Explainer

Decoding India’s infant mortality numbers: The decline has been predictable, not dramatic

Despite the health ministry’s claim of ‘remarkable achievements over one year’, the improvement is a continuation of a decade-long trend.

The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare issued a press release last weekend announcing that India had registered a “significant reduction” in infant mortality rate or IMR as per latest data from the Sample Registration Survey. The IMR has declined three points from 37 deaths per 1000 live births in 2015 to 34 deaths per 1000 live births in 2016, which is an 8% decline.

The drop in the number of infant deaths is, of course, good news. But while the health ministry is hailing the numbers as “remarkable achievements in merely one year”, public health experts point out that the numbers only confirm the downward trend in infant mortality across the country over the past decade. Meanwhile, a large number of children continue to die in India – about 9,30,000 died in 2015 and 8,40,000 died in in 2016.

Dr Mohan Rao professor at the Centre for Social Medicine and Community Health at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi, said that the decline is unremarkable as it only confirms the declining trend. Since 2006, IMR has declined by at least two to three points every year and the same has happened again between 2015 and 2016.

IMR is an important indicator of community health and is sensitive to general structural factors such as socio-economic development and basic living conditions. The same factors that increase an infant’s susceptibility to death – poverty, disease, lack of sanitation, lack of education – are the factors that affect health and productivity of adults as well. Moreover, the biggest improvements in life expectancy and health come from reduction in infant and child mortality.

“We are benefitting from technological advancements, perhaps a better vaccination programme, better hospital procedures during childbirth,” said Amit Sengupta, associate global coordinator of the People’s Health Movement. “It does not indicate that social indicators are better. We still have many children with low birth weight and many young mothers. We are benefitting from picking these low hanging fruit.”

Another recent study – the Million Death Study that looked at causes of child mortality – attributed the decline of infant mortality from 2000 to 2015 to the creation of the National Health Mission aimed at improving primary healthcare in the country, and the Janani Suraksha Yojana which incentivised institutional deliveries.

“The focus on primary health care and antenatal care [of schemes implemented in 2005] may have caused a persistent accelerated impact [over the past decade],” said Dr T Sundararaman, Dean of School of Health Systems Studies, Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai. “The build up to [2016 IMR rates] is not particularly because of the current government but because of the concerted action in this area over the years.”

Meanwhile, as Rao pointed out, IMR in Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh have been declining significantly but remain unacceptably high.

Uttarakhand is the only state with an unfortunate increase in IMR, especially in the rural areas. While the total IMR in Uttarakhand has risen from 34 to 38, its rural areas have seen a sharp 10 point rise from 31 to 41 in one year. The other states showing a rise in IMR are Arunachal Pradesh, Tripura, Manipur and the union territory of Daman and Diu.

Another significant comparison with regards to to infant mortality is that that India’s neighbouring countries, which are economically more backward, have fewer deaths.

As per the United Nations Inter-agency Group for Child Mortality Estimation figures of 2015, neonatal mortality – mortality within 28 days of birth – in Nepal and Bangladesh were 22.5 and 23.3 respectively. India’s neonatal mortality was 27.7.

“India’s social indicators including infant mortality rates are higher than countries such as Nepal and Bangladesh,” said Sengupta. “I am not even considering Sri Lanka which is way ahead of India on health indicators.”

One reason for this difference, according to Sengupta, is that while social indicators have become better among richer household in India, they have only stagnated or become worse for the poor.

“After liberalisation [of the economy in 1991], the global evidence shows that while people got richer, the difference between the rich and poor increased,” he said.

This is borne out by the infant mortality rates in rich states like Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Haryana and Gujarat which have higher infant mortality rates as compared to the poorer state Jharkhand. This is because, infant mortality in rural areas in the richer states is worse than in rural areas of Jharkhand.

The gender gap

The Sample Registration Survey also shows that difference between the female and male infant mortality has reduced by more than 10%. The government has attributed the this improvement to the Beti Bachao Beti Padhao scheme launched in January 2015, which is aimed at improving the child sex ratio, early survival of the girl child and girls’ education.

But like infant mortality, the improvement in child sex ratio is also more likely to be a continuation of a decade-long trend.

The Million Death study noted significant reductions in the gap between male and female child mortality between 2000 to 2015. The authors of the study were reluctant to attribute it to any single reason, but speculated that the availability of health services, and overall social indicators may have contributed to it.

Experts said that more studies need to be done to understand this phenomenon before jumping to the conclusion that a single programme has helped reduce the gender divide.

“I do not see any specific intervention making such a big difference to reduce the gender divide between the male and female IMR,” said Sundararaman.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Scroll+ here. We welcome your comments at letters@scroll.in.
Sponsored Content BY 

Do you really need to use that plastic straw?

The hazards of single-use plastic items, and what to use instead.

In June 2018, a distressed whale in Thailand made headlines around the world. After an autopsy it’s cause of death was determined to be more than 80 plastic bags it had ingested. The pictures caused great concern and brought into focus the urgency of the fight against single-use plastic. This term refers to use-and-throw plastic products that are designed for one-time use, such as takeaway spoons and forks, polythene bags styrofoam cups etc. In its report on single-use plastics, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has described how single-use plastics have a far-reaching impact in the environment.

Dense quantity of plastic litter means sights such as the distressed whale in Thailand aren’t uncommon. Plastic products have been found in the airways and stomachs of hundreds of marine and land species. Plastic bags, especially, confuse turtles who mistake them for jellyfish - their food. They can even exacerbate health crises, such as a malarial outbreak, by clogging sewers and creating ideal conditions for vector-borne diseases to thrive. In 1988, poor drainage made worse by plastic clogging contributed to the devastating Bangladesh floods in which two-thirds of the country was submerged.

Plastic litter can, moreover, cause physiological harm. Burning plastic waste for cooking fuel and in open air pits releases harmful gases in the air, contributing to poor air quality especially in poorer countries where these practices are common. But plastic needn’t even be burned to cause physiological harm. The toxic chemical additives in the manufacturing process of plastics remain in animal tissue, which is then consumed by humans. These highly toxic and carcinogenic substances (benzene, styrene etc.) can cause damage to nervous systems, lungs and reproductive organs.

The European Commission recently released a list of top 10 single-use plastic items that it plans to ban in the near future. These items are ubiquitous as trash across the world’s beaches, even the pristine, seemingly untouched ones. Some of them, such as styrofoam cups, take up to a 1,000 years to photodegrade (the breakdown of substances by exposure to UV and infrared rays from sunlight), disintegrating into microplastics, another health hazard.

More than 60 countries have introduced levies and bans to discourage the use of single-use plastics. Morocco and Rwanda have emerged as inspiring success stories of such policies. Rwanda, in fact, is now among the cleanest countries on Earth. In India, Maharashtra became the 18th state to effect a ban on disposable plastic items in March 2018. Now India plans to replicate the decision on a national level, aiming to eliminate single-use plastics entirely by 2022. While government efforts are important to encourage industries to redesign their production methods, individuals too can take steps to minimise their consumption, and littering, of single-use plastics. Most of these actions are low on effort, but can cause a significant reduction in plastic waste in the environment, if the return of Olive Ridley turtles to a Mumbai beach are anything to go by.

To know more about the single-use plastics problem, visit Planet or Plastic portal, National Geographic’s multi-year effort to raise awareness about the global plastic trash crisis. From microplastics in cosmetics to haunting art on plastic pollution, Planet or Plastic is a comprehensive resource on the problem. You can take the pledge to reduce your use of single-use plastics, here.

This article was produced by the Scroll marketing team on behalf of National Geographic, and not by the Scroll editorial team.