Sources
National surveys (e.g. NFHS), official statistics, WHO and global-burden studies, and peer-reviewed research. Systematic reviews come first where they exist. Every number carries its source and year. No unpublished or lab data are used.
Confidence
Inspired by the IPCC’s guidance on uncertainty, each key message is rated very high, high, medium or low confidence, combining how much evidence there is with how well studies agree.
| Confidence | Typical basis | Site label |
|---|---|---|
| Very high | Robust evidence, high agreement (or official measured data) | Established |
| High | Several independent studies agree | Strong evidence |
| Medium | Limited studies or mixed agreement | Emerging |
| Low | Little evidence or untested ideas | Hypothesis / Debated |
Options, not orders
Briefs set out options with their benefits, costs, risks and evidence strength. Decisions belong to decision-makers.
Review
Each brief is marked draft for expert review until at least one senior domain expert has reviewed it. Reviewers are named (with their consent) when a brief is updated. Errors are corrected openly, with version numbers and dates.
Interests
The author is a student researcher in biology, trained in fruit-fly and biochemistry research. Views are personal, not those of any institution or funder. No payments or funding are received for these briefs.
Maps
Any map of India will use official Survey of India boundaries. Where possible, I show state data as charts instead.