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.

No abstract

Primary health care (PHC) has been recognized as a core component of effective health systems since the early part of the twentieth century. However, despite notable progress, there remains a large gap between what individuals and communities need, and the quality and effectiveness of care delivered. The Primary Health Care Performance Initiative (PHCPI) was established by an international consortium to catalyze improvements in PHC delivery and outcomes in low- and middle-income countries through better measurement and sharing of effective models and practices. PHCPI has developed a framework to illustrate the relationship between key financing, workforce, and supply inputs, and core primary health care functions of first-contact accessibility, comprehensiveness, coordination, continuity, and person-centeredness. The framework provides guidance for more effective assessment of current strengths and gaps in PHC delivery through a core set of 25 key indicators (“Vital Signs”). Emerging best practices that foster high-performing PHC system development are being codified and shared around low- and high-income countries. These measurement and improvement approaches provide countries and implementers with tools to assess the current state of their PHC delivery system and to identify where cross-country learning can accelerate improvements in PHC quality and effectiveness.

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.