MARATTO

article · Pan African Medical Journal

Analysis of some determining factors of consanguinity in North Morocco: a cross-sectional epidemiological study

20242 citationsOpen accessIbn Tofail University

Abstract

Introduction: consanguinity represents a serious concern for public health. It represents 20 to 55% of unions in the Middle East, North Africa, and Central Asia. The present work aims to find out some determining factors of consanguinity and isonymy in the population of North Morocco. Methods: it consists of a cross-sectional epidemiological study conducted on 238 couples from the region of Tanger-Tetouan located northwest of Morocco. The studied variables were consanguinity, isonymy, union type, geographical origin, education level, profession, ethnicity, and belonging to Shorfas. Results: the results showed that consanguineous couples represent 45.4%. Among them, unions between first cousins are predominant with 91%, among which the union with the daughter of the father´s brother represents 56%. The risk analysis showed that both husbands and wives with higher education levels display significantly lower risk of being in a consanguineous union (OR=0,36; IC 95% = 0,19- 0,65). Furthermore, wives of urban origin have a significantly lower chance of being in a consanguineous union (OR=0, 51; IC 95% =0,26-1,011). Regarding isonymy, we found that belonging to Shorfas is significantly associated with isonymous unions in both husbands and wives (p=0.04 and p=0.001 respectively). Moreover, urban-origin males display a significantly lower chance of being in isonymous unions (OR=0.35; IC 95% =0.15- 0.80). Conclusion: health authorities should make more efforts to raise the awareness of young people of the health disorders caused by consanguineous marriages.

Research topics

  • Hemoglobinopathies and Related Disorders
  • Iron Metabolism and Disorders
  • Folate and B Vitamins Research

Read the original research

This page summarises published work. The authoritative version sits with the publisher.

DOI: 10.11604/pamj.2024.49.133.34881

Is something wrong with this record? Report it or request removal.

Discussion

Discuss this research

Have you built on this work, tried to replicate it, or seen it applied in practice? Share what you know. Verified researchers and MARATTO™ domain experts can open a discussion, and any member can reply. Contributions are reviewed before they appear.

No discussion yet. Open the first thread.