The Millennium Development Goal target for tuberculosis control is to halt the spread of tuberculosis by 2015, and begin to reverse the worldwide incidence. After the introduction of standard control practices in 1995, 36 million people were cured and about 6 million deaths were averted. However, substantial scientific advances and innovative solutions are urgently needed together with creative new strategies. Strong international and national political commitment is essential. Urgent action is needed by national governments to fund their own programmes, and for the G8 countries and other donor governments and organisations to support governmental and non-governmental efforts. To foster the global need for urgent action to control the tuberculosis epidemic, The Lancet, in collaboration with the Stop TB Partnership, WHO, Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, and the experts participating in this Series, is launching The Lancet TB Observatory, which will assess and monitor progress in tuberculosis control and research, assess domestic and global financing, regularly disseminate information, and advocate for intensified efforts with stakeholders at all levels.

Weak health systems are hindering global efforts for tuberculosis care and control, but little evidence is available on effective interventions to address system bottlenecks. This report examines published evidence, programme reviews, and case studies to identify innovations in system design and tuberculosis control to resolve these bottlenecks. We outline system bottlenecks in relation to governance, financing, supply chain management, human resources, health-information systems, and service delivery; and adverse effects from rapid introduction of suboptimum system designs. This report also documents innovative solutions for disease control and system design. Solutions pursued in individual countries are specific to the nature of the tuberculosis epidemic, the underlying national health system, and the contributors engaged: no one size fits all. Findings from countries, including Bangladesh, Cambodia, India, Tanzania, Thailand, and Vietnam, suggest that advances in disease control and system strengthening are complementary. Tuberculosis care and control are essential elements of health systems, and simultaneous efforts to innovate systems and disease response are mutually reinforcing. Highly varied and context-specific responses to tuberculosis show that solutions need to be documented and compared to develop evidence-based policies and practice.

Injecting drug use is a major driver of the HIV epidemic globally. Whilst robust evidence points to the effectiveness of harm reduction programmes to halt and reverse injecting drug use driven epidemics, uptake of these programmes in developing and transitional countries has been slow. In part, this slow uptake stems from inadequate financial resources for harm reduction; legal, socio-cultural and medical barriers leading to stigmatisation; and weak health systems unequipped to manage marginalized groups. The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, established in 2002, has become the major multilateral source of external funding for harm reduction programmes in countries experiencing concentrated HIV epidemics driven by injecting drug use. Between 2004 to end of 2008, the Global Fund invested around US$180 million in harm reduction programmes in 42 countries. This funding has helped to initiate and scale up harm reduction programmes in settings where domestic funding was lacking. In addition to financing harm reduction programmes globally, the Global Fund has stimulated a strong dialogue between vulnerable groups and governments. Furthermore, the Global Fund has engaged in a dialogue with countries to encourage an evidence-based approach to policy-making that recognizes the immense value of harm reduction in HIV prevention and control.

Long-established Medico-Social Expert Commissions (MSECs) play a pivotal role in the Russian mental health system. They act as gatekeepers to pensions, rehabilitation, and employment services. This column describes their role in encouraging or impeding the social inclusion of people with mental illness, drawing on findings of a three-year project in Sverdlovsk Oblast. In Russia the emphasis remains on medical aspects of treatment, without adequate consideration of social and occupational rehabilitation. Links with local employment services are weak. To promote social inclusion, steps must be taken to encourage and facilitate cooperation and collaboration between the MSECs, employment services, and medical services.

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.