Loading...
Loading...
African Journal of Health, Nursing and Midwifery
Vol. 9Issue 22026pp. 94–107Published 2 June 2026
DOI 10.52589/AJHNM-IAJ7DPQRShare Link
Cite this
Citation unavailable for this article.
Abstract:
Genetic disease such as sickle cell disease is more prevalent in developing countries like Nigeria. Premarital genotype screening represents a crucial preventive health measure against sickle cell disease, yet its uptake remains influenced by multiple factors among young adult populations in affected countries. This study assessed the knowledge and attitude toward premarital genotype screening among students of Federal Polytechnic, Ilaro. A descriptive cross-sectional design was adopted in this study. A sample size of 266 students were selected using multi-stage sampling technique. Data were collected using validated questionnaires. Data were analyzed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences version 20, and the results were presented in cross tabulation, frequency and percentage. The study revealed that 91.4% of students were aware of premarital genotype screening, though significant knowledge gaps existed as only 82.7% knew their own genotype, with 8.6% having misconceptions about screening purposes. While attitudes were largely positive (82.3% supported screening, 92.5% would encourage others), a noticeable attitude-behavior gap emerged as only 60.9% would end a relationship based on incompatible results. Key promoting factors included media campaigns (75.9%), personal exposure to genetic disorders (84.2%), and educational awareness (90.6%). Major barriers included cost (71.1%), lack of access to facilities (40.6%), fear of negative results (63.5%), and cultural influences (57.1%). The study concluded that students demonstrated moderate knowledge and positive attitudes toward genotype screening, but substantial barriers related to cost, access, and psychological concerns hinder practical implementation. The study recommends comprehensive education programs, affordable on-campus testing facilities, counseling services, and policy interventions to improve screening uptake and reduce genetic disorder risks among the student population.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note
The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the author(s) and contributor(s) and not of AB Journals or its editors. AB Journals remains neutral and accepts no responsibility for any injury or damage resulting from ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Copyrights