Attempts to comparatively analyse large-scale communicable disease control programmes have, for the most part, neglected the wider health system contexts within which the programmes lie. In addition, many evaluations of the integration of vertical disease control programmes into health systems have focused on single case studies or on a limited number of cases, or, when large numbers of cases were drawn upon, have been presented as a compendium of monographs rather than a systematic cross-national comparison. One reason for this may be that appropriate theories and tools for comparative health systems analysis are rare and difficult to formulate. In this paper we propose a conceptual framework and an analytical methodology which might be used to comparatively analyse a series of case studies that explore health systems, communicable diseases programmes and concepts of integration in order to make systematic comparisons to offer novel insights, to test new theories and to offer new hypotheses. We illustrate through a preliminary analysis how this framework can be applied to compare the impact of health systems integration and HIV and TB programmes in four countries in South-East Asia that were the subject of cases studies.

The HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria pandemics pose substantial challenges globally and to health systems in the countries they affect. This demands an institutional approach that can integrate disease control programmes within health and social care systems. Whilst integration is intuitively appealing, evidence of its benefits remains uncertain and evaluation is beset by lack of a common understanding of what it involves. The aim of this paper is to better define integration in health systems relevant to communicable disease control. We conducted a critical review of published literature on concepts, definitions, and analytical and methodological approaches to integration as applied to health system responses to communicable disease. We found that integration is understood and pursued in many ways in different health systems. We identified a variety of typologies that relate to three fundamental questions associated with integration: (1) why is integration a goal (that is, what are the driving forces for integration); (2) what structures and/or functions at different levels of health system are affected by integration (or the lack of); and (3) how does integration influence interactions between health system components or stakeholders. The frameworks identified were evaluated in terms of these questions, as well as the extent to which they took account of health system characteristics, the wider contextual environment in which health systems sit, and the roles of key stakeholders. We did not find any one framework that explicitly addressed all of these three questions and therefore propose an analytical framework to help address these questions, building upon existing frameworks and extending our conceptualization of the ‘how’ of integration to identify a continuum of interactions that extends from no interactions, to partial integration that includes linkage and coordination, and ultimately to integration. We hope that our framework may provide a basis for future evaluations of the integration of programmes and health systems in the development of sustainable and effective responses to communicable diseases.

Financing for malaria control has increased as part of international commitments to achieve the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). We aimed to identify the unmet financial needs that would be biologically and economically equitable and would increase the chances of reaching worldwide malaria-control ambitions.

Substantial inequalities exist in cancer survival rates across countries. In addition to prevention of new cancers by reduction of risk factors, strategies are needed to close the gap between developed and developing countries in cancer survival and the effects of the disease on human suffering. We challenge the public health community’s assumption that cancers will remain untreated in poor countries, and note the analogy to similarly unfounded arguments from more than a decade ago against provision of HIV treatment. In resource-constrained countries without specialised services, experience has shown that much can be done to prevent and treat cancer by deployment of primary and secondary caregivers, use of off-patent drugs, and application of regional and global mechanisms for financing and procurement. Furthermore, several middle-income countries have included cancer treatment in national health insurance coverage with a focus on people living in poverty. These strategies can reduce costs, increase access to health services, and strengthen health systems to meet the challenge of cancer and other diseases. In 2009, we formed the Global Task Force on Expanded Access to Cancer Care and Control in Developing Countries, which is composed of leaders from the global health and cancer care communities, and is dedicated to proposal, implementation, and evaluation of strategies to advance this agenda.

This paper describes characteristics of the HIV epidemics in Eastern Europe and Central Asia (EECA) and Asia and Central Asia, and draws comparisons between these regions. It focuses on the role that key populations continue to play in HIV transmission in both regions, the challenges that this poses and the implications for appropriate policy and practice.