Understanding socio-economic inequalities in the prevalence of asthma in India: an evidence from national sample survey 2017–18

Abstract

Background: Today, over 300 million people reside with asthma worldwide and India alone is home for 6% of children and 2% of adults suffering from this chronic disease. A common notion of disparity persists in terms of health outcomes across the poor and better-off section of the society. Thus, there is a need to explore socio-economic inequality in the contribution of various factors associated with asthma prevalence in India. Methods: Data for the study were carved out from the 75th round of National Sample Survey (NSS), collected by the National Sample Survey Organization (NSSO) during 2017–18. The sample size for this study was 555,289 individuals, for which data was used for the analysis. Descriptive statistics were used to show the distribution of the study population. Further, bivariate and multivariate analysis was performed to identify the factors associated with Asthma prevalence. The concentration index was used to measure the inequality. Further, we used decomposition analysis to find the contribution of factors responsible for socio-economic status-related inequality in asthma prevalence. Results: The prevalence of asthma was 2 per 1000 in the whole population; however, the prevalence differs by age groups in a significant manner. Age, sex, educational status, place of residence, cooking fuel, source of drinking water, household size and garbage disposal facility were significantly associated with asthma prevalence in India. It was found that asthma was more concentrated among individuals from higher socioeconomic status (concentration index: 0.15; p < 0.05). While exploring socio-economic inequality for asthma, richest wealth status (53.9%) was the most significant contributor in explaining the majority of the inequality followed by the urban place of residence (37.9%) and individual from age group 45–65 years (33.3%). Additionally, individual aged 65 years and above (27.9%) and household size less than four members (14.7%) contributed in explaining socio-economic inequality for asthma. Conclusion: Due to the heterogeneous nature of asthma, associations between different socio-economic indicators and asthma can be complex and may point in different directions. Hence, considering the concentration of asthma prevalence in vulnerable populations and its long-term effect on general health, a comprehensive programme to tackle chronic respiratory diseases and asthma, in particular, is urgently needed.