NFHS-6: Key Findings, NFHS-5 Comparison and What Is Missing

NFHS 6, the sixth National Family Health Survey, is India’s largest household survey of health, nutrition and family welfare, carried out in 2023-24 and released by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare on 29 May 2026. It covered about 6.79 lakh households across 715 districts, with the International Institute for Population Sciences (IIPS), Mumbai, as the nodal agency. Its headline: child stunting fell from 35.5% to 29.3%, while adult obesity and high blood sugar rose.

The confusion most readers bring is that NFHS-6 is simply NFHS-5 with newer numbers. It isn’t. The first fact sheet carries 101 indicators, a shorter list than the last round’s, and some familiar ones, anaemia and the sex ratio among them, aren’t in it. So “compare everything with NFHS-5” fails on day one. This note sets out what the survey is, what it found on indicators present in both rounds and what’s still missing.

What Is NFHS 6?

The National Family Health Survey is a sample survey, not a census. Trained field teams visit a scientifically chosen set of households, interview women and men, and measure children and adults. From that sample, statisticians estimate the picture for India, each state and each district.

Two rows need a second look. The fieldwork ran into December 2024, so “2023-24” is the survey’s name rather than the exact field period. And the fact sheet says plainly that the results are provisional; the full national report comes later.

How Does the Survey Work?

NFHS-6 uses four questionnaires, which the survey calls schedules, filled in on tablets through computer-assisted personal interviewing:

• Household schedule. Members, assets, water, sanitation, insurance and land.
• Woman’s schedule. Marriage, births, contraception, children’s vaccination and feeding, reproductive health, empowerment and domestic violence.
• Man’s schedule. Marriage, health, nutrition and attitudes to gender roles.
• Biomarker schedule. Height and weight of children under 5, of women aged 15-49 and of men aged 15-54, plus blood pressure and random blood glucose for adults aged 15 and above.

The sample is drawn in two stages. First, villages in rural areas and blocks in towns are picked; then households within them. One change this round was technical but important: in towns, IIPS used the Urban Frame Survey blocks of 2012-17 instead of old Census enumeration blocks, which gives cleaner boundaries for the units teams visit.

Child nutrition is measured against the WHO growth standards, and three words carry most of the debate:

• Stunting is low height for age. It reflects long-term undernutrition, so it changes slowly.
• Wasting is low weight for height. It reflects recent hunger or illness, so it swings faster.
• Underweight is low weight for age, a mix of both.

A child counts as stunted, wasted or underweight when the measure falls more than two standard deviations below the WHO median. Think of a height chart on a clinic wall with a red line near the bottom; a stunted child sits below that line for their age. The chart comparison is fair for one child, but NFHS reports the share of all children below the line, which is why a 6-point fall matters across millions.

NFHS-6 also added new topics: direct benefit transfers, self-help group membership, digital literacy and financial transactions. Testing was widened to include HIV, along with hepatitis B and C. And for the first time in the series, IIPS ran the survey without technical or financial support from external organisations. Earlier rounds had funding from USAID with support from UNICEF and technical help from ICF and the East-West Center.

How Has the NFHS Changed Over Six Rounds?

The survey has grown from a fertility study into a district-level health census of sorts. Each round added depth, and knowing the sequence helps you read any trend line correctly.

• NFHS-1 (1992-93). Population, health and nutrition, with a focus on women and young children.
• NFHS-2 (1998-99). Added anaemia testing, women’s nutrition, domestic violence and the quality of services.
• NFHS-3 (2005-06). Wider funding and an HIV component, with technical help from national AIDS agencies.
• NFHS-4 (2015-16). Moved to district-level estimates, the feature that made the survey a planning tool.
• NFHS-5 (2019-21). Kept district estimates; fieldwork was split in two phases around the pandemic.
• NFHS-6 (2023-24). District estimates again, new topics on transfers and digital use, and the first round run entirely on domestic resources.

The jump to district data is the change that matters most. A state average can hide a district where half the children are stunted. Once the NFHS began publishing district tables, district collectors and state nutrition missions could be judged on their own numbers, not on the state’s.

The flip side is comparability. When a round changes its sample frame, as NFHS-6 did in towns, or drops an indicator, a trend across rounds needs a caveat. The fact sheet itself warns readers to be careful when comparing states with small samples.

What Did NFHS 6 Find?

The short answer: services improved fast, child growth improved slowly, and adult lifestyle disease grew. Every comparison below uses only indicators that appear in both the NFHS-6 and NFHS-5 columns of the official fact sheet.

The Gains

The service numbers moved most. Antenatal check-ups in the first trimester rose from 70.0% to 76.2%. Rotavirus vaccination rose from 36.4% to 85.4%, the biggest single jump in the table. Household health insurance cover jumped from 41.0% to 60.2%, which the ministry ties to Ayushman Bharat PM-JAY.

Stunting is the headline. Between NFHS-4 (2015-16) and NFHS-5 it had slipped only from about 38% to about 36%, a change the ministry itself called slight. A fall from 35.5% to 29.3% in roughly four years is several times that pace. Women’s digital and financial access also moved sharply: internet use nearly doubled, and women using their own bank account rose from 78.6% to 89.0%.

The Warnings

Now the uncomfortable half. Wasting barely moved, from 19.3% to 19.0%, so nearly one child in five is still too thin for their height. Exclusive breastfeeding of infants under six months fell from 63.7% to 55.8%, which runs against every feeding goal. Only 15.3% of children aged 6-23 months get an adequate diet, even after improving.

The adult numbers point to a new burden. Women who are overweight or obese rose from 24.0% to 30.7%, and men from 22.9% to 27.3%. Women with high blood sugar, or on medicine for it, rose from 13.5% to 17.8%. That’s the double burden in plain terms: the same country has thin children and heavier adults.

Two quieter shifts deserve a line. Caesarean births rose from 21.5% to 27.2%, and in private hospitals from 47.4% to 54.1%. More than half of private-facility births by surgery is a figure that raises questions about need, because a caesarean carries its own risks for mother and baby. And use of modern contraceptive methods fell from 56.4% to 52.7% while traditional methods rose from 10.3% to 16.4%, even as overall contraceptive use went up.

What Is Missing From NFHS 6?

The NFHS-6 fact sheet runs to 101 indicators, and reports put the NFHS-5 list at 131. The gap isn’t trivial, because some of the dropped items were the most quoted numbers in Indian health policy.

• Anaemia. NFHS-5 had shown that more than half of India’s women and children were anaemic. The NFHS-6 national fact sheet has no anaemia rows at all, so there’s no official update yet on India’s most widespread nutritional problem.
• Sex ratio. The fact sheet’s population profile has no sex ratio of the population and no sex ratio at birth, both of which NFHS-5 reported.
• Manipur. The survey covers every state and union territory except Manipur.

Here’s why this matters for anyone using the data. An absent indicator is not a zero and not an improvement. It’s simply unknown until the fuller report is released. Anyone who writes “anaemia fell in NFHS-6” or “the sex ratio improved in NFHS-6” is quoting a number that the official fact sheet doesn’t contain. The site’s analysis of what is lost and gained in NFHS-6 tracks this debate.

Why Does the NFHS Matter for Policy?

The NFHS is the only source that gives comparable health and nutrition estimates for every district, round after round. That makes it the scorecard for programmes across ministries:

• POSHAN Abhiyaan and Saksham Anganwadi for stunting, wasting and child feeding.
• The Universal Immunization Programme for vaccination coverage.
• Anaemia Mukt Bharat, which now waits for its key number.
• Mission Parivar Vikas and the family planning programme for fertility and contraception.

It also feeds international reporting, including progress on Sustainable Development Goals 2, 3 and 5. When a state claims success in nutrition, the NFHS district table is where that claim gets tested.

The survey has limits worth stating. It measures what households report and what teams can measure on the day, so some answers, on violence for instance, are likely under-reported. And a four-year gap between rounds means it can’t track sudden shocks; other sources fill that gap.

NFHS 6 Today

The fact sheets released on 29 May 2026 are provisional. The ministry’s release presented NFHS-6 as evidence of progress in maternal and child health and financial protection, while also naming rising non-communicable diseases, lifestyle risks and the double burden of undernutrition and adult obesity as emerging challenges.

Commentary since the release has split along the same line. Analysts have welcomed the stunting fall and the jump in insurance cover, and questioned the missing anaemia data, the fall in exclusive breastfeeding and the rise in caesarean births. The fuller national and state reports, with the complete indicator set, will settle several of these questions.

How to Study NFHS 6 for Exams

NFHS-6 belongs to General Studies Paper II (health, nutrition, vulnerable sections, government schemes) and to Paper I (population, women and social issues). In Prelims it turns up as statement questions about who conducts the survey and what it measures.

Revision facts to keep:

• Released 29 May 2026; survey period 2023-24, with fieldwork running to 31 December 2024.
• Conducted by MoHFW with IIPS Mumbai as nodal agency; first round with no external technical or financial support.
• About 6.79 lakh households, 715 districts; every State/UT except Manipur.
• 101 indicators in the fact sheet; no anaemia and no sex ratio rows.
• TFR steady at 2.0; stunting 35.5% to 29.3%; wasting 19.3% to 19.0%.
• Women overweight or obese 24.0% to 30.7%; exclusive breastfeeding 63.7% to 55.8%.

The common confusions sort out easily once named. Stunting is long-term and wasting is short-term, so they don’t move together. NFHS-6 data is provisional, not final. And NFHS is not the same as the other sources you’ll meet:

For context, see the notes on child malnutrition and stunting and fertility decline.

How is it tested? Mains asks about malnutrition as a governance and equity problem, and NFHS data is the evidence an answer needs. Mains 2026 GS Paper II asked: “Malnutrition in India is not merely a public health concern; it is also a challenge of social equity, human development and effective welfare governance. Discuss.” The NFHS-6 stunting and wasting figures are the backbone of a good answer to that question. In the Prelims bank, Indian Society accounts for 57 of the 1,403 questions from 2013 to 2026, and health indicators also appear under economy and science.

The judgment for your preparation: learn six numbers well and the gaps honestly. An answer that pairs the stunting fall with flat wasting and rising obesity, and notes that anaemia is unreported, sounds like analysis. An answer that lists twenty percentages sounds like a photocopy.

Frequently Asked Questions

Practice Questions

Prelims

1. Consider the following statements about NFHS-6: 1. It was conducted with the International Institute for Population Sciences, Mumbai, as the nodal agency. 2. It was the first NFHS round conducted without technical or financial support from external organisations. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

• (a) 1 only
• (b) 2 only
• (c) Both 1 and 2
• (d) Neither 1 nor 2

Answer: (c) The fact sheet states both: IIPS is the nodal agency and no external support was used.

2. Consider the following statements based on the NFHS-6 India fact sheet: 1. The total fertility rate fell below 2.0. 2. Stunting among children under five fell to 29.3%. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

• (a) 1 only
• (b) 2 only
• (c) Both 1 and 2
• (d) Neither 1 nor 2

Answer: (b) The TFR stayed at 2.0; stunting fell from 35.5% to 29.3%.

3. In child anthropometry, ‘wasting’ refers to:

• (a) Low height for age
• (b) Low weight for height
• (c) Low weight for age
• (d) High weight for height

Answer: (b) Wasting is low weight for height and reflects recent undernutrition or illness.

4. Which of the following indicators is NOT reported in the NFHS-6 national fact sheet released in May 2026?

• (a) Institutional births
• (b) Anaemia among women
• (c) Women who have ever used the internet
• (d) Children fully vaccinated

Answer: (b) The fact sheet has no anaemia indicators; the other three are reported.

5. Between NFHS-5 and NFHS-6, which of the following indicators declined?

• (a) Women overweight or obese
• (b) Births by caesarean section
• (c) Exclusive breastfeeding of children under six months
• (d) Household health insurance coverage

Answer: (c) Exclusive breastfeeding fell from 63.7% to 55.8%; the other three rose.

Mains

1. Malnutrition in India is not merely a public health concern; it is also a challenge of social equity, human development and effective welfare governance. Discuss. (10 marks, 150 words) Previous year: Mains 2026, GS Paper II.
2. Poverty and malnutrition create a vicious cycle, adversely affecting human capital formation. What steps can be taken to break the cycle? (10 marks, 150 words) Previous year: Mains 2024, GS Paper II.
3. NFHS-6 shows a sharp fall in stunting but little change in wasting. Explain the difference between the two indicators and what the contrast means for nutrition policy. (15 marks, 250 words)
4. India now faces a double burden of child undernutrition and adult obesity. Examine this with reference to NFHS-6 and suggest a policy response. (15 marks, 250 words)
5. Large household surveys are the backbone of evidence-based health policy. Discuss the strengths and limits of the National Family Health Survey in this role. (10 marks, 150 words)

PDF