IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0222159.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

India’s disability estimates: Limitations and way forward

Author

Listed:
  • Rakhi Dandona
  • Anamika Pandey
  • Sibin George
  • G Anil Kumar
  • Lalit Dandona

Abstract

Background: With India preparing for the next decennial Census in 2021, we compared the disability estimates and data collection methodology between the Census 2011 and the most recent population-level survey for India and its states, to highlight the issues to be addressed to improve robustness of the disability estimates in the upcoming Census. Methods: Data from the Census 2011 and from two complementary nationally representative household surveys that covered all Indian states with the same methodology and survey instruments–the District-Level Household Survey-4 (DLHS-4, 2012–2013) and the Annual Health Surveys (AHS three rounds, 2010–11, 2011–12 and 2012–13) were used. Data from DLHS-4 and AHS 2012–13 round were pooled to generate estimates for the year 2012–13. Data collection methodology between the sources was compared, including the review of definitions of each type of disability. The overall, mental, visual, hearing, speech, and movement disability rate (DR) per 100,000 population were compared between the sources for India and for each state, and the percent difference in the respective rates was calculated. We explored the reliability of these estimates comparing yearly data from the AHS for three successive rounds. Results: Survey data were collected through proxy reporting, however, it is not entirely clear whether the data were proxy- or self-reported or a mix of both in the Census. The overall DR was 25.1% higher in the Census (2,242; 95% CI 2,241–2,243) than the survey (1,791; 95% CI 1,786–1,797) per 100,000 population, with the state-level difference ranging from -64% in Tamil Nadu to 107% in Sikkim state. Despite both sources using nearly similar definitions for overall disability and disability by type, the difference in DR was 125.5%, 54.2%, -25.7%, -19.7%, and 21.9% for hearing, speech, mental, movement, and visual DR, respectively. At the state-level, the difference in disability-specific estimates ranged from -84% to 450%. The extent of variations in the disability-specific estimates in AHS successive rounds ranged from -25% to 929% at the state-level. Conclusions: There is momentum globally towards building disability measurement that is consistent with the data required for monitoring of the Sustainable Development Goals to ensure robust estimation of disability. The current estimates from the Census and surveys seem much lower than would be expected at the population level. We make recommendations that India needs to take serious note of in order to improve the validity and reliability of India’s disability estimates.

Suggested Citation

  • Rakhi Dandona & Anamika Pandey & Sibin George & G Anil Kumar & Lalit Dandona, 2019. "India’s disability estimates: Limitations and way forward," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(9), pages 1-19, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0222159
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0222159
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0222159
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0222159&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0222159?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Andresen, E.M. & Fitch, C.A. & McLendon, P.M. & Meyers, A.R., 2000. "Reliability and validity of disability questions for US census 2000," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 90(8), pages 1297-1299.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bornstein, Marc H. & Hendricks, Charlene, 2013. "Screening for developmental disabilities in developing countries," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 307-315.
    2. Arline Geronimus & John Bound & Annie Ro, 2014. "Residential Mobility Across Local Areas in the United States and the Geographic Distribution of the Healthy Population," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 51(3), pages 777-809, June.
    3. Kimberly Huyser & Arthur Sakamoto & Isao Takei, 2010. "The Persistence of Racial Disadvantage: The Socioeconomic Attainments of Single-Race and Multi-Race Native Americans," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 29(4), pages 541-568, August.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0222159. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.