Skip to main content
medRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search

Disparity in the quality of COVID-19 data reporting across India

Varun Vasudevan, Abeynaya Gnanasekaran, Varsha Sankar, View ORCID ProfileSiddarth A. Vasudevan, James Zou
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.19.20157248
Varun Vasudevan
1Institute for Computational & Mathematical Engineering, Stanford University
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: devan@stanford.edu abeynaya@stanford.edu jamesz@stanford.edu
Abeynaya Gnanasekaran
2Institute for Computational & Mathematical Engineering, Stanford University
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: devan@stanford.edu abeynaya@stanford.edu jamesz@stanford.edu
Varsha Sankar
3Independent Researcher, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Siddarth A. Vasudevan
4Independent Researcher, Switzerland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Siddarth A. Vasudevan
James Zou
5Department of Biomedical Data Science, Stanford University
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: devan@stanford.edu abeynaya@stanford.edu jamesz@stanford.edu
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Data/Code
  • Preview PDF
Loading

Abstract

Background Transparent and accessible reporting of COVID-19 data is critical for public health efforts. Each state and union territory (UT) of India has its own mechanism for reporting COVID-19 data, and the quality of their reporting has not been systematically evaluated. We present a comprehensive assessment of the quality of COVID-19 data reporting done by the Indian state and union territory governments. This assessment informs the public health efforts in India and serves as a guideline for pandemic data reporting by other governments.

Methods We designed a semi-quantitative framework to assess the quality of COVID-19 data reporting done by the states and union territories of India. This framework is based on 45 indicators that capture four key aspects of public health data reporting – availability, accessibility, granularity, and privacy. We then used this framework to calculate a COVID-19 Data Reporting Score (CDRS, ranging from 0 to 1) for 29 statesi based on the quality of COVID-19 data reporting done by the state during the two-week period from 19 May to 1 June, 2020. States that reported less than 10 total confirmed cases as of May 18, were excluded from the study.

Findings Our results indicate a strong disparity in the quality of COVID-19 data reporting done by the state governments in India. CDRS varies from 0.61 (good) in Karnataka to 0.0 (poor) in Bihar and Uttar Pradesh, with a median value of 0.26. Only ten states provide a visual representation of the trend in COVID-19 data. Ten states do not report any data stratified by age, gender, comorbidities or districts. In addition, we identify that Punjab and Chandigarh compromised the privacy of individuals under quarantine by releasing their personally identifiable information on the official websites. Across the states, the CDRS is positively associated with the state’s sustainable development index for good health and well-being (Pearson correlation: r = 0.630, p = 0.0003).

Interpretation The disparity in CDRS across states highlights three important findings at the national, state, and individual level. At the national level, it shows the lack of a unified framework for reporting COVID-19 data in India, and highlights the need for a central agency to monitor or audit the quality of data reporting done by the states. Without a unified framework, it is difficult to aggregate the data from different states, gain insights from them, and coordinate an effective nationwide response to the pandemic. Moreover, it reflects the inadequacy in coordination or sharing of resources among the states in India. Coordination among states is particularly important as more people start moving across states in the coming months. The disparate reporting score also reflects inequality in individual access to public health information and privacy protection based on the state of residence.

Funding J.Z. is supported by NSF CCF 1763191, NIH R21 MD012867-01, NIH P30AG059307, NIH U01MH098953 and grants from the Silicon Valley Foundation and the Chan-Zuckerberg Initiative.

Competing Interest Statement

The authors have declared no competing interest.

Funding Statement

J.Z. is supported by NSF CCF 1763191, NIH R21 MD012867-01, NIH P30AG059307, NIH U01MH098953 and grants from the Silicon Valley Foundation and the Chan-Zuckerberg Initiative.

Author Declarations

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

The data collected and used in this study were publicly available. Individual consent and ethical approval were not required for the study.

All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.

Yes

Footnotes

  • 1. Fixed minor typos. 2. Removed research in context section. 3. Author affiliations updated. 4. Edited Fig 2a. caption

  • ↵i From here on, unless specified otherwise, the word state refers to a state or union territory in India.

  • ↵v These tweets were last accessed on June 28, 2020.

  • ↵vi Search phrases were of the form “<statename> government covid website” and “<statename> government corona website”.

  • ↵vii These tweets were last accessed on June 28, 2020.

Data Availability

Links to all data sources and the curated dataset are available in the manuscript.

Copyright 
The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission.
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted August 05, 2020.
Download PDF
Data/Code
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about medRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Disparity in the quality of COVID-19 data reporting across India
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from medRxiv
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the medRxiv website.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Disparity in the quality of COVID-19 data reporting across India
Varun Vasudevan, Abeynaya Gnanasekaran, Varsha Sankar, Siddarth A. Vasudevan, James Zou
medRxiv 2020.07.19.20157248; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.19.20157248
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
Disparity in the quality of COVID-19 data reporting across India
Varun Vasudevan, Abeynaya Gnanasekaran, Varsha Sankar, Siddarth A. Vasudevan, James Zou
medRxiv 2020.07.19.20157248; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.19.20157248

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Subject Area

  • Public and Global Health
Subject Areas
All Articles
  • Addiction Medicine (62)
  • Allergy and Immunology (142)
  • Anesthesia (46)
  • Cardiovascular Medicine (415)
  • Dentistry and Oral Medicine (70)
  • Dermatology (48)
  • Emergency Medicine (144)
  • Endocrinology (including Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Disease) (171)
  • Epidemiology (4861)
  • Forensic Medicine (3)
  • Gastroenterology (183)
  • Genetic and Genomic Medicine (676)
  • Geriatric Medicine (70)
  • Health Economics (192)
  • Health Informatics (630)
  • Health Policy (321)
  • Health Systems and Quality Improvement (206)
  • Hematology (85)
  • HIV/AIDS (156)
  • Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS) (5343)
  • Intensive Care and Critical Care Medicine (331)
  • Medical Education (93)
  • Medical Ethics (24)
  • Nephrology (75)
  • Neurology (686)
  • Nursing (42)
  • Nutrition (115)
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology (126)
  • Occupational and Environmental Health (208)
  • Oncology (440)
  • Ophthalmology (140)
  • Orthopedics (36)
  • Otolaryngology (90)
  • Pain Medicine (35)
  • Palliative Medicine (16)
  • Pathology (129)
  • Pediatrics (194)
  • Pharmacology and Therapeutics (131)
  • Primary Care Research (84)
  • Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology (781)
  • Public and Global Health (1817)
  • Radiology and Imaging (325)
  • Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy (138)
  • Respiratory Medicine (255)
  • Rheumatology (86)
  • Sexual and Reproductive Health (69)
  • Sports Medicine (62)
  • Surgery (100)
  • Toxicology (23)
  • Transplantation (29)
  • Urology (37)