7): 557-559.
26. Zlotogora J. Is there an increased birth defect risk to children born to offspring of first cousin parents? Am J Med Genet A. 2005; 137A: 342.
27. Jyllands-Posten , 27/2 2009: More stillbirths among immigrants. Edn 22.pg 5567.
28. Kandari YY. Premarital genetic investigation. Croat Med J 2005 Apr;71(6):131-134.
Sreeja N, Rupshika D. Consanguinity and its effects: The love that dare not speak its surname. Perspectives in Medical Research 2017;5(3):37-42.