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

Abstract

Background Transparent and accessible reporting of COVID-19 data is critical for public health efforts. Each Indian state 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 governments between 19 May and 1 June, 2020. Methods We designed a semi-quantitative framework with 45 indicators to assess the quality of COVID-19 data reporting. The framework captures four key aspects of public health data reporting – availability, accessibility, granularity, and privacy. We used this framework to calculate a COVID-19 Data Reporting Score (CDRS, ranging from 0–1) for each state. Results Our results indicate a large disparity in the quality of COVID-19 data reporting across 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. Ten states do not report data stratified by age, gender, comorbidities or districts. Only ten states provide trend graphics for COVID-19 data. In addition, we identify that Punjab and Chandigarh compromised the privacy of individuals under quarantine by publicly releasing their personally identifiable information. 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). Conclusions Our assessment informs the public health efforts in India and serves as a guideline for pandemic data reporting. The disparity in CDRS 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, and coordinate an effective nationwide response to the pandemic. Moreover, it reflects the inadequacy in coordination or sharing of resources among the states. The disparate reporting score also reflects inequality in individual access to public health information and privacy protection based on the state of residence.

COVID-19 in Central Asia: exploring the relationship between governance and non-pharmaceutical intervention

“…Of course, the quality of the data reported varies depending on the country ( Lloyd-Sherlock et al. , 2021 ; Vasudevan et al. , 2021 ).…”

A Prospective Method for Generating COVID-19 Dynamics

“…The inability of the timely and accurate collection of COVID-19 data in daily case reports occurs in many countries. Discrepancies of confirmed official COVID-19 data were reported from many countries, such as Bangladesh [20], India [21], and the USA ( [22,23]). The quality of the COVID-19 data certainly contributes to the consistency of the model and the accuracy of prediction.…”

Using absolute risk reduction to guide the equitable distribution of COVID-19 vaccines

“…21 Some public health agencies withheld data from the public and did not assess baseline risk across socioeconomic groupings. 22 In the USA, the CDC tracked vaccination status with demographic data, 23 but it did not use ARR or NNV to guide vaccine distribution policies. Many US states and counties struggled to track COVID-19 cases.…”

“…For example, in India the federal and some state governments made certain decisions about vaccine distribution based on a framework known as ‘eminence-based’ medicine 21. Some public health agencies withheld data from the public and did not assess baseline risk across socioeconomic groupings 22. In the USA, the CDC tracked vaccination status with demographic data,23 but it did not use ARR or NNV to guide vaccine distribution policies.…”