Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A review of consanguinity in Ireland—estimation of frequency and approaches to mitigate risks

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Irish Journal of Medical Science (1971 -) Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

Over half of marriages are consanguineous in some countries, and about 10 % of children worldwide have consanguineous parents. Perceived benefits of consanguineous marriage (CM) include preservation of tradition, stronger family ties, financial advantages, and bride protection. Potential harms include autosomal recessive disorders, complex congenital malformations, stillbirths, postnatal mortality. There have been no population-based data published on frequency of CM in Ireland since 1970.

Methods

International prevalence figures and published estimates of CM were applied to 2011 Irish Census data to calculate the frequency of CM in at-risk groups. Searches of the published and grey literature were conducted to review evidence-based approaches to mitigate risks of CM and apply findings to the Irish context.

Results

The estimated number of consanguineous couples has grown in subpopulations in Ireland in the past decade, particularly among Pakistanis (>967 couples), Nigerians (418–794 couples) and Indians (54–2099 couples). There are up to 3000 consanguineous couples in the Traveller community. Evidence for approaches to mitigate associated risks supports a three-stranded approach: family-centred genetics services, training and education of healthcare professionals (HCPs), community education programmes.

Discussion

Consanguineous couples desire accurate information for reproductive decisions, but may avoid hospital-based services due to language barriers, poor understanding, stigma. Uptake of genetic counselling and carrier testing is higher if a family-centred approach is provided, ideally through home visits in the couple’s preferred language. Targeted education programmes enhance community awareness and have led to declines in CM elsewhere. Education of HCPs is necessary to clarify referral pathways, as many have exaggerated impressions of the genetic risks.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bittles A (2001) Consanguinity and its relevance to clinical genetics. Clin Genet 60:89–98

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Bittles AH, Black ML (2010) The impact of consanguinity on neonatal and infant health. Early Hum Dev 86(11):737–741

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Consanguinity/Endogamy Resource. Global prevalence of consanguinity. http://www.consang.net/index.php/Global_prevalence

  4. Bittles AH, Black ML (2010) Evolution in health and medicine Sackler colloquium: consanguinity, human evolution, and complex diseases. Proc Natl Acad Sci 107(Suppl 1):1779–1786. doi:10.1073/pnas.0906079106 (Epub 2009 Sep 23)

    Article  PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Modell B, Darr A (2002) Science and society: genetic counselling and customary consanguineous marriage. Nat Rev Genet 3(3):225–229

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Kinship Shaw A (2001) Cultural preference and immigration: consanguineous marriage among British Pakistanis. J R Anthropol Inst 7:315–334

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Darr A, Modell B (1988) The frequency of consanguineous marriage among British Pakistanis. J Med Genet 25:186–190

    Article  PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Masterson JG (1970) Consanguinity in Ireland. Hum Hered 20(4):371–382

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Central Statistics Office Ireland. Persons, males and females in the state at each census since 1841. 2006. http://census.cso.ie/Census/TableViewer/tableView.aspx?ReportId=77113

  10. Profile 6 migration and diversity—a profile of diversity in Ireland. Dublin: Central Statistics Office; 2012. http://www.cso.ie/en/census/census2011reports/census2011profile6migrationanddiversity-aprofileofdiversityinireland/

  11. Profile 7 religion, ethnicity and Irish travellers. Dublin: Central Statistics Office; 2012. http://www.cso.ie/en/census/census2011reports/census2011profile7religionethnicityandirishtravellers-ethnicandculturalbackgroundinireland/

  12. Hamamy H (2012) Consanguineous marriages. preconception consultation in primary health care settings. J Commun Genet 3:185–192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Tadmouri GO, Nair P, Obeid T, Al Ali MT, Al Khaja N, Hamamy HA (2009) Consanguinity and reproductive health among Arabs. Reprod Health 6:17

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Bittles AH (1994) The role and significance of consanguinity as a demographic variable. Popul Dev Rev 20(3):561–584

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Bhopal RS, Petherick ES, Wright J, Small N (2014) Potential social, economic and general health benefits of consanguineous marriage: results from the Born in Bradford cohort study. Eur J Publ Health 24(5):862–869. doi:10.1093/eurpub/ckt166 (Epub 2013 Nov 8)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Bennett RL, Motulsky AG, Bittles A et al (2002) Genetic counseling and screening of consanguineous couples and their offspring: recommendations of the national society of genetic counselors. J Genet Couns 11(2):97–119

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Bennett RL, Hudgins L, Smith CO, Motulsky AG (1999) Inconsistencies in genetic counseling and screening for consanguineous couples and their offspring: the need for practice guidelines. Genet Med 1(6):286–292

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Bittles AH (2012) Consanguinity in context. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  19. Farrell P, Joffel S, Foley L, Canny GJ, Mayne P, Rosenberg M (2007) Diagnosis of cystic fibrosis in the Republic of Ireland. Ir Med J 100(8):557–560

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Devaney J, Glennon M, Farrell G (2003) Cystic fibrosis mutation frequencies in an Irish population. Clin Genet 63(2):121–125

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. A practical guide to newborn bloodspot screening in Ireland. National Newborn Bloodspot Screening Laboratory. Dublin: Health Services Executive; 2011. http://www.hse.ie/eng/health/child/newbornscreening/newbornbloodspotscreening/PracticalGuide.pdf

  22. Coombe Women and Infants University Hospital. Annual Clinical Report 2009. Dublin: 2010. http://www.lenus.ie/hse/bitstream/10147/295992/1/Coombe2009AnnualClinicalReport.pdf

  23. McMahon C (2003) Haemoglobinopathy in Ireland: the changing face of Irish medicine. Ir Med J 96(1):6–7

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Allen NM, Ni Riain M, Murray M, Hession M, Gaffney G (2005) Screening for haemoglobinopathy—a comparison of two methods in an Irish maternity unit. Ir Med J 98(9):276–278

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Sheridan E, Wright J, Small N et al (2013) Risk factors for congenital anomaly in a multiethnic birth cohort: an analysis of the Born in Bradford study. Lancet 382(9901):1350–1359

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Stoll C, Alembik Y, Roth MP, Dott B (1999) Parental consanguinity as a cause for increased incidence of birth defects in a study of 238,942 consecutive births. Ann Genet 42(3):133–139

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Stoltenberg C, Magnus P, Skrondal A, Lie RT (1999) Consanguinity and recurrence risk of stillbirth and infant death. Am J Publ Health 89(4):517–523

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Strømme P, Suren P, Kanavin OJ et al (2010) Parental consanguinity is associated with a seven-fold increased risk of progressive encephalopathy: a cohort study from Oslo, Norway. Eur J Paediatr Neurol 14(2):138–145

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. A community genetics approach to health and consanguineous marriage in the Irish Traveller community. A position paper produced by the Traveller consanguinity working group. Dublin: 2003

  30. Becker R, Keller T, Wegner RD, Neitzel H, Stumm M, Knoll U et al (2015) Consanguinity and pregnancy outcomes in a multi-ethnic, metropolitan European population. Prenat Diagn 35(1):81–89. doi:10.1002/pd.4487 (Epub 2014 Sep 30)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Alwan AA, Modell B (1997) Community control of genetic and congenital disorders. EMRO Technical Publication Series 24. Alexandria, Egypt: World Health Organization Regional Office for the Eastern Mediterranean Region; 1997. http://applications.emro.who.int/dsaf/dsa21.pdf

  32. Mail Online News. ‘Bradford is very inbred’: Muslim outrage as professor warns first-cousin marriages increase risk of birth defects. 30 May 2011. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1392217/Muslim-outrage-professor-Steve-Jones-warns-inbreeding-risks.html

  33. BBC News. Birth defect warning sparks row. 10 February 2008. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7237663.stm

  34. Flynn M (1986) Mortality, morbidity and marital features of travellers in the Irish Midlands. Ir Med J 79(11):308–310

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Barry J, Kirke P (1997) Congenital anomalies in the Irish traveller community. Ir Med J 90(6):233–234

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Green A, Lynch SA (2006) Health of the world’s Roma population. Lancet 368(9535):575

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. O’Connell S, Butler K, McMenamin J, Waldron M, Green AJ (2005) Genetic conditions in the Irish Roma gypsy population. Ir Med J 98(10):246–247

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Salway S, Ratcliffe G, Ali P, Bibi S. Responding to increased genetic risk associated with consanguineous marriage: a formative review of current service approaches in England. CLAHRC (SY) Inequalities Theme & Genetics Theme. NIHR CLAHRC for South Yorkshire; March 2012

  39. Khan N, Benson J, Macleod R, Kingston H (2010) Developing and evaluating a culturally appropriate genetic service for consanguineous South Asian families. J Commun Genet 1(2):73–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Ali N. The role of attitudes and beliefs in accessing services: a case study of consanguinity in the Pakistani community. University of Befordshire. National Institute for Health Research

  41. Darr A, Small N, Ahmad WI, Atkin K, Corry P, Benson J et al (2013) Examining the family-centred approach to genetic testing and counselling among UK Pakistanis: a community perspective. J Commun Genet 4(1):49–57

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. PHG Foundation. HNA Toolkit. Congenital disorders. Supporting documents to the PHG Foundation toolkit for assessing health needs in relation to congenital disorders. Version 1.1. Cambridge: PHG Foundation; September 2013. http://toolkit.bornhealthy.org/support.pdf

  43. Shaw A (2008) “What is this genetics, anyway?”: understandings of genetics, illness causality and inheritance among British Pakistani users of genetic services. J Genet Couns 17(4):373–383

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Ioannou L, Massie J, Lewis S, McClaren B, Collins V, Delatycki MB (2014) ‘No thanks’—reasons why pregnant women declined an offer of cystic fibrosis carrier screening. J Commun Genet 5(2):109–117

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Loader S, Caldwell P, Kozyra A, Levenkron JC, Boehm CD, Kazazian HH et al (1996) Cystic fibrosis carrier population screening in the primary care setting. Am J Hum Genet 59(1):234–247

    PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Al-Arrayed S, Hamamy H (2012) The changing profile of consanguinity rates in Bahrain, 1990–2009. J Biosoc Sci 44(3):313–319

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Ajaz M, Ali N, Randhawa G (2015) UK Pakistani views on the adverse health risks associated with consanguineous marriages. J Commun Genet 6(4):331–342. doi:10.1007/s12687-015-0214-8 (Epub 2015 Feb 6)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Saleh MT, Barlow-Stewart KK (2005) Genetics education in a culturally diverse population—lessons learnt, future directions. Ann Hum Biol 32(2):211–217

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Shaw A, Ahmed M (2004) Translating genetics leaflets into languages other than English: lessons from an assessment of Urdu materials. J Genet Couns 13(4):321–342

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Teeuw ME, Hagelaar A, Ten Kate LP, Cornel MC, Henneman L (2012) Challenges in the care for consanguineous couples: an exploratory interview study among general practitioners and midwives. BMC Fam Pract 26(13):105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Challen K, Harris HJ, Julian-Reynier C, Ten Kate LP, Kristoffersson U, Nippert I et al (2005) Genetic education and nongenetic health professionals: educational providers and curricula in Europe. Genet Med 7(5):302–310

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Al-Gazali L, Hamamy H, Al-Arrayad S (2006) Genetic disorders in the Arab world. BMJ 333(7573):831–834

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Mathers J, Greenfield S, Metcalfe A, Cole T, Flanagan S, Wilson S (2010) Family history in primary care: understanding GPs’ resistance to clinical genetics—qualitative study. Br J Gen Pract 60(574):e221–e230

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. All Ireland traveller health study. Our geels. Summary of findings. Dublin: University College Dublin; September 2010. http://www.dohc.ie/publications/aiths2010/ExecutiveSummary/AITHS2010_SUMMARY_LR_All.pdf?direct=1

  55. Murphy JF (2006) Communicating with patients when English is not their first language. Ir Med J 99(8):228

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Guidelines for primary healthcare professionals. genetic testing & risk assessment of rare disorders. Dublin: National Centre for Medical Genetics; 2013. http://www.ucd.ie/t4cms/Rare%20Disease%20Handbook%20FINAL%20WEB.pdf

  57. Too little, too late? Why Europe should do more for preterm infants. Ireland. EU Benchmarking report 2009–2010. European Foundation for the Care of Newborn Infants; 2011. http://www.efcni.org/fileadmin/Daten/Web/Brochures_Reports_Factsheets_Position_Papers/benchmarking_report/EFCNI_ireland_light.pdf_copyright.pdf

  58. Irish Family Planning Association. Sexuality, information, reproductive health & rights. Statistics. http://www.ifpa.ie/Hot-Topics/Abortion/Statistics

  59. Cathechism of the Catholic Church. Part three life in Christ. Section two the ten commandments. Chapter two “You shall love your neighbour as yourself”. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm

  60. Congregation for the doctrine of the faith. Instruction dignitas personae. On certain bioethical questions. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20081208_dignitas-personae_en.html#_ftn42

  61. Irish Travellers and Roma. Shadow report. A reponse to Ireland’s third and fourth report on the international convention on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination (CERD). Dublin: Pavee Point; January 2011. http://www.paveepoint.ie/tempsite3/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Final-CERD-Shadow-Report.pdf

  62. Alkuraya FS, Kilani RA (2001) Attitude of Saudi families affected with hemoglobinopathies towards prenatal screening and abortion and the influence of religious ruling (Fatwa). Prenat Diagn 21(6):448–451

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. National Centre for Medical Genetics. Clinical genetics division. Inadequate staffing levels. http://www.genetics.ie/clinical/inadequate-staffing-levels/

  64. Lynch SA, Casey J, Ward A. Educating the gatekeepers. Irish medical times. 31 October 2013. http://www.imt.ie/clinical/2013/10/educating-the-gatekeepers.html

  65. Altshuler L, Kachur E, Krinshpun S, Sullivan D (2008) Genetics objective structured clinical exams at the maimonides infants & children’s hospital of Brooklyn. NY Acad Med 83(11):1088–1093

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. McGovern MM, Johnston M, Brown K, Zinberg R, Cohen D (2006) Use of standardized patients in undergraduate medical genetics education. Teach Learn Med 18(3):203–207

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The author wishes to thanks Dr. Nita Forouhi for input at various stages in the preparation of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Public Health, East of England Specialist Registrar Training Programme in Public Health Medicine, Forvie Site, Robinson Way, Cambridge, CB2 0SR, UK

    P. Barrett

Authors
  1. P. Barrett
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to P. Barrett.

Ethics declarations

This research did not directly involve human participants and did not require informed consent.

Funding

There was no funding received for this work.

Conflict of interest

The author declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Barrett, P. A review of consanguinity in Ireland—estimation of frequency and approaches to mitigate risks. Ir J Med Sci 185, 17–28 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11845-015-1370-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11845-015-1370-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation