Top

BMC Women's Health

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Research article

Reproductive choices: a qualitative study of Dutch Moroccan and Turkish consanguineously married women’s perspectives on preconception carrier screening

Authors: Petra Verdonk, Suzanne Metselaar, Oka Storms, Edien Bartels

Published in: BMC Women's Health | Issue 1/2018

Abstract

Background

Cousin marriages, in the Netherlands most frequently between Turkish or Moroccan couples, are at higher risk of having offspring with recessive disorders. Often, these couples not perceive or accept this risk, and it is hardly considered a reason to refrain from family marriages. Preconception carrier screening (PCS) is offered to Jewish groups, and more recently in the Netherlands, to genetically isolated communities. In this study, Dutch Moroccan and Turkish women’s perspectives on preconception carrier screening (PCS) and reproductive choices were explored.

Methods

Individual interviews were held with Dutch Turkish and Moroccan consanguineously married women (n = 10) and seven group discussions with Turkish and Moroccan women (n = 86). Transcripts and notes were analyzed thematically.

Results

All women welcomed PCS particularly for premarital genetic screening; regardless of possible reproductive choices, they prefer information about their future child’s health. Their perspectives on reproductive choices on the basis of screening results are diverse: refraining from having children is not an option, in vitro fertilization (IVF) combined with pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) was welcomed, while prenatal genetic diagnosis (PND), termination of pregnancy (TOP), in vitro fertilization with a donor egg cell, artificial insemination with donor sperm (AID), and adoption, were generally found to be unacceptable. Besides, not taking any special measures and preparing for the possibility of having a disabled child are also becoming optional now rather than being the default option.

Conclusions

The women’s preference for PCS for premarital screening as well as their outspokenness about not marrying or even divorcing when both partners appear to be carriers is striking. Raising awareness (of consanguinity, PCS and the choice for reproductive options), and providing information, screening and counseling sensitive to this target group and their preferences are essential in the provision of effective health care.

Holtkamp KCA, Van Maarle MC, Schouten MJE, Dondorp WJ, Lakeman P, Henneman L. Do people from the Jewish community prefer ancestry-based or pan-ethnic expanded carrier screening? Eur J Hum Genet. 2016;24:171–7. 1018–4813/16.CrossRefPubMed

Mathijssen IB, Henneman L, Van Eeten-Nijman JMC, Lakeman P, Ottenheim CPE, Redeker EJW, Ottenhof W, Meijers-Heijboer H, Van Maarle M. Targeted carrier screening for four recessive disorders: High detection rate within a founder population. Eur J Med Genet. 2015;58:123–128. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emjg.2015.01.004.

Teeuw M E. Addressing reproductive risk in consanguineous couples. PhD-thesis Amsterdam: VU University Medical Center; 2015.

Hamamy H. Consanguineous marriages. Preconception consultation in primary health care settings. J Community Genet. 2011;3(3):185–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12687-011-0072-y. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Van Berkel D, Klinge I. Gene Technology: also a gender issue. Views of Dutch Informed Women on Genetic Screening and Gene Therapy Patient Educ Couns. 1997;31(1):49–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0738-3991(97)01007-0.PubMedCrossRef

Storms O, Bartels E. “Notre Huile est dans Notre Farine”: An Exploration into the Meaning of Consanguinity in Northern Morocco against the Backdrop of the Medical Risk of Disabled Offspring.” In Vroom H, Verdonk P,. Aulad Abdellah M, Cornel MC, editors. Looking Beneath the Surface. Amsterdam and New York: Rodopi; 2013, p. 85–101.

Bittles AH, Black ML. “Consanguinity, Human Evolution, and Complex Diseases.” PNAS 2010;10 (107):S1779–S1786. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0914475107.

Storm E, Bartels E. Changing patterns of partner choice? Cousin marriages among Turks and Moroccans in the Netherlands. In: Shaw A, Raz A, editors. Cousin marriages between tradition, genetic risk and cultural change. Oxford, Berghahn books; 2015. p. 154–72.

Kilshaw S, Al Raisi T, Alshaban F. Arranging marriage; negotiating risk: genetics and society in Qatar. Anthrop Med. 2015;22(2):98–113. https://doi.org/10.1080/13648470.2014.976542.

10.

Giordano PC, Dihal AA, Harteveld CL. Estimating the attitude of immigrants toward primary prevention of the Hemoglobinopathies. Prenat Diagn. 2005;25(10):885–93. https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.1206.CrossRefPubMed

11.

Van der Pal SM, Van Kesteren NMC, Van Dommelen P, Detmar SB. Deelnamebereidheid Dragerschapscreening op Hemoglobinopathieën onder Hoogrisicogroepen. [Preparedness to Participate in Carrier Screening for Hemoglobinopathies in high Risk Groups.] Leiden, TNO Kwaliteit van Leven; 2009.

12.

Statistics Netherlands, “Jaarrapport Integratie.” [Year report Integration] Den Haag, Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek, 2010. Accessed 7 Mar 2012. from https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/publicatie/2010/47/jaarrapport-integratie-2010.

13.

Van Agtmaal-Wobma E. Einde aan Daling Migratiehuwelijken. (End of Decrease in Migration Marriages.) Den Haag, Statistics Netherlands. Den Haag, Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek, 2009. Accessed: 21 Aug 2012. https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/nieuws/2009/45/einde-aan-daling-migratiehuwelijken.

14.

Waelput AJM, Achterberg P. Kinderwens van Consanguïne Ouders: Risico’s en Erfelijkheidsvoorlichting. [Desire to have Children among Consanguineous Parents: Risks and Genetic Counseling.] Bilthoven: RijksInstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu; 2007. Accessed 26 Aug 2012. https://www.rivm.nl/dsresource?objectid=639e5399-ea98-414d-8b20-903e998abc52&type=org&disposition=inline.

15.

Jans SMPJ, Van El CG, Houwaart ES, Westerman MJ, Janssens RJ, Lagro-Janssen AL, Plass AM, Cornel MC. A case study of Haemoglobinopathy screening in the Netherlands: witnessing the past, lessons for the future. Ethn Health. 2012;17(3):217–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/13557858.2011.604126.CrossRefPubMed

16.

Cousens NE, Gaff CL, Metcalfe SA, Delatycki MB. Carrier screening for Beta-Thalassaemia: a review of international practice. Eur J Hum Genet. 2010;18(10):1077–83. https://doi.org/10.1038/ejhg.2010.90.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

17.

De Wert MWR, Dondorp WJ, Knoppers BM. Preconception Care and Genetic risk: Ethical issues. J Community Genet. 2012;3:221–8. https://doi.org/10.1159/issn.1662-4246.CrossRefPubMed

18.

Van Elderen T, Mutlu D, Karstanje J, Passchier J, Tibben D, Duivenvoorden HJ. Turkish Female Immigrants’ Intentions to Participate in Preconception Carrier Screening for Hemoglobinopathies in the Netherlands: An Empirical Study. Public Health Genomics. 2010;13(7–8):415–23. https://doi.org/10.1159/000314643. CrossRefPubMed

19.

Sleeboom-Faulkner M. 2011. “Frameworks of Choice. The Ramification of Predictive and Genet Test in Asia.” In Sleeboom-Faulkner M, editor. Frameworks of choice. Predictive and Genet Test in Asia Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press; 2011, p.11–26.

20.

Verdonk P, Klinge I. Framing cancer risk in women and men. Gender and the translation of genome-based risk factors for cancer to public health. In Horstman K, Huijer M, Buchheim E, Bultman S, Groot M, Jonker E, Müller-Schirmer A, Walhout E, Van der Zande H, Townend G, editors. Gender & Genes. Yearbook of Women’s History 33. Amsterdam/Hilversum: Verloren Publishers; 2013, pp. 53–70.

21.

Mackenzie C. Relational autonomy, normative authority and perfectionism. J Soc Philos. 2008;39(4):512–33. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9833.2008.00440.x.CrossRef

22.

Storms O, Bartels E. De keuze van een huwelijkspartner. Een studie naar partnerkeuze onder groepen Amsterdammers. [The choice of a marriage partner. A study on partnerchoice among Amsterdam groups]. Report. Amsterdam, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, dpt. Sociale en Culturele Antropologie 2008. [VU University, Department of Social and Cult Anthropol] from: https://fsw.vu.nl/nl/Images/huwelijkenamsterdam_Spdf_tcm249-60514.pdf.

23.

Green JN, Thorogood N. Qualitative Methods For Health Research. Los Angeles: Sage; 2014.

24.

Bartels A, Loukili G. 2012. “Testing isn’t the Problem.” Views of Muslim theologians, spiritual counselors, Imams and physicians on preconceptional testing. Medische Antropologie, Tijdschrift voor gezondheid en cultuur (Med Anthropol. J Health Culture). 2012;24 (12):321–332. Accessed January 20, 2013. http://tma.socsci.uva.nl/24_2/bartels_loukili.pdf.

25.

Ahmed S, Green JM, Hewison J. Attitudes towards prenatal diagnosis and termination of pregnancy for Thalassaemia in pregnant Pakistani women in the north of England. Prenat Diagn. 2006;26(3):248–57. https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.1391.CrossRefPubMed

26.

Shaw A. They say Islam has a solution for everything, so why are there no guidelines for this?’ Ethical dilemmas associated with the births and deaths of infants with fatal abnormalities from a small sample of Pakistani Muslim couples in Britain. Bioethics. 2012;26(9):485–92. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8519.2011.01883.x.CrossRefPubMed

27.

Sandelowski M, Corson Jones L. Healing fictions: Stories of Choosing in the Aftermath of the Detection of Fetal Anomalies. Soc Sci Med. 1996;42(3):353–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/0277-9536(95)00102%2D6.CrossRefPubMed

28.

Stephens M, Jordens CFC, Kerridge IH, Ankeny RA. Religious perspectives on abortion and a secular response. J Relig Health. 2011;49(4):513–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10943-009-9273-7.CrossRef

29.

Shaw A, Hurst JA.2008. What is this genetics, anyway? Understandings of genetics, illness causality and inheritance among British Pakistani users of genetic services. J Genet Couns 2008;17(4):373–383. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-008-9156-1.

30.

Shaw A, Hurst JA. ‘I don’t see any point in telling them’: attitudes to sharing genetic information in the family and carrier testing of relatives among British Pakistani adults referred to a genetics clinic. Ethn Health. 2009;14(2):205–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/13557850802071140.CrossRefPubMed

31.

Frumkin A, Raz AE, Plesser-Duvdevani M, Lieberman S. “The most important test you’ll ever take?”: attitudes towards confidential carrier matching and open individual testing among modern-religious Jews in Israel. Soc Sci Med. 2011;73(12):1741–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.09.031.CrossRefPubMed

32.

Neter E, Wolowelsky Y, Borochowitz ZU. Attitudes of Israeli Muslims at Risk of Genetic Disorders towards Pregnancy Termination. Community Genet. 2005;8(2):88–93. https://doi.org/10.1159/000084776.CrossRefPubMed

33.

Khan N, Benson J, MacLeod R, Kingston H. Developing and evaluating a culturally appropriate genetic Service for Consanguineous South Asian families. J Community Genet. 2010;1(2):73–81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12687-010-0012-2.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

34.

Hinton CF, Grant AM, Grosse SD. Ethical implications and practical considerations of ethnically targeted screening for genetic disorders: the case of Hemoglobinopathy screening. Ethn Health. 2011;16(4–5):377–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/13557858.2010.541902.CrossRefPubMed

35.

Raz AE, Vizner Y. Carrier matching and collective socialization in community genetics: dor Yeshorim and the reinforcement of stigma. Soc Sci Med. 2008;67(9):1361–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.07.011.CrossRefPubMed

36.

De Koning M, Storms O, Bartels E. Legal “ban” on transnational cousin marriage: citizen debate in the Netherlands. Transnat Soc Rev 2014;4(2–3):226–241. https://doi.org/10.1080/21931674.2012.1082011.

Title: Reproductive choices: a qualitative study of Dutch Moroccan and Turkish consanguineously married women’s perspectives on preconception carrier screening
Authors: Petra Verdonk
Suzanne Metselaar
Oka Storms
Edien Bartels
Publication date: 01-12-2018
Publisher: BioMed Central
Published in: BMC Women's Health / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6874
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12905-018-0574-4

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

Springer Medicine

Reproductive choices: a qualitative study of Dutch Moroccan and Turkish consanguineously married women’s perspectives on preconception carrier screening

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

“Self-development matters” - Perception of Sakhis (CHWs) assessing self-development outcomes of their participation in the HBNC Program

Colposcopy telemedicine: live versus static swede score and accuracy in detecting CIN2+, a cross-sectional pilot study

‘Doing hymen reconstruction’: an analysis of perceptions and experiences of Flemish gynaecologists

What women say about their dysmenorrhea: a qualitative thematic analysis

Sexual initiation and associated factors among young women in West Shoa, Ambo Town, Ethiopia: a community-based cross-sectional study

Unequal power relations and partner violence against women in Tanzania: a cross-sectional analysis