Journal of Community Health

, Volume 23, Issue 1, pp 75–83 | Cite as

Consanguineous Marriage in an Urban Area of Saudi Arabia: Rates and Adverse Health Effects on the Offspring

  • Abdulkareem A. Al-Abdulkareem
  • Seifeddin G. Ballal


The objective of this cross-sectional study was to determine the pattern and time trend of consanguineous marriage and its adverse health effects on the offspring in Dammam city, Eastern Province, in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. This city is known to attract Saudis from different parts of the coutry because it is in the heart of this industrial region. Five primary health care centers were randomly selected from different sectors of the city in addition to the city's only Maternity and Children's Hospital. For inclusion in the study a wife must have at least one pregnancy that terminated in either full term liveborn baby, still birth, or abortion. A total of 1307 ever-married Saudis completed a pre-structured questionnaire during an interview. The rate of consanguineous marriage was 52.0% with an average inbreeding coefficient of 0.0312. First-cousin marriages were the commonest (39.3%) of all matings. The consanguineous groups had a significantly higher number of pregnancies. The mean birth weight of the offspring of consanguineous couples was not statistically significant being less than that of the non-consanguineous. However, within the consanguineous groups the more closely related couples had smaller babies on average. No significant differences were noted for the rates of inherited diseases and reproductive wastage. The rate of consanguineous marriage in this city was high and so was the inbreeding coefficient. These figures place this nation among the countries with a high rate of consanguineous marriages. A nationwide study to determine accurately the relationship between consanguinity and inherited diseases has much to commend it.


Primary Health Care Adverse Health Effect Full Term Health Care Center Inbreeding Coefficient 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Abo-Bshait Y. Dammam-Khobar-Dhahran: The triplets. Al-Khafilah 1986; 35(4): 10–27.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Nurfaji M. Projection of Saudi Population by sex and age: 1975–2000. Research Center, College of Administrative Sciences. Riyadh, King Saud University, 1981.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ministry of Municipalities and Rural Affairs. Project number 204; Division of planning Affairs. 5th Report, Jan. 1979. Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sebai ZA. Health in Saudi Arabia. Vol.1, 1st edition, Riyadh, Tihama publication, 1985.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    El-Hazmi MA, Al-Swailem AR, Warsy AS, Al-Swailem AM, Sulaimani R, Al-Meshari AA. Consanguinity among Saudi Arabian population. J Med Genet 1995; 32: 623–626.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Harper PS. Practical genetic counselling. Bristol. John Wright and Sons Ltd. 1981.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bunn HF. Disorders of haemoglobin structure, functions and synthesis. In: Isselbacher KJ, Adams RD, Braunwald E, Petersdorf RG, Wilson JD, editors. Harrison's Principles of internal medicine. 9th ed. New York; McGraw-Hill Book company 1980; 1546–1554.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hafez M, El-Tahan H, Awadalla M, El-Khayat H, Abdel-Gafar A, Ghoneim M. Consanguineous matings in Egyptian population. J Med Genet 1983; 20: 58–60.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Klat M, Khudr A. Cousin marriages in Beirut, Lebanon: is the pattern changing? J Biosoc Sci 1984; 16: 369–373.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Benallengue A, Kedji F. Consanguinite et sante publique: Etude algenrienne. Arch Fr Pediatr 1984; 41: 435–440.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tuncbilek E, Koc I. Consanguineous marriage in Turkey and its impact on fertility and mortality. Ann Hum Genet 1994; 58 (Pt 4): 321–329.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Srikumari CR, Rajanikumari J, Rao TV. Variability of genetic load with changing socio-cultural environment. Hum Hered 1985; 35: 388–393.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Imaizumi Y. A recent survey of consanguineous marriages in Japan. Clin Genet 1986; 30: 230–233.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rao P, Inbaraj S. Inbreeding effects on fetal growth and development. J Med Genet 1980; 17: 27–33.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Al-Awadi SA, Moussa MA, Naguib KK. Consanguinity among the Kuwaiti population. Clin Genet 1985; 27: 483–486.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Al-Gazal LI, Dawodu AH, Sabarinathan K, Varghese M. The profile of major congenital abnormalities in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) population. J Med Genet 1995; 32: 7–13.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Klat M, Khudr A. Religious endogamy and consanguinity in marriage patterns in Beirut, Lebanon. Soc Biol 1986; 33: 138–145.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lindelius R. Effects of parental consanguinity on mortality and reproductive function. Hum Hered 1980; 30: 185–191.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pinto-Cisternas J, Zei G, Moroni A. Consanguinity in Spain, 1911–1943: general methodology, behavior of demographic variables, and regional differences. Soc Biol 1979; 26: 55–71.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Caro Dobon L, Santo Tomas Martinez J. Inbreeding in Ojeda and Pernia, 1875–1985, province of Palencia, Spain. J Biosoc Sci 1994; 26: 327–340.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lebel RR. Consanguinity studies in Wisconsin. I: secular trends in consanguineous marriage, 1843–1981. Am J Med Genet 1983;15:543–560.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Stoll C, Alembik Y, Dott B, Feingold J. Parental consanguinity: a cause of increased incidence of birth defects in a study of 131,760 consecutive births. Am J Med Genet 1994; 49: 114–117.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Reddy PH, Modell B. Consanguinity and reproductive behaviour in a tribal population 'the Baiga' in Madhya Pradesh, India. Ann Hum Biol 1995; 22: 235–246.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Basaran N, Artan S, Yazicioglu S, Sayli BS. Effects of consanguinity on anthropometric measurements of newborn infants. Clin Genet 1994; 45: 208–211.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    El-Alfi O, Bahig A, Abdel-Salam T, Shaath R. Birth weight in Kuwait, and their relation to consanguinity and to birth order. J Kwt Med Assoc 1969; 3: 227–232.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mila'at WA, Florey C du V. Perinatal mortality in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Inter J Epidemiol 1992; 21: 82–90.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zakzouk S, El-Sayed Y, Bafaqeeh SA. Consanguinity and hereditar y hearing impairment among Saudi population. Annals of Saudi Medicine 1993; 13: 447–450.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Al-Awadi SA, Naguib KK, Moussa MA, Farag TT, Teebi AS, El-Khalifa MY. The effect of consanguineous marriages on reproductive wastage. Clin Genet 1986; 29: 384–388.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Human Sciences Press, Inc. 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Abdulkareem A. Al-Abdulkareem
  • Seifeddin G. Ballal

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations