Predictors [M1] <strong>[2t2]</strong> of Consanguinity Marriage Decision in Saudi Arabia: A Pilot Study [M1] [M1]The Article Title is different from the one submitted online at susy.mdpi.com., Please confirm the correct title [2t2]Based on the reviewer recommendation the title was changed for the online submitted version to : <strong>Predictors of Consanguinity Marriage Decision in Saudi </strong> <strong> Arabia: A Pilot Study</strong>.xlsx

2.1. Study Design A pilot study was conducted among university students in Saudi Arabia to gather information over a three-month period, from January 22, 2022, to April 22, 2022. The data was collected through an online questionnaire that participants completed on their own. 2.2. Population and Inclusion Criteria The study focused on unmarried Saudi university students. 2.3. Research Instruments and Tools of the Study The research utilized a questionnaire consisting of 60 questions. Questionnaires were chosen as they are a cost-effective and efficient method for collecting data from a large number of participants, allowing for standardized data collection. The knowledge and perceived threat questions were based on two previous tools, with nine questions adapted from Miri-Moghaddam et al. [17] and three questions from Al-ghubishi et al. [18]. The researchers modified and added questions to tailor them to the target population. The questionnaire comprised five sections: Section 1: This section included ten sociodemographic questions covering nationality, age, gender, marital status, academic status, academic level, type of university, specialty, type of residence, and residential area. Section 2: This section contained 32 questions assessing knowledge about genetic blood disorders. Correct answers were assigned a value of 1, while incorrect answers were assigned a value of 0. The maximum possible score was 32. The median score, 9, was used as the cutoff point. Scores of 9 or higher were considered indicative of good knowledge, while scores below 9 indicated poor knowledge. Section 3: This section comprised six questions examining perceived threats associated with genetic blood disorders. Participants responded to the questions using a 3-point Likert scale, resulting in a maximum score of 18. The cutoff points for scoring were determined at the first and third quartiles. Scores equal to or below 10 were categorized as low perceived threats, scores of 11–14 indicated moderate perceived threats, and scores of 15 or above suggested high perceived threats. Section 4: This section consisted of two questions measuring attitudes using a 3-point Likert scale. The total possible score was 6. The cutoff points were determined at the first and third quartiles. Attitudes were classified as poor (score of 4 or below), moderate (score of 5), or good (score of 6). Poor attitudes represented participants who supported or preferred consanguineous marriage, while good attitudes indicated participants who opposed consanguineous marriage and did not support it. Section 5: This section included two questions evaluating norms using a 3-point Likert scale. The total possible score was 6. The cutoff points were determined at the first and third quartiles. A total norm score of 4 or below was considered poor, 5 indicated moderate norms, and 6 represented good norms. Poor norms referred to participants who supported or preferred consanguineous marriage, while good norms indicated participants who opposed consanguineous marriage and did not support it. Additionally, poor indicated a participant's perception of their family's attitude supporting consanguineous marriage, while good indicated a participant's perception of their family's attitude opposing consanguineous marriage and not supporting it. Lastly, a multiple-choice question was included regarding participants' intended marriage decision when a couple's premarital examination did not match. The available answer choices were categorized as follows: 3 for a good decision, 2 for neutrality, and 1 for a poor decision. Participants who chose 'poor' indicated a willingness to continue the marriage regardless of the premarital screening result, while those who selected 'good' indicated an intention to seek genetic counseling to make an informed decision. 'Neutral' represented participants who were undecided about their future2.1 研究设计 本研究于2022年1月22日至2022年4月22日的三个月周期内，针对沙特阿拉伯的大学生开展了一项先导性研究，以收集相关数据。数据通过在线问卷的形式由参与者自行完成填写。 2.2 研究对象与纳入标准 本研究聚焦于未婚的沙特籍大学生群体。 2.3 研究工具与研究方法 本研究采用一份包含60个题项的问卷开展数据收集。选择问卷形式的原因在于其兼具成本效益与高效性，可面向大量参与者开展标准化的数据采集工作。 本研究中涉及知识与感知威胁的题项基于两项既往研究工具改编而成，其中9个题项改编自Miri-Moghaddam等人[17]的研究，另有3个题项改编自Al-ghubishi等人[18]的研究。研究者对题项进行了调整与补充，以适配本次研究的目标人群。 该问卷共包含五个模块： 模块1：该模块包含10道社会人口学问项，涵盖国籍、年龄、性别、婚姻状况、学业身份、学历层次、院校类型、所学专业、居住类型以及居住区域。 模块2：包含32道用于评估遗传血液疾病相关知识的题项。题项计分规则为：回答正确得1分，回答错误得0分，最高得分为32分。以中位数9分作为分界阈值：得分≥9分判定为知识水平良好，得分<9分则判定为知识水平欠佳。 模块3：包含6道用于考察对遗传血液疾病感知威胁程度的题项。参与者采用3级李克特（Likert）量表进行作答，该模块最高得分为18分。分界阈值基于第一四分位数与第三四分位数确定：得分≤10分归类为感知威胁程度较低，11~14分归类为感知威胁程度中等，≥15分则归类为感知威胁程度较高。 模块4：包含2道用于测量态度的题项，采用3级李克特（Likert）量表进行评分，该模块最高总分为6分。分界阈值同样基于第一四分位数与第三四分位数确定：得分≤4分判定为态度欠佳，5分判定为态度中等，6分判定为态度良好。其中，态度欠佳指参与者支持或倾向于近亲结婚（consanguineous marriage），态度良好则指参与者反对且不支持近亲结婚。 模块5：包含2道用于评估规范认知的题项，采用3级李克特（Likert）量表进行评分，该模块最高总分为6分。分界阈值基于第一四分位数与第三四分位数确定：总得分≤4分判定为规范认知欠佳，5分判定为规范认知中等，6分判定为规范认知良好。规范认知欠佳指参与者感知到自身家庭支持近亲结婚的态度，规范认知良好则指参与者感知到自身家庭反对且不支持近亲结婚的态度。 此外，问卷中增设了一道多项选择题，用于考察当伴侣双方婚前检查结果不匹配时，参与者的婚恋决策意向。该题的计分规则为：选择优质决策选项得3分，选择中立选项得2分，选择劣质决策选项得1分。选择劣质决策的参与者表示无论婚前筛查结果如何，均愿意继续这段婚姻；选择优质决策的参与者则表示会寻求遗传咨询以做出理性决策；选择中立选项的参与者则表示对未来尚未确定。