PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Vasudevan, Varun
AU  - Gnanasekaran, Abeynaya
AU  - Sankar, Varsha
AU  - Vasudevan, Siddarth A.
AU  - Zou, James
TI  - Disparity in the quality of COVID-19 data reporting across India
AID  - 10.1101/2020.07.19.20157248
DP  - 2020 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2020.07.19.20157248
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/07/21/2020.07.19.20157248.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/07/21/2020.07.19.20157248.full
AB  - 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 captures 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.Research in contextEvidence before this studyTwo key components in containing the COVID-19 pandemic is public awareness and public trust in the government. These components critically depend on timely and accessible dissemination of COVID-19 data by the government. While there are studies showing disparities in personal healthcare access in India, very little is known about the quality of access to “public health data” across India, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. Janiaud and Goodman characterize the incomplete and absent reporting of critical COVID-19 epidemic statistics by state departments of health in the U.S. However, there are no such studies on a low middle-income country like India which has an underfunded public health system.Added value of this studyTo our knowledge, this study is the first comprehensive assessment of the quality of COVID-19 data reporting across India. We developed a semi-quantitative framework to assess the quality of COVID-19 data reporting, and used it to calculate a COVID-19 Data Reporting Score (CDRS) for 29 state and union territory governments of India. Our framework captures four key elements of public health data reporting – availability, accessibility, granularity, and privacy – and provides a guideline for high-quality COVID-19 data reporting that can also be used in other countries. Our findings highlight a large variation in the quality of COVID-19 data reporting across India. CDRS varies from 0.61 to 0.0 with a median value of 0.26 and an inter-quartile range of 0.21. No single state does best in all four elements of data reporting. We find that: (i) only ten states provide trend graphics; (ii) ten states do not report any data stratified by age, gender, comorbidities or districts; (iii) Punjab and Chandigarh compromised the privacy of individuals under quarantine by releasing personally identifiable information on their official websites. Across the states, the CDRS score is positively associated with the state’s sustainable development index for good health and well-being (Pearson correlation: r = 0.630, p = 0.0003).Implications of all the available evidenceOur assessment informs the public health efforts in India about the disparity in the quality of COVID-19 data reporting across the country. The available evidence shows that an improvement in the quality of data reporting is required all across India. The disparity in CDRS 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. The disparate reporting score also reflects inequality in individual access to public health information and privacy protection based on the state of residence.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementJ.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 DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe 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.YesI 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).YesI 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.YesLinks to all data sources and the curated dataset are available in the manuscript.