Looking at the doc page numbered 438, 439 it looks that they have separate % for women and men, i wonder how they combined it. And the total seems to be 45.1% for women, and 57.3% for men in total. Wonder how they arrived at 77%
The only thing I can think of for how they got to 77 is that the survey differentiates between meat, chicken and fish and the person making the graphic may have combined them into a single category. That would make more sense when trying to draw conclusions about dietary habits.
The source in the image says the survey was from 15 to 49 years old; I’m not sure on the age demographics of India but that seems like it would leave out a large chunk of population.
fair, but people below the age of 15 are so heavily influenced by their families that to sample them is to essentially sample the parents twice. Given that, according to the source cited in the image, “NFHS-5 was designed to provide information on sexual behaviour;” sampling people below 15 or above 49 could lead to skewed results due to a tendency toward non-participation.
What’s really interesting about the survey is that it classifies fish as not being meat. It differentiates between houses that eat fish, houses that eat chicken or meat (guessing “meat” is beef, lamb, goat and pork in this context though of course that’s not exhaustive) or houses that eat all three.
I was mostly referring to leaving out the 50 and above population, rather than the 15 and below population. That seems like leaving out a good chunk of adults to me, but I’m no expert.
Does the bit about non-participation means adults over 50 were less likely to respond to the survey?
By reading the starting bits, the meat comsumtion map is just to trigger online audience, like me. It seems like this survery was to assess health, nutrition, tobacco consumption, etc of younger ish population. To help making national level decisions for healthcare. Maybe the rationale is that older populatuon wouldnt benifit much from a policy coming in next 5 years.
Whats the source? Waht month was this measured in? Does it also consider frequency? The numbers kind of look way too high for some states.
The source is given?
Overlooked it while just looking at the numbers :(
https://dhsprogram.com/pubs/pdf/FR375/FR375.pdf
Here’s what you get when you google the source in the image. Hope this helps!
Thanks.
Looking at the doc page numbered 438, 439 it looks that they have separate % for women and men, i wonder how they combined it. And the total seems to be 45.1% for women, and 57.3% for men in total. Wonder how they arrived at 77%
The only thing I can think of for how they got to 77 is that the survey differentiates between meat, chicken and fish and the person making the graphic may have combined them into a single category. That would make more sense when trying to draw conclusions about dietary habits.
The source in the image says the survey was from 15 to 49 years old; I’m not sure on the age demographics of India but that seems like it would leave out a large chunk of population.
fair, but people below the age of 15 are so heavily influenced by their families that to sample them is to essentially sample the parents twice. Given that, according to the source cited in the image, “NFHS-5 was designed to provide information on sexual behaviour;” sampling people below 15 or above 49 could lead to skewed results due to a tendency toward non-participation.
What’s really interesting about the survey is that it classifies fish as not being meat. It differentiates between houses that eat fish, houses that eat chicken or meat (guessing “meat” is beef, lamb, goat and pork in this context though of course that’s not exhaustive) or houses that eat all three.
I was mostly referring to leaving out the 50 and above population, rather than the 15 and below population. That seems like leaving out a good chunk of adults to me, but I’m no expert.
Does the bit about non-participation means adults over 50 were less likely to respond to the survey?
By reading the starting bits, the meat comsumtion map is just to trigger online audience, like me. It seems like this survery was to assess health, nutrition, tobacco consumption, etc of younger ish population. To help making national level decisions for healthcare. Maybe the rationale is that older populatuon wouldnt benifit much from a policy coming in next 5 years.