First Image: A title card with large text asking, "How do we understand the true scale of malaria in India?" Below it, a statement reads, "The answer may lie in how malaria is measured." A yellow bar on the left suggests a visualisation element. The "Data For India" logo is present at the bottom.
Second Image: A comparison of two malaria measurement approaches: "Direct surveillance and reporting" (in purple) vs. "Secondary data and modelling" (in yellow). Direct surveillance relies on passive case reporting at health facilities and active surveillance in high-risk areas, led by the National Centre for Vector Borne Diseases Control (NCVBDC). Secondary data and modelling use diverse sources and statistical models, managed by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME). The "Data For India" logo and a URL for more information appear at the bottom.
Third Image: A statement in purple text indicating that "NCVBDCβs official estimates are under-reported by the government's own admission." Additional text explains that incomplete reporting from private healthcare providers and poor surveillance in remote areas impact data quality. The "Data For India" logo and a URL for more details are at the bottom.
Fourth Image: A comparison of malaria case estimates. "IHMEβs modelled estimates are 16 times the official estimates." A visual comparison shows a small purple circle representing NCVBDC's reported 338,494 cases in 2019, next to a large orange circle representing IHMEβs estimate of 5.5 million cases. The "Data For India" logo and a URL for further information appear at the bottom.
Accurately estimating the true burden of malaria in India is challenging. Direct estimates are often under-reported or stunted by accessibility to remote regions.
#Malaria #Health #PublicHealth #India #DataForIndia