<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!DOCTYPE article  PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing DTD v3.0 20080202//EN" "http://dtd.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/3.0/journalpublishing3.dtd"><article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" dtd-version="3.0" xml:lang="en" article-type="research article"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">OJPM</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title>Open Journal of Preventive Medicine</journal-title></journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">2162-2477</issn><publisher><publisher-name>Scientific Research Publishing</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.4236/ojpm.2015.56033</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">OJPM-57616</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>Articles</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="Discipline-v2"><subject>Medicine&amp;Healthcare</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>
 
 
  Sickle Cell Gene Transmission: Do Public Servants in Tamale, Ghana Have the Right Knowledge and Attitude to Curb It?
 
</article-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>vans</surname><given-names>Paul Kwame Ameade</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref><xref ref-type="corresp" rid="cor1"><sup>*</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Baba</surname><given-names>Sulemana Mohammed</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Gideon</surname><given-names>Kofi Helegbe</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Sualisu</surname><given-names>Yakubu</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"><sup>2</sup></xref></contrib></contrib-group><aff id="aff1"><addr-line>Department of Human Biology, School of Medicine and Health Sciences, University for Development Studies, Tamale, Ghana</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff2"><addr-line>Savelugu District Hospital, Savelugu, Ghana</addr-line></aff><author-notes><corresp id="cor1">* E-mail:<email>sokpesh@yahoo.com(VPKA)</email>;</corresp></author-notes><pub-date pub-type="epub"><day>04</day><month>06</month><year>2015</year></pub-date><volume>05</volume><issue>06</issue><fpage>299</fpage><lpage>308</lpage><history><date date-type="received"><day>31</day>	<month>January</month>	<year>2015</year></date><date date-type="rev-recd"><day>accepted</day>	<month>27</month>	<year>June</year>	</date><date date-type="accepted"><day>30</day>	<month>June</month>	<year>2015</year></date></history><permissions><copyright-statement>&#169; Copyright  2014 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc. </copyright-statement><copyright-year>2014</copyright-year><license><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</license-p></license></permissions><abstract><p>
 
 
  Introduction: Sickle cell disease (SCD) is exerting enormous public health and economic burden on many countries. To reduce these effects, the World Health Organization is urging countries, especially those in Africa, to increase public awareness of this disease. This study accessed whether public servants in Tamale, Ghana possess adequate knowledge and positive attitude towards SCD. Method: A total of 320 public servants within the Tamale Metropolis were invited to complete a questionnaire in a cross-sectional study. Data were analyzed using GraphPad 5.01. Association between different variables was tested. Results: The media was the main source of information for a majority of the 94.2% of respondents who had ever heard of SCD. Knowledge of respondents on transmission and testing of SCD was above 70% but they recorded less than 40% in SCD’s incurability, prevalence, effect of SCD on life span and pregnancy. The mean knowledge score of respondents was (11.1 &#177; 5.11)/22 or 50.7%. Only about a quarter knew their sickling status or that of their spouses before marriage or first child. Although 78.0% of respondents would call off marriages if they became aware of genetic incompatibility, the overall mean attitude, (2.857 &#177; 1.97)/ 7.0% or 40.8% was poor. There was a positive and significant correlation between the knowledge of respondents and their attitude towards SCD (r = 0.494, p &lt; 0.0001) hence respondents working in the health sector and those with tertiary level education had better attitudes towards SCD. Conclusion: Public servants in Ghana have moderate knowledge of SCD but their attitude towards the disease was poor. Public servants least considered genetic incompatibility before entering conjugal relationships. This poor attitude means the campaign for the reduction of sickle cell gene transmission must be intensified. Governments need to increase their investment on educational campaigns aimed at changing attitude of persons through provision of more knowledge about SCD.
 
</p></abstract><kwd-group><kwd>Sickle Cell Disease</kwd><kwd> Public Servants</kwd><kwd> Knowledge</kwd><kwd> Attitude</kwd><kwd> Tamale</kwd></kwd-group></article-meta></front><body><sec id="s1"><title>1. Introduction</title><p>The human red blood cells are very important components of the human circulatory system necessary for the exchange of gases in the body and it is when these cells undergo structural changes leading to their malfunctioning that Sickle Cell Disease (SCD) may occur [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57616-ref1">1</xref>] . SCD is a hereditary condition of several different variants with the most common type being Haemoglobin S (Hb S) which is different from the normal haemoglobin usually designated as Hb A. In Hb S, glutamic acid, an amino acid situated at the sixth position of the beta globin chain in the normal haemoglobin molecule is substituted by valine [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57616-ref2">2</xref>] . Individuals with two Hb S genes suffer a chronic blood disorder referred to as Sickle Cell Anaemia [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57616-ref2">2</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57616-ref3">3</xref>] . Persons who carry one normal gene and one Hb S gene are said to have the sickle cell trait (SCT) and referred to as carriers are usually asymptomatic and unaware of their genetic makeup [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57616-ref4">4</xref>] . Clinical manifestations in persons with SCD crises include arthralgia, anorexia, fatigue, splenomegaly as well as destructive and painful bone and joint problems [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57616-ref2">2</xref>] . The World Health Organization estimated that 5.2% of the world’s population and more than 7% of pregnant women present variants of SCD of which 40% is the Hb S type [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57616-ref5">5</xref>] . Also, a screening of newborns in Ghana revealed that 1.9% of them had at least one Hb S gene [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57616-ref6">6</xref>] . Socioeconomic impact of SCD on affected persons, families, communities and nations is enormous since recurrent sickle cell crises adversely affects the patient’s life, in relation to education, work and psychosocial development. For instance, the management of a sickle cell patient in a hospital in the Democratic Republic of Congo cost US $1000, an amount way beyond the income of majority of Africans [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57616-ref5">5</xref>] . There is currently no cure for SCD hence experts have suggested various strategies to control this disease which include among others, prenatal diagnosis (PND), selective abortion, preconception/premarital genetic testing and counselling, education for SCT parents as well as a holistic management of persons with SCD [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57616-ref5">5</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57616-ref6">6</xref>] . Although there are no figures on the comparative cost analysis on the management of SCD in Ghana, for developing countries, preconception genetic screening and counselling seems the cheapest option [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57616-ref6">6</xref>] . This suggestion is emphasized by the SCD strategy for the WHO African Region which seeks to increase individual and community awareness about SCD and strengthen primary prevention, reduce disease incidence, morbidity and mortality and improve quality of life [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57616-ref5">5</xref>] . For persons to readily opt to undergo genetic screening and counseling, they must in the first place possess good knowledge of SCD and its effects which will enable them appreciate the full consequences of having children who may suffer SCD [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57616-ref7">7</xref>] . It is reported that about 30% or 5 million out of the total of about 25 million Ghanaians carry the Sickle Cell Trait [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57616-ref8">8</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57616-ref9">9</xref>] . This is a significant number who must be provided with enough information to make the most desirable choices in relation to conception and marriage, so as to reduce future transmission and hence incidence of SCD. Although some studies have been conducted in several countries that measured the awareness and knowledge on SCD among sections of their population, there is no literature on such a study in Ghana. This study therefore assessed the knowledge level and attitude towards SCD among married public servants in Tamale, a city in northern Ghana.</p></sec><sec id="s2"><title>2. Method</title><sec id="s2_1"><title>2.1. Study Design and Setting</title><p>The study setting was Tamale, the Northern regional capital which is the fourth largest city in Ghana with a population of 371,351 [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57616-ref10">10</xref>] . Married public servants who were twenty years or older were invited to partake in a cross-sectional survey between March and July, 2012. The study was modelled on the theory of planned behaviour which suggests that the likelihood of behavioural change is dependent on the amount of control persons have over both a given behavior and their determination to change it [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57616-ref11">11</xref>] . There was no available data on the number of public servants in Tamale metropolis so; a purposive sampling of 320 participants was undertaken among public servants mainly working in education, health, security, finance institutions where majority of public servants are employed. Public servants were the focus of this study since they are considered the most educated class in Ghana hence results from this study would provide an insight into the knowledge and attitude level one would expect among the general populace with regards to SCD.</p></sec><sec id="s2_2"><title>2.2. Study Variable Determination and Measurements</title><p>The questionnaire made up of four sections provided information about the respondents’ socio-demographic characteristics, knowledge level, and attitude towards SCD. A 5-point Likert scale also assessed their knowledge of the disease. Although there was no validation of the questionnaire, there was a pre-test involving 20 respondents which ensured ambiguities are avoided in the final questionnaire. Respondents involved in the pretesting were excluded when the revised and final questionnaires were administered. After the appropriate permissions were obtained from the heads of institutions, qualified respondents who were present at their work places at the time of visit of the field researcher were invited to partake in the completion of the questionnaire. Before administering the questionnaire, verbal informed consent was obtained, and confidentiality assured. Respondents who were unable to complete their questionnaire on the same day were reminded during subsequent visits by the field researcher leading to the retrieval of completed questionnaires. Fourteen (14) questions assessed the knowledge of respondents about SCD. Seven of the questions were closed ended questions requiring choosing between “Yes” or “No” or choosing from listed options. In addition to these closed ended questions were seven 5- point Likert scale questions ranging from strongly agrees, agrees, don’t know, disagrees and strongly disagrees. For the “yes” or “no” questions, a correct answer scores 1 while a respondent choosing hereditary as the mode of transmission of SCD also scores 1. Ticking of one, two or three of the listed signs and symptoms of joint pains, fever and fatigue as signs and symptoms of SCD crises scores 0.5, 1 and 2 respectively. For the 5-point Likert scale questions, if the answer is in the affirmative, strongly agrees scores 2 while agrees goes for 1 point. Strongly disagree, disagree or don’t know scores 0. If the correct answer is negative, strongly disagrees scores 2 whilst disagree scores 1 with the others making no score. The maximum score for knowledge assessment is 22. Seven closed ended questions of “yes” or “no” assessed the attitude of respondents towards SCD with a correct attitude of a “yes” or “no” scoring 1 while the opposite scores nil. The maximum attitude assessment score is 7.</p><p>Knowledge was categorized as poor when scores were below 11.0% or 50%, moderate for scores between 11.0% and 17.6 (50% to 80%) while above17.6% or 80% were considered excellent. For attitude, scores less than 3.5% or 50% were considered negative or poor while above 3.5% or 50% were good or positive.</p></sec><sec id="s2_3"><title>2.3. Ethical Consideration</title><p>Prior approval for this study was obtained from the Ethics Committee of the School of Medicine and Health Sciences of the University for Development Studies.</p></sec><sec id="s2_4"><title>2.4. Statistical Analysis</title><p>Data were entered into Microsoft Excel, and analyzed using GraphPad Prism, Version 5.01 (GraphPad Software Inc., San Diego CA). Independent t-test and one-way ANOVA were used to test for any significant associations, assuming statistical significance at p &lt; 0.05 and a confidence interval of 95%.</p></sec></sec><sec id="s3"><title>3. Results</title><sec id="s3_1"><title>3.1. Socio-Demographic Profile of Respondents</title><p>Out of the 320 questionnaires administered, 295 were retrieved and considered complete for this study which therefore gave a response rate of 92.2%. The socio-demographic characteristics of respondents are shown in <xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>. Majority of respondents were females, 153 (51.9%), had tertiary level education, 209 (70.8%) and were followers of the Islamic religion, 178 (60.3%). Also, most respondents worked in education related institutions, 94 (31.9%); were between the ages of 30 and 39 years, 116 (39.3%); had been married for at most 4 years, 138 (46.8%) and had one child, 85 (28.8%).</p></sec><sec id="s3_2"><title>3.2. Respondents’ Knowledge about SCD</title><p>The mean knowledge score of the respondents was 11.1 &#177; 5.11 over 22% or 50.7%. Results of statements that</p><table-wrap id="table1" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref></label><caption><title> Socio-demographic characteristics of public servants</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Variable</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Subgroups</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Number of respondents</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Percentages</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="5"  >Age (years)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20 - 29</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >89</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >30.2</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >30 - 39</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >116</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >39.3</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >40 - 49</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >63</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >21.4</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >50 - 59</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >22</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.5</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >60 and above</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.7</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Gender</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Male</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >141</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >47.8</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Female</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >153</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >51.9</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Religious affiliation</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Christianity</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >117</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >39.7</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Islam</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >178</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >60.3</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="5"  >Duration of marriage (years)<sup>*</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0 - 4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >138</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >46.8</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >5 - 9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >59</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20.0</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >10 - 14</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >45</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15.3</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >15 - 19</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.7</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >≥20</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >36</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12.2</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="5"  >Sector</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Health</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >80</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >27.1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Education</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >94</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >31.9</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Financial</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >46</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15.6</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Security</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >45</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15.3</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Others</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >30</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.2</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="4"  >Highest level of education</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Nil</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.4</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Basic</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >19</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.4</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Secondary</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >63</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >21.4</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Tertiary</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >209</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >70.8</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="5"  >Number of children<sup>*</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >51</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17.3</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >85</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >28.8</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >74</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >25.1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >48</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16.3</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >4 or more</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >35</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.9</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="4"  >Initial source (s) of information on SCD<sup>**</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >School</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >86</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >29.2</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Friends</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >47</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15.9</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Media</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >135</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >45.8</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Health workers</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >111</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >37.6</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="4"  >How respondents got to know their sickling status n = 125<sup>***</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Request from health worker</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >65</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >52.0</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Mandatory screening</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.8</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Screening prior to blood transfusion</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >27</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >21.6</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Voluntary request</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >27</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >21.6</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p><sup>*</sup>Some percentages do not add to 100% because of missing responses. <sup>**</sup>For sources of information on SCD, some respondents selected more than one source. The percentage for each was based on n = 295. <sup>***</sup>These respondents only knew their sickling status after first child or marriage (n = 125).</p><p>assessed respondents’ knowledge on SCD are shown in <xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref>. Majority of respondents (94.2%) had ever heard of SCD before, with the media composed of television, newspapers, radio and the internet being their initial</p><table-wrap id="table2" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref></label><caption><title> Knowledge scores of respondents about Sickle Cell disease</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Statement</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Variable (Assigned score)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Number of respondents</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Correct knowledge score</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Percentage</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Ever heard of SCD?</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Yes (1)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >278</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >0.942</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >94.2</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >No</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Know how a person gets SCD?</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Yes (1)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >231</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >0.778</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >77.8</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >No</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >64</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >How is SCD transmitted</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Heredity (1)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >220</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >0.746</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >74.6</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Others (Environment, etc)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >Are there different types of SCD</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Yes (1)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >119</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >0.403</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >40.3</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >No</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >25</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Don’t know</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >151</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Know signs and symptoms of SCD crises</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Yes (1)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >206</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >0.698</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >69.8</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >No</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >89</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >Three (3) symptoms of SCD crises</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Joint pains or fatigue or fever (0.5)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >65</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >0.924</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >46.2</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Joint pains and fatigue or joint pains and fever or fever and fatigue (1)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >42</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Joint pains, fatigue and fever (2)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >99</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Test for confirmation of SCD</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Blood test (1)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >222</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >0.753</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >75.3</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Others (urine test, impossible, don’t know)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >73</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >Children likely to be SC carriers or suffers if both parents are carriers or sufferers of SCD</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Strongly agree (2)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >163</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >1.403</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >70.2</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Agree (1)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >88</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Don’t know, disagree and strongly disagree</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >44</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >SCD is most common in Africa and among blacks</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Strongly agree (2)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >35</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >0.525</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >26.3</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Agree (1)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >85</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Don’t know, disagree and strongly disagree</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >175</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >SCD can be cured</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Strongly agree, agree and don’t know</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >147</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >0.756</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >37.8</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Disagree (1)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >73</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Strongly disagree (2)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >75</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >Comparatively, persons with SCD die younger</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Strongly agree (2)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >42</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >0.556</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >27.8</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Agree (1)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >80</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Don’t know, disagree and strongly disagree</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >173</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >Comparatively, SCD sufferers do not cope well with life</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Strongly agree (2)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >29</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >0.627</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >31.4</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Agree (1)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >127</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Don’t know, disagree and strongly disagree</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >139</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >Pregnant SCD sufferers are prone to preterm or low birth weight babies</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Strongly agree (2)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >45</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >0.753</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >37.6</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Agree (1)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >132</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Don’t know, disagree and strongly disagree</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >118</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >SCD in population be reduced if SCT or SCD persons are prevented from marrying</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Strongly agree (2)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >151</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >1.22</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >61.0</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Agree (1)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >75</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Don’t know, disagree and strongly disagree</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >69</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Total knowledge score (22)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >50.7</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>source of information as indicated in <xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>. Also, the knowledge scores of respondents in relation to SCD being an inherited condition and its diagnosis confirmed with a blood test were 74.6% and 75.3% respectively. Respondents scored below 50% for questions on the incurability of SCD (37.8%), presence of variants of SCD (40.3%), high prevalence of SCD among persons of African descent (26.3%), decrease in life span of sufferers compared to the non-sickling population (27.8%) and increased chances of preterm or low birth weight babies in pregnant women with SCD (37.6%). The score for believing that SCD in the population can be reduced if SCT or SCD persons are prevented from marrying was 61.0%</p></sec><sec id="s3_3"><title>3.3. Attitude of Respondents towards SCD</title><p><xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref> showed the attitude of the respondents towards SCD. Minority of respondents, 12.2% had premarital counseling on SCD before marriage. Less than a third knew their own sickling status, (27.1%) or that of their spouses, (24.4%) before marriage or their first child. A higher percentage of 38.1% however knew their children’s sickling status. Majority of respondents, 78.0% would have abandoned marriage intentions if premarital screening had shown that they and their current spouses had sickle cell traits. For persons (n = 54) who would still had proceeded with marriage despite knowledge of genetic incompatibility, their reasons include; love, 21 (38.9%); not all children would have SCD, 9 (16.7%); will seek treatment, 5 (9.3%), God will be in control of the situation, 3 (5.6%), will adopt a child, 2 (3.7%) and others, 11 (20.4%). The overall mean attitude score of respondents towards SCD was 2.857 &#177; 1.97 or 40.8%.</p></sec><sec id="s3_4"><title>3.4. Relationship between Socio-Demographic Characteristics of Respondents and Their Knowledge and Attitude Scores</title><p>Relationship between the socio-demographic characteristics of respondents and their level of knowledge of SCD and attitude towards SCD is shown in <xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref>. Stratifying respondents according to sex using a student’s t-test, has shown that females possessed statistically significant higher knowledge (11.75 vrs 10.5; p = 0.037) than the males. Again, the females exhibited a better attitude towards SCD than the males although the difference was not significant (3.06 vrs 2.64; p = 0.068). Christians scored better for knowledge (11.62 vrs 10.83; p = 0.2) and attitude (2.94 vrs 2.8; p = 0.561) than followers of Islam but the differences were not significant. One way</p><table-wrap id="table3" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref></label><caption><title> Attitude score of respondents towards Sickle Cell Disease</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Statement</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Variable (Assigned score)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Number of respondents</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Positive attitude score</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Percentage</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Ever involved in premarital counselling on SCD</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Yes (1)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >36</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >0.122</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >12.2</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >No</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >259</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Did you or your partner know your sickling status before marriage or first child?</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Yes (1)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >80</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >0.271</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >27.1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >No</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >215</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Do you currently know your sickling status</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Yes (1)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >185</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >0.627</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >62.7</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >No</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >110</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Do you currently know your spouses’ sickling status</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Yes (1)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >147</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >0.498</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >49.8</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >No</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >148</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >When did you get to know your spouse sickling status</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Before marriage (1)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >72</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >0.244</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >24.4</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >After marriage</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >75</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Not yet known</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >148</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Will you marry spouse if both of you have SCT</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Yes</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >65</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >0.78</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >78.0</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >No (1)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >230</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Do you know your children’s status (n = 244)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Yes (1)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >93</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >0.381</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >38.1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >No</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >151</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Mean attitude score (7)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.857</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >40.8</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><table-wrap id="table4" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref></label><caption><title> Relationship between demographic characteristics of respondents and their knowledge and attitude scores</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Variable</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Socio-demographic characteristics</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Knowledge scores</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >p-values</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Attitude scores</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >p-value</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="5"  >Age (years)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20 - 29</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.62</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="5"  >0.099</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.21</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="5"  >0.211</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >30 - 39</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.09</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.83</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >40 - 49</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.87</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.48</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >50 - 59</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12.52</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.82</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >60 and above</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13.90</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.20</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Gender</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Male</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.50</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >0.037<sup>*</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.64</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >0.068</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Female</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.75</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.06</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Religious affiliation</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Christianity</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.62</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >0.2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.94</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >0.561</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Islam</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.83</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.8</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="5"  >Duration of marriage (years)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0 - 4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.59</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="5"  >0.06</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="5"  >0.256</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >5 - 9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.63</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.95</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >10 - 14</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.88</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.49</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >15 - 19</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.54</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.64</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >≥20</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12.68</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.47</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="5"  >Sector</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Health</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14.82</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="5"  >&lt;0.0001<sup>*</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.40</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="5"  >&lt;0.0001<sup>*</sup></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Education</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.15</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.52</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Financial</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.40</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.50</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Security</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.49</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.07</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Others</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.08</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.07</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="4"  >Highest level of education</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Nil</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.13</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="4"  >0.007<sup>*</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="4"  >0.011<sup>*</sup></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Basic school</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.08</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.26</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Secondary/High school</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.96</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.29</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Tertiary</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.77</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.10</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="5"  >Number of children</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12.04</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="5"  >0.557</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.56</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="5"  >0.022<sup>*</sup></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.28</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.41</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.23</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.91</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.27</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.46</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >4 or more</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.03</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.46</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p><sup>*</sup>Statistically significant.</p><p>ANOVA analysis did not show any significant difference between the knowledge of SCD among the various age brackets although respondents 60 years and above had better knowledge (13.90 vrs 9.87 - 12.52; p = 0.099) than their younger colleagues. Respondents 60 years and above however exhibited poorer attitude when compared with the younger ones (2.2 vrs 2.48 - 3.21; p = 0.211). Increasing duration of marriage (p = 0.06) and number of children (p = 0.557) did not significantly influence the knowledge of respondents on SCD. Meanwhile, respondents with fewer number of children, (p = 0.022) exhibited a statistically significant better attitude towards SCD than those with a lot more children but no significant difference in attitude (p = 0.256) with respect to the duration of marriage of respondents. Higher academic qualification significantly influenced the knowledge and attitude of respondents with persons possessing tertiary level education obtaining higher knowledge (11.77 vrs 7.13 - 9.96; p &lt; 0.007) and attitude scores (3.1 vrs 2.0 - 2.29; p &lt; 0.011) than those with no or lower academic qualifications. Also respondents working in health institutions exhibited better knowledge (14.82 vrs 8.08 - 10.15; p &lt; 0.0001) and attitude (4.4 vrs 2.07 - 2.52; p &lt; 0.0001) than those working in education, security, financial and other institutions with these differences being statistically significant.</p></sec><sec id="s3_5"><title>3.5. Correlation between Knowledge and Attitude of Respondents</title><p>Correlation analysis between knowledge and attitude of respondents towards SCD recorded a positive correlation coefficient between them which was also statistically significant (r = 0.494; p &lt; 0.0001).</p></sec></sec><sec id="s4"><title>4. Discussion</title><p>Sickle cell disease causes serious emotional, psychosocial, and economic problems for sufferers and their parents or caregivers [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57616-ref3">3</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57616-ref12">12</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57616-ref13">13</xref>] . The results of this study showed that majority of respondents have heard of SCD mainly through the mass media but health workers and family were the first source of information on SCD in the Middle East countries of Oman and Saudi Arabia [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57616-ref14">14</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57616-ref15">15</xref>] Cultural differences may account for this difference. Ghana, being a secular country permits free discussion of issues of sexuality in the mass media unlike in Islamic states of Saudi Arabia and Oman. The moderate overall knowledge score of 50.7% is higher than those recorded among Nigerian local government workers in Ile Ife and youth corps in Lagos [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57616-ref16">16</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57616-ref17">17</xref>] . Other studies in the UK and Nigeria recorded higher knowledge level between 75% - 86% [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57616-ref7">7</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57616-ref18">18</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57616-ref19">19</xref>] . Gender, level of education and type of working institution were the socio-demographic factors that significantly influence knowledge of respondents. The effects of gender on knowledge of SCD could be attributed to the fact that females while attending antenatal clinics during pregnancy were tested and educated on SCD. For respondents working in health related institutions to possess better knowledge on SCD is understandable since they may have acquired this knowledge at school or in their working environment. A study in Saudi Arabia reported health science female university students possessed higher knowledge on SCD than their non-science counterparts [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57616-ref15">15</xref>] .</p><p>This study recorded only 12.2% of respondents undergoing premarital screening and counseling on SCD and also just about a third of respondents knew their own sickling status or that of their spouses before marriage or first child. Again less than half of respondents knew their own status or that of their children at the time of the study. Even for those who later knew their status after marriage, only 21.6% was by voluntary request. The overall attitude of respondents towards SCD of 40.8% is rather poor. Similar poor attitudes towards SCD were reported in Oman, US and Nigeria [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57616-ref12">12</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57616-ref14">14</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57616-ref20">20</xref>] . Age, gender, religious affiliation just as reported in other countries did not influence a person’s attitude towards SCD [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57616-ref16">16</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57616-ref21">21</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57616-ref22">22</xref>] . Several reasons could be responsible for the poor attitude of respondents in this study despite their moderate knowledge level. Critical knowledge areas that may change the behaviour of the respondents such as the epidemiology, incurability, adverse effect of disease on life expectancy of SCD were knowledge areas respondents were most deficient in. This study therefore showed that prospective Ghanaian couples are negligent and do not consider the consequences of having children with blood disorder. Just as was reported in Oman and Nigeria, factors such as love, beauty, ethnicity, parental influence, and socioeconomic status rather greatly influence the choice of partners, relegating issues of genetic incompatibility to the background [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57616-ref18">18</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57616-ref21">21</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57616-ref22">22</xref>] .</p><p>Possessing knowledge about a disease is said to influence behaviour adaptation if it is paired with the belief that a behaviour change will positively contribute to good health [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57616-ref23">23</xref>] . The positive correlation between knowledge and attitude in this study was clearly demonstrated in respondents from the health sector and those with tertiary education possessing better attitude towards SCD. Therefore, provision of more information on SCD through the media, empowering religious leaders with appropriate knowledge to influence their follower’ marriage decisions in relation to SCD, training of health workers and provision of accessible testing and counseling centres; strategies recommended by the WHO if adopted by countries will reduce the incidence of SCD among the population. For some respondents to decide to continue with relationships even when genetic incompatibility is detected due to love emotions means, public education alone would not lead to the drastic reduction of this disease but some compulsory and fee free premarital counseling and screening must be pursued by all nations especially those in Africa since mandatory Pre-marital counselling and screening programme have reduced the incidence of SCD in several countries [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57616-ref14">14</xref>] . Although 75.6% of respondents just as reported in Saudi Arabia strongly agreed or agreed to the suggestion of not allowing two SCD or SCT persons to marry to reduce SCD prevalence, genetic testing and separation of prospective couples due to genetic incompatibility can be emotionally stressful [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57616-ref15">15</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57616-ref24">24</xref>] . To reduce this stress of separating persons who may have dated for years and close to marriage, intense education and testing should be directed towards early adolescent stages before individuals begin conjugal relationships. Compulsory presentation of certificate of genotype compatibility before marriages at our law courts, churches, mosques, marriage registries or anywhere marriages can be contracted would also support the drive towards the reduction in SCD cases.</p><p>This study had some limitations. The use of closed questions requiring respondents to choose among the options did not permit them to explain their answers hence the introduction of some bias. This study involved the use of self-administered questionnaire rather than interviews hence reliability of answers could not be verified. This study was conducted among only public servants in Tamale; hence the result might not represent the knowledge and attitude towards SCD among the Ghanaian population.</p></sec><sec id="s5"><title>5. Conclusion</title><p>This study showed that although public servants had moderate knowledge about Sickle Cell disease, their overall attitude towards the disease was poor. Majority of respondents did not know their personal or spousal premarital sickling status with half of them still unaware of spouses’ status after marriage. A positive correlation exists between the knowledge and attitude; hence persons working in the health sector and with tertiary education who exhibited better knowledge of SCD had a more positive attitude towards it. Since the media was the most common source of information on SCD, its role in the effort to reduce the incidence of SCD and its attendant morbidity and mortality across the world and especially Africa is crucial.</p></sec><sec id="s6"><title>Competing Interest</title><p>Authors have no conflict of interests, and the work was not supported or funded by any person or organization.</p></sec><sec id="s7"><title>NOTES</title></sec></body><back><ref-list><title>References</title><ref id="scirp.57616-ref1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Zdanovicz, M.M. (2003) Essentials of Pathophysiology for Pharmacy. CRC Press, New York, 34-35.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.57616-ref2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation publication-type="book" xlink:type="simple">Chan, C.Y.J. and Moore, R. (2008) Sickle Cell. In: DiPiro, J.T., Talbert, R.L., Yee, G., Matzke, G., Wells, B. and Posey, L.M., Eds., Pharmacotherapy—A Pathophysiologic Approach, 7th Edition, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1686-1687.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.57616-ref3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Afolayan, J.A. and Jolayemi, F.T. (2011) Parental Attitude to Children with Sickle Cell Disease in Selected Health Facilities in Irepodun Local Government, Kwara State, Nigeria. Ethno-Medicine, 5, 30-40.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.57616-ref4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Eboh, W. and Van den Akker, O.A. (1994) Antenatal Care of Women with Sickle Cell Disease. British Journal of Midwifery, 2, 6-11.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.57616-ref5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">World Health Organization (2010) Sickle Cell Disease: A Strategy for the WHO African Region. AFR/RC60/8. WHO, Malabo.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.57616-ref6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Ohene-Frempong, K., Oduro, J., Tetteh, H., and Nkrumah, F. (2008) Screening Newborns for Sickle Cell Disease in Ghana. Pediatrics, 121, S120-S121. http://dx.doi.org/10.1542/peds.2007-2022uuu</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.57616-ref7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Adeyemo, O.A., Omidiji, O.O. and Shabi, O.A. (2007) Level of Awareness of Genetic Counselling in Lagos, Nigeria: Its Advocacy on the Inheritance of SCD. African Journal of Biotechnology, 6, 2758-2765.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.57616-ref8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Konotey-Ahulu, F.I.D. (2011) Sickle Cell Trait Misinformation and Disinformation.  
http://www.sicklecell.md/blog/</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.57616-ref9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Edwin, A.K., Edwin, F. and Etwire, V. (2011) Controlling Sickle Cell Disease in Ghana—Ethics and Option. Pan African Medical Journal, 10, 14. http://dx.doi.org/10.4314/pamj.v10i0.72223</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.57616-ref10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Ghana Districts (2012) A Repository of All Districts in the Republic of Ghana.  
http://www.ghanadistricts.com/region/?r=6&amp;sa=123</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.57616-ref11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Ajzen, I. (2002) Perceived Behavioral Control, Self-Efficacy, Locus of Control, and the Theory of Planned Behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 665-683. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2002.tb00236.x</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.57616-ref12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Ohaeri, J.U., and Shokunbi, W.A. (2001) Attitudes and Beliefs of Relatives of Patients with Sickle Cell Disease. East African Medical Journal, 78, 174-179. http://dx.doi.org/10.4314/eamj.v78i4.9058</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.57616-ref13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Anie, K.A., Egunjobi, F.E. and Akinyanju, O.O. (2010) Psychosocial Impact of Sickle Cell Disorder: Perspectives from a Nigerian Setting. Globalization and Health, 6, 2. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1744-8603-6-2</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.57616-ref14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Al-Farsi, O.A., Al-Farsi, Y.M., Gupta, I., Ouhtit, A., Al-Farsi, A.K. and Al-Adawi, S. (2014) A Study on Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice towards Premarital Carrier Screening among Adults Attending Primary Healthcare Centers in a Region in Oman. BMC Public Health, 14, 380. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-14-380</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.57616-ref15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Ibrahim, N.K.R., Al-Bar, H., Al-Fakeeh, A., Al Ahmadi, J., Qdi, M., Al-Bar, A. and Milaat, W. (2011) An Educational Program about Premarital Screening for Unmarried Female Student in King Abdul-Aziz University, Jeddah. Journal of Infection and Public Health, 4, 30-40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jiph.2010.11.001</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.57616-ref16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Abioye-Kuteyi, E.A., Oyegbade, O., Bello, I. and Osakwe, C. (2009) Sickle Cell Knowledge, Premarital Screening and Marital Decisions among Local Government Workers in Lle-Lfe, Nigeria. African Journal of Primary Health Care &amp; Family Medicine, 1, 53-57.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.57616-ref17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Olatona, F.A., Odeyemi, K.A., Onajole, A.T. and Asuzu, M.C. (2012) Effects of Health Education on Knowledge Ad Attitude of Youth Corps Members to Sickle Cell Disease and Its Screening in Lagos State. Journal of Community Medicine &amp; Health Education, 2, 163.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.57616-ref18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Osbourne, C.J. (2011) Sickle Cell Disease Awareness among College Students. MSc Thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.57616-ref19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Millan, J., Van Teijlingen, E. and Eboh, W. (2006) Knowledge and Attitudes towards Sickle Cell Disease Screening: A Study of Members of the UK Sickle Cell Society. Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen, 38-49.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.57616-ref20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Long, K.A., Thomas, S.B., Grubs, R.E., Gettig, E.A., and Krishnamurti, L. (2011) Attitudes and Beliefs of African-American towards Genetics, Genetic Testing, and Sickle Cell Disease Education and Awareness. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 20, 572-592. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10897-011-9388-3</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.57616-ref21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Oludare, G.O. and Ogili, M. (2013) Knowledge, Attitude and Practice of Premarital Counseling for Sickle Cell Disease among Youth in Yaba, Nigeria. African Journal of Reproductive Health, 17, 175-182.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.57616-ref22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Al-Kindi, R., Al-Rujaibi, A. and Al-Kendi, M. (2012) Knowledge and Attitude of University Students towards Premarital Screening Program. Oman Medical Journal, 27, 291-296.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.57616-ref23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Gil, K.M., Abrams, M.R., Phillips, G. and Keefe, F.J. (1989) Sickle Cell Disease Pain: Relation of Coping Strategies to Adjustment. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 57, 725-731.  
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.57.6.725</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.57616-ref24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Al-Aama, J.Y. (2010) Attitudes towards Mandatory National Premarital Screening for Hereditary Hemolytic Disorders. Health Policy, 97, 32-37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2010.02.009</mixed-citation></ref></ref-list></back></article>/article>