As countries in Asia strive to meet their universal access targets, harm-reduction programmes are yet to be scaled up to reach effective levels of coverage. Resource tracking and estimation of resource needs and gaps is critical to inform the financing decisions of major donors of harm-reduction programmes in the region. This study aimed at estimating the financial resource needs and gaps for scaling-up harm reduction in the region, building on previous research conducted by the Independent Commission on AIDS in Asia. The overall resource need for achieving universal access in the target population in 2009 was US $0.5 billion, with NSP and OST accounting for nearly 70% of the overall regional resource need. A significant resource gap, approximately 90%, of the resource need in 2009, was identified for harm reduction in the region, representing less than 2% of the overall global resource need to address AIDS. Additional resources will be required to support the introduction and scaling-up of integrated, comprehensive harm-reduction programmes that provide a full range of services to reduce HIV transmission among people who inject drugs.

The benefits of integrating programmes that emphasize specific interventions into health systems to improve health outcomes have been widely debated. This debate has been driven by narrow binary considerations of integrated (horizontal) versus non-integrated (vertical) programmes, and characterized by polarization of views with protagonists for and against integration arguing the relative merits of each approach. The presence of both integrated and non-integrated programmes in many countries suggests benefits to each approach. While the terms ‘vertical’ and ‘integrated’ are widely used, they each describe a range of phenomena. In practice the dichotomy between vertical and horizontal is not rigid and the extent of verticality or integration varies between programmes. However, systematic analysis of the relative merits of integration in various contexts and for different interventions is complicated as there is no commonly accepted definition of ‘integration’-a term loosely used to describe a variety of organizational arrangements for a range of programmes in different settings. We present an analytical framework which enables deconstruction of the term integration into multiple facets, each corresponding to a critical health system function. Our conceptual framework builds on theoretical propositions and empirical research in innovation studies, and in particular adoption and diffusion of innovations within health systems, and builds on our own earlier empirical research. It brings together the critical elements that affect adoption, diffusion and assimilation of a health intervention, and in doing so enables systematic and holistic exploration of the extent to which different interventions are integrated in varied settings and the reasons for the variation. The conceptual framework and the analytical approach we propose are intended to facilitate analysis in evaluative and formative studies of-and policies on-integration, for use in systematically comparing and contrasting health interventions in a country or in different settings to generate meaningful evidence to inform policy.

A longstanding debate on health systems organization relates to benefits of integrating health programmes that emphasize specific interventions into mainstream health systems to increase access and improve health outcomes. This debate has long been characterized by polarization of views and ideologies, with protagonists for and against integration arguing the relative merits of each approach. However, all too frequently these arguments have not been based on hard evidence. The presence of both integrated and non-integrated programmes in many countries suggests there may be benefits to either approach, but the relative merits of integration in various contexts and for different interventions have not been systematically analysed and documented. In this paper we present findings of a systematic review that explores a broad range of evidence on: (i) the extent and nature of the integration of targeted health programmes that emphasize specific interventions into critical health systems functions, (ii) how the integration or non-integration of health programmes into critical health systems functions in different contexts has influenced programme success, (iii) how contextual factors have affected the extent to which these programmes were integrated into critical health systems functions. Our analysis shows few instances where there is full integration of a health intervention or where an intervention is completely non-integrated. Instead, there exists a highly heterogeneous picture both for the nature and also for the extent of integration. Health systems combine both non-integrated and integrated interventions, but the balance of these interventions varies considerably.

Abstract Patients with inoperable non-small cell lung cancer diagnosed and managed at a single institution over a one-year period were identified. Those whose case had been discussed at a multidisciplinary meeting had better survival than those whose case was not discussed (mean survival; 280 days vs. 205 days, log-rank P= 0.048).

The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria was established in 2002 to provide large-scale financing to middle- and low-income countries to intensify the fight against the 3 diseases. Its model has enabled strengthening of local health leadership to improve governance of HIV programs in 5 ways. First, the Global Fund has encouraged development of local capacity to generate technically sound proposals reflecting country needs and priorities. Second, through dual-track financing-where countries are encouraged to nominate at least one government and one nongovernment principal recipient to lead program implementation-the Global Fund has enabled civil society and other nongovernmental organizations to play a critical role in the design, implementation, and oversight of HIV programs. Third, investments to strengthen community systems have enabled greater involvement of community leaders in effective mobilization of demand and scale-up for services to reach vulnerable groups. Fourth, capacity building outside the state sector has improved community participation in governance of public health. Finally, an emphasis on inclusiveness and diversity in planning, implementation, and oversight has broadly enhanced country coordination capacity. Strengthening local leadership capacity and governance are critical to building efficient and equitable health systems to deliver universal coverage of HIV services.