Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Socioeconomic staus and Social Security Measures


Published on

Indian scenario

Published in: Healthcare

Socioeconomic staus and Social Security Measures

  1. 1. Socioeconomic status  Dr Anupkumar T N  Junior Resident  Dept of Community Medicine  Govt Medical College,Thrissur
  3. 3. Socioeconomic status (SES) Socioeconomic status (SES) is one of the most important social determinants of health and disease, thus, a widely studied construct in the social sciences.  SES influences the accessibility, affordability, acceptability and actual utilization of available health facilities  Socioeconomic status (SES) is a combination of social and economic variables
  4. 4. Definition  A composite measure that typically incorporates economic, social, and work status .  Economic status is measured by income.  Social status is measured by education, and  Work status is measured by occupation. • Each status is considered an indicator. • These three indicators are related but do not overlap
  5. 5. SES Scales and health  Low SES population presenting more commonly with nutritional deficiency and communicable diseases and  High SES showing more of obesity and noncommunicable diseases;  Access to healthcare with high SES showing a better access.
  6. 6. Methods for social classification  Status inequalities between individuals are common,.  In general, the more complex the society, the more numerous the layers or strata of social differentiation
  7. 7. Defintion SES Scale  The position that an individual or family occupies with reference to the prevailing average standards of cultural and material possessions, income, and participation in group activity of the community
  8. 8. Why SES scale? 1. Understand the distribution of population based on SES 2. To develop a uniform system of socioeconomic classification of the population universally based on the income with scientific basis 3. Resources are scarce a. Need to identify the most needy b. Difficulty in identifying the exact number of people living below the poverty line (BPL families) in India
  9. 9. International SES scale  Hollingshead scale, (The Hollingshead Four Factor Index of Socioeconomic Status is a survey designed to measure social status of an individual based on four domains: Marital status, retired/employed status, educational attainment, and occupational prestige.)  Mac Arthur scale (Domains: Education, income, occupational status and wealth)
  10. 10. Standard of Living Index (SLI) scale  (NFHS - II) had used the Standard of Living Index (SLI) scale  Contains 11 items viz. house type, source of lighting, toilet facility, main fuel for cooking, source of drinking water, separate room for cooking, ownership of the house, ownership of agricultural land, ownership of irrigated land, ownership of livestock, ownership of durable goods  Used for measuring the SES both urban and rural areas for the entire country
  11. 11. Wealth Index Variables  The NFHS-3 wealth index is based on the following 33 assets and housing characteristics
  12. 12. Wealth Index Variables  Household electrification  Type of windows  Drinking water source  Type of toilet facility  Type of flooring  Material of exterior walls  Type of roofing  Cooking fuel  House ownership  Number of household members per sleeping room Ref:NFHS-3, India, 2005-06 • Ownership of a bank or post-office account • Ownership of a mattress, • A pressure cooker, • A chair, a cot/bed, a table, an electric fan, a radio/transistor, • A black and white television, a color television, • A sewing machine • A mobile telephone, • Any other telephone • A computer, • A refrigerator, • A watch or clock, • A bicycle, • A motorcycle or scooter, • An animal-drawn cart, • A car • A water pump, • A thresher, • A tractor
  14. 14. Socioeconomic Status Scales - India  Rahudkar scale 1960,  Udai Parikh scale 1964,  Jalota Scale 1970  Kulshrestha scale 1972,  Kuppuswamy scale 1976  A Sukumaran Nair scale 1976  Shrivastava scale1978  Bharadwaj scale 2001
  15. 15. Udai Pareek and G. Trivedi (1964)  Udai Pareek and G. Trivedi (1964) attempts to examine the socio-economic status for the rural or mixed population only  This scale has nine factors which assess the socioeconomic status of the individual
  16. 16. Pareek & Trivedi’s Scale: Components  Caste  Occupation  Education  Social participation  Land  House  Farm powers  Material possession  Family
  17. 17. 1.Caste 2.Occupation Scheduled caste 1 Labour 1 Lower caste 2 Caste occupation 2 Artisan caste 3 Business 3 Agricultural caste 4 Independent profession 4 Prestige caste 5 Cultivation 5 Dominant caste 6 Service 6 3.Education 4.Social participation Illiterate 0 Member of one organization 1 Can read only 1 Member of > 1 organization 2 Can read and write 2 Office holder 3 Primary 3 Wider public leader 6 Middle 4 High school 5 Graduate 6
  18. 18. 5. Land Score 7. Farm power Score 9.Family Score No land 0 No drought animal 0 Type < 1 Acre 1 1-2 drought animals 2 Single 1 1- 5 Acres 2 3-4 drought animal 4 Joint 2 5-10 Acres 3 Or one prestige animal 4 Extended 3 10-15 Acres 4 5-6 drought animal or tractor 6 Upto 5 2 15-20 Acres 5 Distinct features 2 >20 Acres 6 6. House Score 8. Material possession Score No home 0 Bullock -cart 1 Hut 1 Cycle ,Radio , Chair 1 Katcha house 2 Improved agri implements 2 Mixed house 3 Television 3 Pucca house 4 Mobile 4 Mansion 6 Refrigerators 8
  19. 19. Scoring:  After filling the information ,and scoring the individual items, the total score is summed up.  With the help of the key provided in the manual, total score is interpreteding terms of the class.
  20. 20. Social class  Above 43 Upper Class (I)  33-42 Upper Middle Class (II)  24-32 Middle Class (III)  13-23 Lower Middle Class (IV)  Below 13 Lower Class (V)
  21. 21. Merits  Includes many domains
  22. 22. Limitations  This scale does not emphasize the income aspect  Can only be used for rural subjects  Caste system varies in each state
  23. 23. BG Prasad socioeconomic scale
  24. 24.  Per capita monthly income = Total monthly income of the family/Total members of family.
  25. 25. The need to update SES scale  Income ranges in the scale lose their relevance following the depreciation in the value of the rupee .  Steady inflation, lower interest rates, and country’s current account deficits are the main factors contributing to fall in the value of currency.  Therefore, it is needed to update the scale regularly for socioeconomic classification of study populations.
  26. 26. Inflation
  27. 27. Current account deficit
  28. 28. Methods to update SES scale  Kumar had tried to update Prasad Scale’s income limits using consumer price index (CPI)  Kuppuswamy socioeconomic scale was revised with CPI .  Linking of the scale with price index makes it relevant and meaningful and also provides a opportunity for constant updation .
  29. 29. Price index  A price index (plural: “price indices” or “price indexes”) is a normalized average (typically a weighted average) of price relatives for a given class of goods or services in a given region, during a given interval of time  Calculating the CPI for a single item
  30. 30. Wholesale price index(1902)  The change in the average price level of 676 commodities traded in wholesale market  Weekly basis availability
  31. 31. Consumer Price Index (CPI)  Definition: A comprehensive measure used for estimation of price changes in a basket of goods and services representative of consumption expenditure in an economy is called consumer price index
  32. 32. Consumer price index(1970)  Comprises multiple series classified based on different economic group  4 series CPI UNME (Urban Non-Manual Employee) -20th-CSO CPI AL (Agricultural Labourer)-20 th CPI RL (Rural Labourer)-20 th CPI IW (Industrial Worker)-last day of month  From February 2011 the CPI (UNME) released by CSO is replaced as CPI (urban),CPI (rural) and CPI (combined)
  33. 33.  The prices of 85,000 items from 22,000 stores, and 35,000 rental units are added together and averaged. They are weighted this way:  Housing: 41.4%, Food and Beverage: 17.4%,  Transport: 17.0%, Medical Care: 6.9%,  Other: 6.9%, Apparel: 6.0%,  Entertainment: 4.4%.  Taxes (43%) are not included in CPI computation.
  34. 34.  Consumer Price Index is used in calculation of Dearness Allowancewhich forms an integral part of salary of a Government Employee.Base year to calculate CPI is 2001=100  CENTRAL= Avg AICPIN for 12 months-261.4 ×100 261.4  Kerala = Avg AICPIN for 12 months-239.92 ×100 239.92
  35. 35. Modified BG Prasad socioeconomic scale  Modified BG Prasad socioeconomic scale is widely used to determine the socioeconomic status .  The BG Prasad scale was formulated in 1961 keeping the base of Consumer Price Index (CPI) for 1960 as 100  Mishra, undertook the important task of revision of family income per month for 1998 using base year 1982=100.Presently the base year has been changed from 1982 to 2001  The Consumer Price Index (CPI) for industrial workers (IW) is used to calculate updated income categories
  36. 36. Updating Prasad’s Scale  The BG Prasad scale was formulated in 1961Consumer Price Index (CPI) for 1960 as 100.  This was revised in 1982 by introducing a linking factor of 4.93 to convert CPI (1982) from the new base of 100 to the old base CPI (1960).  Again a need was felt in 2001 to revise the base, which was done by introducing the linking factor of 4.63.
  37. 37. Formula updated as for January 2017  CPI [IW]× 4.63× 4.93 ÷ 100.  [ 274 × 4.63) × 4.93 ÷ 100.  = 62.5429=62.5 Class Prasad’s Classification (1961) In Rupees New Starting classes before they are rounded off Modified Prasad’s Classification after rounding off to the nearest Rs. 10/= I 100 & above 6250 6250 & above II 50-99 3125 3130 – 6250 III 30-49 1875 1880– 3130 IV 15-29 937 940-1880 V Below 15 937 Below 940
  38. 38. MERITS  Can assess the socioeconomic status in both rural and urban areas  Only income considered  Per capita family income so includes all earning members  Can be updated
  39. 39. Limitation  It is only income-based scale  No other domains addressed  Inflation not considered
  40. 40. Kuppuswamy’s socioeconomic scale  The most widely used scale for urban population was devised by Kuppuswamy in 1976.  Kuppuswamy scale is a composite score of education and occupation of the head of the family along with monthly income of the family, which yields a score of 3-29.  This scale classifies the study populations into high, middle, and low SES  To get current income group, a conversion factor calculated based on current All India Consumer Price Index (AICPI) is applied
  41. 41. Contents  Manual  Two information blanks (one for the person concerned and second for the father or guardian)  Score card • The information is collected in the devised Information blanks and with the help of the score card the status score is obtained. • On the basis of the total score, the respective class is found out. Scoring:
  42. 42. Scoring
  43. 43. Modification in income slabs  In 1976 the CPI was taken as 296 based on 1960  In 1982 new CPI base was set at 100 when 1960 based value became 460 (so multiplying factor 4.6)  In 2001 CPI base was set at 100 and when 1982 based valur reached 490 (so multiplying factor 4.9)  As per 2017 January CPI value is 274 base year 2001
  44. 44. Modified Kuppuswamys socioeconomic status Jan 2017 CPI SL NO FAMILY INCOME/MO NTH( 1976) FAMILY INCOME/MO NTH( 1982) FAMILY INCOME/MO NTH( 2001) FAMILY INCOME/MO NTH( 2017) SCORE 1 2000 3108 15230 41730 12 2 1000-1999 1554-3107 7614-15229 20865-41729 10 3 750-999 1166-1553 5711-7613 15649-20864 6 4 500-749 777-1552 3807-5710 10432-15648 4 5 300-499 466-776 2284-3806 6259-10431 3 6 101-299 155-465 761-2283 2086-6258 2 7 <100 <155 <761 <2086 1
  45. 45. Socioeconomic Class  26 –29 Upper (I)  16 –25 Upper Middle (II)  11 –15 Middle (III)  05 –10 Lower Middle (IV)  < 4 Lower (V)
  46. 46. Merits  Main 3 domains are considered  Income total family income
  47. 47. Limitations  Steady inflation and consequent fall in the value of currency make the economic criteria in the scale less relevant.  Income part is considered to be the total income of the family and no consideration is given to size of the family:  A small family with a particular income will have higher SES status than a bigger-sized family with similar income.  There is an overemphasis on income  Material possessions not considered 
  48. 48. Marketing Research Society of India scoring  Based on two variables  Number of “consumer durables” (from a predefined list)-owned by the family. The list has 11 items, ranging from ‘electricity connection’ and ‘agricultural land’-to cars and air conditioners  Education of chief earner
  49. 49.  The household is categorised into one of the five groups Class I – Upper; ClassII – Upper Middle; Class III – Lower Middle Class IV – UpperLower Class V – Lower Lower
  50. 50. Kerala Socio-Economic Status scale  A. Sukumaran Nair's (1976)  The general data sheet is divided into 5 sections  Section one elicits the name, age, caste, religion, locality of the school, place of residence etc.  The second part calls for information regarding the level of education of parents, siblings and other occupants of the family  Section three elicits the details of occupation of the members of the family
  51. 51.  The last part (fifth) contains the information regarding the school marks.  Here, the highest income given was 2501/- and above and lowest was 300. But in now a day's even a coolie earns 750-800 per day
  52. 52. DEMERITS  The education and the lifestyle of people are totally improved. So the application of this scale in this changed social condition of Kerala is in question
  53. 53. Summary  SES is a predictor of health status  Socioeconomic status (SES) is a combination of social and economic variables  SES Scales help to develop a uniform system of socioeconomic classification of the population universally based on the income with scientific basis  Udai Pareek and G. Trivedi scale, Kuppuswamy scale 1962, B G Prasad classification are some Indian SES scales .  Steady inflation, lower interest rates, and country’s current account deficits are the main factors contributing to fall in the value of currency, so, it is needed to update the scale regularly for socioeconomic classification of study populations
  54. 54. SES at a glance Criterias Udai pareek B. Kuppu swamy B.G. Prasad Income x Total family income Per capita income Education + Edu of family head X Occupation + Occ of family head X Caste + X X Land + X X Social participation + X X Family type + X X Family size + X X Type of house + X X Farm power + X X Material possession + X X Composite score + + X Rural or urban R U R & U
  55. 55. Poverty lines  Below Poverty Line is an economic benchmark to indicate economic disadvantage and to identify individuals and households in need of government assistance and aid  Since 2008, the last update, we have used $1.25 as the global line.  As of October 2015, the new global line will be updated to $1.90.  29.8% in India below poverty line-70 th world wide
  56. 56.  'International Poverty Line An international monetary thresholdunder which an individual is considered to be living in poverty  The World Bank has revised its definition and benchmarks to measure poverty since 1990, with $2 per day income on purchasing power parity basis
  57. 57.  In 2012, the Indian government stated 22% of its population is below its official poverty limit  The World Bank, in 2011 based on 2005's PPPs International Comparison Program,estimated 23.6% of Indian population, 276 million people, lived below $1.25 per day on purchasing power parity  According to United Nation's Millennium Development Goals (MDG) programme 270 millions or 21.9% people out of 1.2 billion of Indians lived below poverty line of $1.25 in 2011-2012
  58. 58.  Those above poverty line live a fragile economic life.  The World Bank reviewed and proposed revisions in May 2014, to its poverty calculation methodology and purchasing power parity basis for measuring poverty worldwide, including India  According to the Modified Mixed Reference Period (MMRP) concept proposed by World Bankin 2015, India's poverty rate for period 2011-12 stood at 12.4% of the total population, or about 172 million people; taking the revised poverty line as $1.90.
  59. 59.  Each state in India has its own poverty threshold to determine how many people are below its poverty line  Since 2007, India set its official threshold at Rs 26 a day ($0.43) in rural areas and about Rs32 per day ($0.53) in urban areas  These numbers are lower than the World Bank's $1.25 per day income-based definition, the definition is similar to China's US$0.65 per day official poverty line in 2008.
  60. 60.  In 2011-2012, Puducherryhad its highest poverty line of R s 1,301 (US$19) a month in rural and Rs 1,309 (US$19) a month in urban areas, while Odishahad the lowest poverty thresholds of Rs695 (US$10) a month for rural and Rs 861 (US$13) a month for its urban areas
  61. 61. Ninth Plan  In its Ninth Five-Year Plan (1995–2002), BPL for rural areas was set at annual family income less than Rs.20,000, less than two hectares land, and no television or refrigerator.  The number of rural BPL families was 650,000 during the 9th Plan.  The survey based on this criterion was again carried out in 2002 and the total number of 387,000 families were identified.  This figure was in force until September 2006.
  62. 62. Tenth Plan  In its Tenth Five-Year Plan(2002–2007) survey, BPL for rural areas was based on the degree of deprivation in respect of 13 parameters, with scores from 0– 4: landholding, type of house, clothing, food security, sanitation, consumer durables, literacystatus, labour force, means of livelihood, status of children, type of indebtedness, reasons for migrations, etc.
  63. 63.  The Planning Commission fixed an upper limit of 326,000 for rural BPL families on the basis of simple survey. Accordingly, families having less than 15 marks out of maximum 52 marks have been classified as BPL and their number works out to 318,000  BPL for urban areas was based on degree of deprivation in respect of seven parameters: roof, floor, water, sanitation, education level, type of employment, and status of children in a house.  A total of 125,000 upper families were identified as BPL in urban area in 2004.
  64. 64. Kerala  The Government of Kerala is one of the few state governments which has formulated its own criteria.  In Kerala there are nine parameters.  Families which lack access to four or more parameters are classified as BPL.
  65. 65. The nine parameters  No land or less than five cents of land  No house or dilapidated house  No sanitation latrine  Family with an illitrate family member  No regular employed person in the family
  66. 66.  No access to safe drinking water  Women-headed household or presence of widows or divorcee  Scheduled castes and scheduled tribes (SC/ST)  Mentally retarded or disabled member in the family
  67. 67. BPL survey 2009 അര്‍ഹതയില്ലാത്ത കുടുുംബങ്ങള്‍  സര്‍കാര്‍ ജീവനകാര്‍ ഉള്ള കുടുുംബും (ക്ലാസ്1 മൂതല്‍ 4 വരെ)  സവകാെയ/അര്‍ധ സര്‍കാര്‍/എയ്ഡഡ് സ്ഥാപനങ്ങളിരല് ജീവനകാര്‍ ഉള്ള കുടുുംബും  സഹകെണ സ്ഥാപനങ്ങളിരല് ജീവനകാര്‍ ഉള്ള കുടൂുംബും  സര്‍കാര് ‍‍/സര്‍വീസ് രപന്‍ഷണര്‍മാര്‍ ഉള്ള കുടുുംബും  അര്‍ധസര്‍കാര്‍ /എയ്ഡഡ് സ്ഥാപനങ്ങളില്‍ നിന്ുും രപന്‍ഷന്‍ ല്ഭികുന്വര്‍ ഉള്ള കുടുുംബും
  68. 68.  സഹകെണ സ്ഥാപനങ്ങളിരല് രപന്‍ഷണര്‍മാര്‍ ഉള്ള കുടുുംബും  രപാതുമമഖല്ാ /പ്രപവറ്റ് സ്ഥാപനങ്ങളിരല് സ്ഥിെും ശന്പളും പറ്റുന് ജീവനകാര്‍ആരെങ്കില്ുും (പെന്പൊഗത രതാഴില്‍ മമഖല്യിരല് സ്ഥാപനങ്ങളിരല് ജീവനകാര്‍ ഒഴിരക)‍ഉള്‍രെടുന് കുടുുംബും  1000 ച.അടിയില്‍ അധികും വിസ്തീര്‍ണും ഉള്ള മകാണ്‍കരകീറ്റ് വീട് ഉടമസ്ഥാവകാശത്തില്ുള്ള കുടുുംബും  സവകാെയ ഉപമയാഗത്തിനുള്ള 4 ചരക മമാട്ടര്‍ വാഹനും ഉടമസ്ഥതയില്ുള്ള കുടുുംബും  വിമേശ ൊജയങ്ങളില്‍ മജാല്ി രചയ്യുന്വര്‍ ഉള്ള കുടുുംബും  പട്ടികവര്‍ഗകാര്‍ ഒഴിരക ഒമെകറില്ധികും കാര്‍ഷിക ഭൂമി പ്കവശാവകാശത്തില്ുള്ള കുടുുംബും
  69. 69.  2011-12 Suresh tendulkar-committee Rural Rs. 27 /-&Urban-33/- per day2meals difficult  2014- Rangarajan committee- Rural Rs. 32/-Urban-Rs.47/- per day spending  BPL families 21 %t0 28%
  70. 70. Criticism  Corruption in the system allows those ineligible to gain benefits of the BPL status  Other social security measures dependant on this  Political influence
  71. 71. Socio Economic and Caste Census 2011  First findings were revealed on 3 July 2015  The first paperless census in 640 districts  To use the SECC data in all its programmes such as MGNREGA, National Food Security Act, and the Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Grameen Kaushalya Yojana
  72. 72.  In January 2017, Central Government accepted recommendations to use Socio-Economic Caste Census, instead of poverty line, as the main instrument for identification of beneficiaries and transferring of funds for social schemes in rural areas
  73. 73. Report-key findings  There are 24.39 crore (243.9 million) households in India, of which 17.91 (179.1 million) crore live in villages. Of these, 10.69 crore households are considered as deprived.  5.37 crore (29.97%) households in rural areas are "landless deriving a major part of their income from manual labour".  As many as 2.37 crore (13.25%) families in villages live in houses of one room with 'kachcha' (impermanent) walls and roof.
  74. 74.  21.53%, or 3.86 crore, families living in villages belong to SC/ST categories.  56% of India's rural households lack agricultural land.  36% of 884 million people in rural India are non- literate.This is higher than the 32% recorded by 2011 Census of India  Of the 64% literate rural Indians, more than a fifth have not completed primary school.
  75. 75.  60% of the 17.91 crore rural households are deprived or poor.  35% of urban Indian households qualify as poor.  74.5% (13.34 crore) of rural households survive on a monthly income of Rs 5,000 for their highest earner.  5.4% of rural India has completed high school.
  76. 76.  3.4% of rural households have a family member who is a graduate.  4.6% of all rural households in India pay income tax.  14% of rural households are employed either with the government or the private sector.
  77. 77.  1,80,657 households are engaged in manual scavenging for a livelihood. Maharashtra, with 63,713, tops the list of the largest number of manual scavenger households, followed by Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Tripura and Karnataka.  Over 48 per cent of the Indian rural population is female.  44.72 crore are Indians are non-literate, more than a third of its 121.08 crore population.
  78. 78.  Transgender people comprise 0.1 per cent of India’s rural population. The Andaman and Nicobar islands, West Bengal, Gujarat, Odisha and Mizoram have the highest proportions of transgender people.  The military and the para-military were kept out of the SECC.
  79. 79.  Government of Karnatakas Socio Economic Survey 2015 conducted by the Karnataka State Commission for Backward Classes was put up on the official website.  The survey was launched on 11 April 2015.  1.33 lakh enumerators carried out the Socio Economic Survey 2015 into every village, town and street to compile data related to religion, caste, education, social and economic condition of about 6.60 crore people in Karnataka by covering about 1.26 crore families.
  80. 80.  Social Welfare Department of Government of Karnataka may carry out a second round of caste census for 2.37 lakh families in Bengaluru as the survey covered only 18.8 lakh families out of total 21,16,949 families in Bengaluru, which accounts for 88.82%.  Kerala tops in the number of people with mental ailments in India.  1% of rural households own a landline phone without a mobile phone, while 68.35% rural households have mobile phones as their only phone(s).
  81. 81. WHAT IS AN IDEAL TOOL...?  Five indicators are identified which are Education profile, Occupation profile Economic/social profile Land/house profile Material possession profile  Weightage for each domain
  82. 82. RFERENCE • M Bairwa, M Rajput, S Sachdeva :Kuppuswamy’s Socioeconomic Scale: Social Researcher Should Include Updated Income Criteria: Indian J Community Med. 2013 Jul-Sep; 38(3): 185–186  Kuppuswamy B. Manual of SocioeconomicStatus (urban), Delhi, Manasayan, 1981.  Mishra D, Singh HP. Kuppuswami’ssocioeconomic status scale: A Revision.Indian JPediatr 2003; 70:273-4.  Kumar N, Shekhar C, Kumar P and KunduA.S. Kuppuswamy’s Socioeconomic StatusScale-Updating for 2007. Indian J Pediatr2007; 74:1131-2
  83. 83.  Labour Bureau, Government of India, [cited 2017 March14]. Available from  Grusky, David B. (2011). “Theories of Stratification and Inequality”. In Ritzer, George and J. Michael Ryan (eds.). The Concise Encyclopedia of Sociology. Wiley-Blackwell. pp. 622– 624. Retrieved 23 June 2014  Agarwal AK. Social classification: The need to update in the present scenario. 2008:33(1); 50-1  nsus_2011
  84. 84.  National Journal of Research in Community Medicine. Vol. 2. Issue 2. July-Sep. 2013 (079-148)  Adler, N.E., Socioeconomic status and health: The challenge of the gradient. American psychologist, 1994. 49(1): p. 1  Ref: Sunil K. Raina: Use of Socioeconomic Status Scales in Medicine and Public Health :J Family Med Prim Care. 2015 Jan-Mar; 4(1): 156  Tendulkar SD. New Delhi: Government of India; 2009. Report of the expert group to review the methodology for estimation of poverty. Planning commission; p. 29
  85. 85.  Hollingshead, A. A. (1975). Four-factor index of social status. Unpublished manuscript, Yale University, New Haven, CT.  NFHS-3, India, 2005-06  Ref:NFHS-2, India, 1998-99  Prasad BG. Changes proposed in social classification of Indian families. J Indian Med Assoc. 1970;55:98–9.  Pareekh U. Delhi: Mansayan; 1981. Mannual of socio economic status (rural)  Gupta MC, Mahajan BK. Social environment. In: Guptha MC, editor. Text book of preventive and social medicine. 3rd ed. New Delhi: Jaypee Publications; 2005. p. 117.
  86. 86.  Ref: Holyachi S: Socio economic scales – An update: Annals of comm health V1:issue 1:p24    Jumana and Meera, American International Journal of Research in Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences, 12(2), September-November, 2015 pp. 237-240 AIJRHASS