Funding pattern in ICDS

1. ICDS is a Centrally-sponsored Scheme implemented through the State Governments/UT Administrations. Prior to 2005-06, 100% financial assistance for inputs other than supplementary nutrition, which the States were to provided out of their own resources, was being provided by the Government of India. Since many States were not providing adequately for supplementary nutrition in view of resource constraints, it was decided in 2005-06 to support to States up to 50% of the financial norms or to support 50% of expenditure incurred by them on supplementary nutrition, whichever is less.
2. From the financial year 2009-10, Government of India has modified the funding pattern of ICDS between Centre and States. The sharing pattern of supplementary nutrition in respect of North-eastern States between Centre and States has been changed from 50:50 to 90:10 ratio. So far as other States and UTs, the existing sharing pattern of 50:50 continues. However, for all other components of ICDS, the ratio has been modified to 90:10(100% Central Assistance earlier).

Source: http://wcd.nic.in/icds.htm 

Why P=0.05?

Why P=0.05?
A very good article on p value.

Error bars and statistical significance

If two SE error bars overlap you can conclude that the difference is not statistically significant, but when the two SE error bars do not overlap, you cannot draw any conclusion regarding statistical significance.

The girl who silenced the world for 5 minutes. Watch it to believe it..

What is there in a name ? Changing the nomenclature of Comm Medicine.

Well, selecting a particular name for a specialty is a very serious issue. Its like we are on the verge of making history. 

Therefore it has to undergo a well structured and organised debate and a highly focussed discussion which involves all the stakeholders (Community Medicine professionals working in all the sectors and past and present students of Community Medicine). This is because we should know that by the nomenclature of Community Medicine, what opportunities and challenges one has faced or is expecting to face in future.

The advantages and disadvantages of a particular nomenclature have to be discussed in depth. For example a MD (Community Medicine) student may face a problem while going abroad where Public Health is only recognized and not Comm Med. This takes away from the student the opportunity just because of the difference in nomenclature. 

The other issue, which I think should be highlighted is; not just the nomenclature; but we should also strive for a standardized curriculum for MD (Comm Med). 

We have a responsibility; that the future generation of Community Medicine professionals should stand up with pride and have a clear sense of direction and understanding and not getting confused as to what and where they belong because of a nomenclature based on no debate.

When the future generation thinks about the name of their specialty they should have clear, logical and evidence based answers (the time to find this is now) rather than coming to know that the nomenclature was decided just by an opinion poll and the name which got the maximum votes got selected. 

We should be driven by evidences and information and not by popular votes.

Suggestions/comments are welcome.