Per Capita Income of Indian States can be used as an indicator for comparing their economic development

Barring smaller states/UTs, the highest per capita Income (per capita net domestic product) is for the State of Haryana (Rs. 108,859) and is followed by Maharashtra (Rs. 101,314), Tamil Nadu ( Rs.84,496) and Kerala (Rs. 83,725) in the year 2011-12.  Goa’s per capita income is more than that of Delhi’s by Rs. 16,840 and Chandigarh is also left behind by Rs 52,579.  Pondicherry faired better than Tamil Nadu by Rs 11,263.  Uttarakhand once was a part of Uttar Pradesh before 2000 and had per capita income of Rs. 82,193 in 2011-12 and is much more than that of present Uttar Pradesh (Rs. 30,052).  The same is the case of Haryana (Rs. 108,859) is far exceeding that of present Punjab’s per capita income of Rs. 74,606.  Bihar’s per capita income in 2011-12 is just Rs 23,435 and is minimum most, whereas its baby state Jharkhand (split in the year 2000) had the per capita income as Rs. 35,652.  Same is in the case of Chattishgarh with Rs 46,573 as per capita income, its parent state Madhya Pradesh was having only Rs. 38,669.

The message one gets is that one may develop faster economically if the states are smaller in size as compact administrative boundaries are more manageable and people can be more prosperous.

Total Fertility Rate in India is on decline

The Total Fertility Rate (TFR) of a population is the average number of children that would be born to a woman over her lifetime.

As per ORGI’s Sample Registration System’s Statistical Reports, the Total Fertility Rate (TFR) across the country had declined to 2.5 in 2010 from 3.0 in 2003.

While 21 states or Union Territories out of 35 states have achieved the replacement level of TFR of 2.1.  The states having TFR falling in the range [2.2, 2.5] are six states namely, Assam, Gujarat, Haryana, Odisha, Uttarakhand (2.3 as per Annual Health Survey) and Arunachal Pradesh and the remaining eight states/UTs have TFR between above 2.5 and these are: Six EAG States (Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh) and other two are Meghalaya and Dadra and Nagar Haveli.   

The latter two are smaller state/UT for which data is available only up to 2007 and the present classification is based on the trends in the past.  The highest TFR for any state/UT is for Bihar (3.7) followed by Uttar Pradesh (3.5).

The strategic requirement is to increase the Contraceptive Prevalence Rate by reducing the unmet need.  The same can be done by making Family Planning Services available in a reliable manner to eligible couples, particularly to the more needy the above mentioned States.

Over Eleven Million Persons are suffering from Arthritis in India

One Large Scale Annual Health Survey has been conducted in the year 2010-11 for nine States namely, Bihar, Odisha, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Uttaranchal, Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand and Assam.  Fact Sheets for the same were released shortly.  Here below the prevalence of Chronic Disease Arthritis in these States have been given per one lakh (one tenth of a million) persons. 

.

States	Arthritis	Population (2011)	Estimate of Persons Diagnosed for Arthritis (2011)
Chhattisgarh	603	25540196	153961
Madhya Pradesh	674	72597565	489064
Uttar Pradesh	996	199581477	1988609
Uttarakhand	1358	10116752	137417
Odisha	258	41947358	108390
Rajasthan	287	68621012	197246
Bihar	1529	103804637	1586745
Jharkhund	754	32966238	248511
Assam	1348	31169272	420112
Total of Nine States	909	586344507	5330054

Using population provisional estimates from Census 2011, the number of people diagnosed for Arthritis in these nine states has been estimated as about 5.3 millions for the year 2011.  This is the minimal (lower bound) of the effected persons by Arthritis in these nine states of India.  On working backwards, one can say that Arthritis prevalence in these states is about 0.91% on the average.    Minimum number of persons having Arthritis in Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Madhya Pradesh states were over 4 million and it is over 76% of the total people who are suffering from Arthritis in these nine states.

If one assumes the average prevalence rate of these nine states as the prevalence rate in India, the minimum number of persons effected by this disease in India would be over 11 millions.

About Seven Million Persons are having Asthma in India

One Large Scale Annual Health Survey has been conducted in the year 2010-11 for nine States namely, Bihar, Odisha, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Uttaranchal, Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand and Assam.  Fact Sheets for the same were released shortly.  Here below the prevalence of Chronic Disease Asthma in these States have been given per one lakh (one tenth of a million) persons. 

.

States	Asthma/Chronic Respiratory Disease	Population (2011)	Estimate of Persons Diagnosed for Asthma (2011)
Chhattisgarh	441	25540196	112693
Madhya Pradesh	372	72597565	270045
Uttar Pradesh	565	199581477	1128344
Uttarakhand	550	10116752	55676
Odisha	535	41947358	224526
Rajasthan	300	68621012	205869
Bihar	914	103804637	948767
Jharkhund	232	32966238	76347
Assam	594	31169272	185259
Total of Nine States	547	586344507	3207528

Using population provisional estimates from Census 2011, the number of people diagnosed for Asthma in these nine states has been estimated as about 3.2 millions for the year 2011.  This is the minimal (lower bound) of the effected persons by Asthma in these states of India.  On working backwards, one can say that Asthma prevalence in these states is about 0.55% on the average.    Minimum number of persons having Asthma in Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Madhya Pradesh states were 2.35 million and it is over 73% of the total Asthmatic people of these nine states.

If one assumes the average prevalence rate of these nine states as the prevalence rate in India, the minimum number of persons effected by this disease in India would be about 7 millions.

What is a Longitudinal Study?

A longitudinal study is a type of observational and correlational research study that involves repeated observations of the same variables over long periods of time — often quite many years, say decades.  Longitudinal studies are also used in medicine to study uncover predictors of certain disease. The reason for this is that unlike cross-sectional studies, in which different individuals with same characteristics are compared, longitudinal studies track the same people, and therefore the differences observed in those people are less likely to be the result of cultural differences across generations. Because of this benefit, longitudinal studies make observing changes more accurate, and they are applied in various other fields like psychology, sociology, advertising etc. Longitudinal studies observe the state of the world without manipulating it.  It has been argued that they may have less power to detect causal relationships than do experiments. But because of the repeated observation at the individual level, they have more power than cross-sectional observational studies, by virtue of being able to exclude time-invariant unobserved individual differences, and by virtue of observing the temporal order of events. Longitudinal studies allow social scientists to distinguish short from long-term phenomena, such as poverty.  Types of longitudinal studies include cohort studies and panel studies. Cohort studies sample a cohort, defined as a group experiencing some event in a selected time period, and studying them at intervals through time. Panel studies sample a cross-section, and survey it at regular intervals.  A retrospective study is a longitudinal study that looks back in time. For instance a researcher may look up the medical records of previous years to look for a trend.  Many a times Operational Research Methods are used for a longitudinal study.

Some of the disadvantages of longitudinal study include the fact that it takes a lot of time and is very expensive. Therefore, it is not very convenient.

Diabetes Prevalence is Highest among Urban Males of Odisha (Orissa) and lowest among Rural Females of Rajasthan State (India) out eight EAG States and Assam

Annual Health Survey has been conducted in the year 2010-11 for nine States namely, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Uttaranchal, Chhattisgarh, Odisha and Jharkhand and Assam.  Fact Sheets for the same have been utilized to have the prevalence of Diabetes in these States have been given per one lakh (one tenth of a million) persons as per their sex and residence. 

Diagnosed for chronic Illnes (per 100,000 Population) Diabetes
	Person			Male			Female
State	Total	Rural	Urban	Total	Rural	Urban	Total	Rural	Urban
1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
Assam	541	357	1400	653	421	1720	423	291	1053
Bihar	277	213	699	333	250	870	217	175	509
Chhattisgarh	563	338	1377	690	426	1634	432	249	1105
Jharkhand	371	176	924	455	223	1092	282	127	737
Madhya Pradesh	352	162	741	382	181	792	318	141	684
Odisha	604	405	1622	750	504	1979	456	306	1248
Rajasthan	135	67	344	153	83	368	115	49	318
Uttar Pradesh	287	194	619	325	220	687	248	166	544
Uttarakhand	669	356	1436	732	393	1517	606	321	1348

It may be seen from the above table that Diabetes illness is prevalent highest in Uttarakhand at the total person level and in Odisha for both the rural and urban areas.  It is lowest in Rajasthan among the mentioned nine survey states.  Invariably, the burden of the disease is more in urban than rural and males experience this deadly disease more that the females in all the regions of these states.  The disease burden is not more than 2% anywhere in these states for males and 1.4 percent for females.