Potential social, economic and general health benefits of consanguineous marriage: Results from the Born in Bradford cohort study

European Journal of Public Health

Volumn 24, Issue 5, 2013, Pages 862-869

  Bhopal, Raj S ^a   Petherick, Emily S ^b   Wright, John ^b   Small, Neil ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH   (United Kingdom)

^b BRADFORD INSTITUTE FOR HEALTH RESEARCH   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF BRADFORD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CAUCASIAN; COHORT ANALYSIS; CONSANGUINITY; EDUCATIONAL STATUS; EMPLOYMENT; EPIDEMIOLOGY; ETHNIC GROUP; ETHNOLOGY; FEMALE; HEALTH STATUS; HUMAN; LIFESTYLE; MARRIAGE; PAKISTAN; PREGNANCY; PREVALENCE; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; QUESTIONNAIRE; RISK FACTOR; SMOKING; SOCIOECONOMICS; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA; UNITED KINGDOM;

COHORT STUDIES; CONSANGUINITY; EDUCATIONAL STATUS; EMPLOYMENT; ETHNIC GROUPS; EUROPEAN CONTINENTAL ANCESTRY GROUP; FEMALE; GREAT BRITAIN; HEALTH STATUS; HUMANS; LIFE STYLE; MARRIAGE; PAKISTAN; PREGNANCY; PREVALENCE; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; QUESTIONNAIRES; RISK FACTORS; SMOKING; SOCIOECONOMIC FACTORS;

EID: 84928473274     PISSN: 11011262     EISSN: 1464360X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/eurpub/ckt166     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Bittles AH. Consanguinity in Context. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2012.
2. Hamamy H, Antonarakis SE, Cavalli-Sforza LL, et al. Consanguineous marriages, pearls and perils: Geneva International Consanguinity Workshop Report. Genet Med 2011;13:841-7.
3. Bittles AH, Black ML. Consanguinity, human evolution, and complex diseases. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2010;107(Suppl. 1):1779-86.
4. Rudan I, Smolej-Narancic N, Campbell H, et al. Inbreeding and the genetic complexity of human hypertension. Genetics 2003;163:1011-21.
5. Campbell H, Carothers AD, Rudan I, et al. Effects of genome-wide heterozygosity on a range of biomedically relevant human quantitative traits. Hum Mol Genet 2007; 16:233-41.
6. McQuillan R, Leutenegger AL, Abdel-Rahman R, et al. Runs of homozygosity in European populations. Am J Hum Genet 2008;83:359-72.
7. Jurdi R, Saxena PC. The prevalence and correlates of consanguineous marriages in Yemen: similarities and contrasts with other Arab countries. J Biosoc Sci 2003;35: 1-13.
8. Ahmad WIU. Reflections on the consanguinity and birth outcome debate. J Public Health Med 1994;16:423-8.
9. Modell B. Social and genetic implications of customary consanguineous marriage among British Pakistanis. Report of a meeting held at the Ciba Foundation on 15 January 1991. J Med Genet 1991;28:720-3.
10. Qureshi N, Raeburn S. Risks to offspring of consanguineous marriage: we need straight, not crooked thinking. J R Coll Physicians Edinb 2011;41:194-5.
11. Morgan LH. Symptoms of Consanguinity and Affinity of the Human Family. New York: Humanities Press, 1871 (reprinted Oosterhout, N.B., Anthropological Publications, 1966
12. Levi-Strauss C. The Elementary Structure of Kinship, 2nd revised edn. London: Eyre and Spottiswood, 1969.
13. Leach ER. Pul Eliya, a Village in Ceylon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1961.
14. Kinship SA. Cultural preferences and immigration: consanguineous marriage among British Pakistanis. J R Anthropol Soc 2009;7:315-34.
15. Shaw A, Charsley K. Rishtas: adding emotion to strategy in understanding British Pakistani transnational marriages. Global Networks 2006;6:405-21.
16. Hussain R. Community perceptions of reasons for preference for consanguineous marriages in Pakistan. J Biosoc Sci 1999;31:449-61.
17. Shahidi S, Zaal B, Mazaheri MA. Forgiveness in relation to attachment style and consanguine marriage in Iranian married individuals. Psychol Rep 2012;110:489-500.
18. Joshi S, Iyer S, Do QT. Why Marry A Cousin? Insights from Bangladesh. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Marriage in Globalizing Contect: Change and Continuity in South Asia. New Delhi: Orient Black Swan, 2009.
19. Wright J, Small N, Raynor P, et al. Cohort profile: the Born in Bradford multiethnic family cohort study. Int J Epidemiol 2013;42:978-91.
20. Sheridan E, Wright J, Small N, et al. Risk factors for congenital anomaly in a multiethnic birth cohort: an analysis of The Born in Bradford study. Lancet 2013. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)61132-0 (12 July 2013, date last accessed
21. Rayner P. The Born in Bradford Collaborating Group. Born in Bradford, a cohort study of babies born in Bradford, and their parents: protocol for the recruitment phase. BMC Public Health 2008;8:327.
22. StataCorp. Stata Statistical Software: Release 12. College Station, TX: StataCorp LP, 2011.
23. Bunday S, Alam H, Kaur A, et al. Race, consanguinity and social features in Birmingham babies: a basis for prospective study. J Epidemiol Community Health 1990;44:130-5.
24. Darr A, Modell B. The frequency of consanguineous marriage among British Pakistanis. J Med Genet 1988;25:186-90.
25. Werbner P. The Migration Process: Capital, Gifts and Offerings Amongst British Pakistanis. Oxford: Berg, 1990.
26. Mumtaz G, Tamim H, Kanaan M, et al. Effect of consanguinity on birth weight for gestational age in a developing country. Am J Epidemiol 2007;165: 742-52.
27. Hunt S, Bhopal R. Self report in clinical and epidemiological studies with non-English speakers: the challenge of language and culture. J Epidemiol Community Health 2003;58:618-22.
28. Bhopal RS. Ethnicity, Race, and Health in Multicultural Societies; Foundations for Better Epidemiology, Public Health, and Health Care. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.
29. Flsloglu H. Consanguineous marriage and marital adjustment in Turkey. Fam J 2001;9:215-22.
30. Preamble to the Constitution of the World Health Organization as adopted by the International Health Conference, New York, 19-22 June, 1946; signed on 22 July 1946 by the representatives of 61 States (Official Records of the World Health Organization, no. 2, p. 100) and entered into force on 7 April 1948.
31. Modell B. Social and genetic implications of customary consanguineous marriage among British Pakistanis. Report of a meeting held at the Ciba Foundation on 15 January 1991. J Med Genet 2012;28:720-3.
32. Bhopal R, Petherick E, Fairley L, et al. What are the social, economic and general health costs and benefits of consanguinity? The Born in Bradford Cohort Study. Eur J Public Health 2012;22:96.