ArticleJournal of community genetics2026
Negotiating genetic risk in Indonesia: Development and psychometric evaluation of the knowledge and attitude toward consanguineous marriage instrument in a mixed-methods cross-sectional study.
Article in Journal of community genetics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundConsanguineous marriage can increase recessive genetic risks in offspring, yet instruments for examining genetic-risk understanding and attitudes remain limited in Indonesia. This study developed and evaluated a questionnaire assessing knowledge responses and attitudes toward consanguineous marriage in Kalimantan.
methodsIn a convergent mixed-methods cross-sectional survey, 272 respondents completed ten Yes/No knowledge items with written justifications and 15 Likert-type attitude statements. Knowledge responses were examined using Rasch modeling, attitude items using exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, and written explanations using thematic analysis. Yes-response totals were compared by gender using an independent-samples t-test and a two-way analysis of variance with parental consanguinity status.
resultsKnowledge items showed stable relative item locations (item reliability = 0.98) but limited respondent differentiation (person reliability = 0.39). A ten-item, one-factor attitude model showed good fit (comparative fit index = 0.988; Tucker-Lewis index = 0.984; root mean square error of approximation = 0.047) and internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.816). Women selected more Yes responses than men (7.66 vs 7.10; p = 0.015), whereas the factorial gender main effect was not significant (p = 0.954). Written explanations combined genetic-risk reasoning with beliefs about destiny, taboo, and family expectations.
conclusionThe questionnaire provides preliminary psychometric evidence in the surveyed sample. Because the knowledge section combines factual statements, self-reported awareness, preventive endorsement, and hypothetical choice, its summed score should be interpreted as "yes-response" endorsement rather than a uniform count of scientifically correct answers. Further validation across populations and settings is warranted.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.