The missing element: Consanguinity as a component of genetic risk assessment

Genetics in Medicine

Volumn 10, Issue 8, 2008, Pages 612-620

  Bishop, Michelle ^a,b   Metcalfe, Sylvia ^a,b   Gaff, Clara ^c,d,e  

^a MURDOCH CHILDREN'S RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE   (Australia)

^c Genetic Health Services Victoria   (Australia)

^d Institute of Medical Genetics   (United Kingdom)

^e ROYAL CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL   (Australia)

Author keywords

Consanguinity; Family history; Midwifery; Prenatal; Primary care

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONSANGUINITY; CONTROLLED STUDY; FAMILY HISTORY; FEMALE; GENETIC COUNSELING; GENETIC RISK; HUMAN; MEDICAL INFORMATION; PREGNANCY TEST; QUESTIONNAIRE; RISK ASSESSMENT;

ADULT; ATTITUDE OF HEALTH PERSONNEL; AUSTRALIA; CONSANGUINITY; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; FEMALE; GENETIC COUNSELING; GENETIC PREDISPOSITION TO DISEASE; HUMANS; LOGISTIC MODELS; MIDDLE AGED; MIDWIFERY; NURSE MIDWIVES; PREGNANCY; RISK ASSESSMENT;

EID: 55949106750     PISSN: 10983600     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/GIM.0b013e31817d2a65     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Rich EC, Burke W, Heaton C, et al. Reconsidering the family history in primary care. J Gen Intern Med 2004;19:273-280.
2. Wolpert C, Speer M. Harnessing the power of the pedigree. J Midwifery Womens Health 2005;50:189-196.
3. Guttmacher AE, Collins F, Carmona RH. The family history - more important than ever. N Engl J Med 2004;351:2333-2336.
4. Beery TA, Shooner KA. Family history: the first genetic screen. Nurse Pract 2004;29:14-25.
5. Hayflick SJ, Eiff MP. Role of primary care providers in the delivery of genetics services. Community Genet 1998;1:18-22.
6. American Medical Association prenatal screening questionnaire. Available at: http://ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/13332.html. Accessed June 4, 2007.
7. March of Dimes Birth Defects Foundation preconception/prenatal family history questionnaire. Available at: http://www.marchofdimes.com/gyponline. Accessed September 21, 2007.
8. Wolpert CM. Surgeon General launches new public health campaign: the family history initiative. JAAPA 2005;18:20-22.
9. Summerton N, Garrood PVA. The family history in family practice: a questionnaire study. Fam Pract 1997;14:285-288.
10. Acheson L, Wiesner G, Zyzanski SJ, Goodwin M, Stange KC. Family history-taking in community family practice: implications for genetic screening. Genet Med 2000;2:180-185.
11. Rose P, Humm E, Hey K, Jones L, Huson SM. Family history taking and genetic counselling in primary care. Fam Pract 1999;16:78-83.
12. Bennett R. The practical guide to the genetic family history, 1st ed. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1999:38-67.
13. Hayflick SJ, Eiff MP, Carpenter L, Steinberger J. Primary care physicians' utilization and perceptions of genetics services. Genet Med 1998;1:13-21.
14. NHS Sickle Cell and Thalassaemia Screening Programme. Standards for the linked antenatal and newborn screening programme, 1st ed: NHS Antenatal and Newborn Screening Programmes, 2006.
15. Bittles A. Consanguinity and its relevance to clinical genetics. Clin Genet 2001;60:89-98.
16. Bennett R, Motulsky A, Bittles A, et al. Genetic counseling and screening of consanguineous couple and their offspring: recommendations of the National Society of Genetic Counselors. J Genet Couns 2002;11:97-119.
17. Yunis K, Mumtaz G, Bitar F, et al. Consanguineous marriage and congenital heart defects: a case-control study in the neonatal period. Am J Med Genet A 2006;140:1524-1530.
18. Stoltenberg C, Magnus P, Lie RT, Daltveit AK, Irgens LM. Birth defects and parental consanguinity in Norway. Am J Epidemiol 1997;145:439-448.
19. Mumtaz G, Tamin H, Kanaan M, et al. Effect of consanguinity on birth weight for gestational age in a developing country. Am J Epidemiol 2007;165:742-752.
20. Tamim H, Khogali M, Beydoun H, Melki I, Yunis K. National Collaborative Perinatal Neonatal Network. Consanguinity and apnea of prematurity. Am J Epidemiol 2003;158:942-946.
21. Bundey S, Alam H, Kaur A, Mir S, Lancashire RJ. Race, consanguinity and social features in Birmingham babies: a basis for a prospective study. J Epidemiol Community Health 1990;44:130-135.
22. Mokhtar M, Abdel-Fattah MM. Consanguinity and advanced maternal age as risk factors for reproductive losses in Alexandria, Egypt. Eur J Epidemiol 2001;17:559-565.
23. Grant JC, Bittles A. The comparative role of consanguinity in infant and childhood mortality in Pakistan. Ann Hum Genet 1997;61:143-149.
24. Stoll C, Alembik Y, Dott B, Feingold J. Parental consanguinity as a cause of increased incidence of birth defects in a study of 131,760 consecutive births. Am J Med Genet 1994;49:114-117.
25. Hussain R. The impact of consanguinity and inbreeding on perinatal mortality in Karachi, Pakistan. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 1998;12:370-382.
26. Modell B, Darr A. Genetic counselling and customary consanguineous marriage. Nat Rev Genet 2002;3:225-229.
27. Mitford J. The American way of birth, 1st ed. New York: Dutton, 1992:165-242.
28. Lavender T, Chapple J. An exploration of midwives' views of the current system of maternity care in England. Midwifery 2004;20:324-334.
29. Brown S, Davey MA, Bruinsma F. Women's views and experiences of postnatal hospital care in the Victorian Survey of Recent Mothers 2000. Midwifery 2005;21:109-126.
30. Holland M, Holland E. Survey of Connecticut nurse-midwives. J Midwifery Womens Health 2007;52:106-115.
31. Department of Human Services. Future directions for Victoria's maternity services. Melbourne Victoria: Victorian Government Department of Human Services, 2004.
32. Devane D, Murphy-Lawless J, Begley C. Childbirth policies and practices in Ireland and the journey towards midwifery-led care. Midwifery 2007;23:92-101.
33. Lazarus J, Rull K, Huws D, Rasch V, Liljestrand J. A survey of midwives' views on providing aspects of antenatal care in Estonia. Midwifery. 2007; in press.
34. Riley M, Davey MA, King J. Births in Victoria 2003-2004. Victorian Perinatal Data Collection Unit. Melbourne: Victorian Government of Human Services, 2005.
35. Liamputtong P, Ezzy D. Qualitative research methods, 2nd ed. Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 2005:75-99:259-261.
36. Glasser BG, Strauss AL. The Discovery of grounded theory - strategies for qualitative research, 1st ed. New York: Aldine De Gruyter, 1967:101-115.
37. Gaff CL. Identifying clients who might benefit from genetic services and information. Nurs Stand 2005;20:49-53.
38. Ottenheimer M. Forbidden relatives, the American myth of cousin marriage. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1996.
39. Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 1991;50:179-211.
40. Kirk M, Tonkin E, Burke S. Engaging nurses in genetics: the strategic approach of the NHS National Genetics Education and Development Centre. J Genet Couns 2008;17:180-188.
41. Metcalfe S, Seipolt M, Aitken M, Flouris A. Educating general practitioners about prenatal testing: approaches and challenges. Prenat Diag 2005;25:592-601.
42. Price SM, Baird K, Salmon D. Asking the question: antenatal domestic violence. Prac Midwife 2005;8:21-25.
43. Edin KE, Hogberg U. Violence against pregnant women will remain hidden as long as no direct questions are asked. Midwifery 2002;18:268-278.
44. Australian Health Workforce Advisory Committee. The midwifery workforce in Australia. AHWAC Report 2002.2, Sydney 2002:38-46.
45. Tracy S, Barclay L, Brodie P. Contemporary issues in the workforce and education of Australian midwives. Aust Health Rev 2000;23:78-88.
46. Metcalfe A, Haydon J, Bennett C, Farndon P. Midwives' views of the importance of genetics and their confidence with genetic activities in clinical practice: implications for the delivery of genetics education. J Clin Nurs 2007;17:519-530.