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.

Building upon the successes of Countdown to 2015, Countdown to 2030 aims to support the monitoring and measurement of women's, children's, and adolescents' health in the 81 countries that account for 95% of maternal and 90% of all child deaths worldwide. To achieve the Sustainable Development Goals by 2030, the rate of decline in prevalence of maternal and child mortality, stillbirths, and stunting among children younger than 5 years of age needs to accelerate considerably compared with progress since 2000. Such accelerations are only possible with a rapid scale-up of effective interventions to all population groups within countries (particularly in countries with the highest mortality and in those affected by conflict), supported by improvements in underlying socioeconomic conditions, including women's empowerment. Three main conclusions emerge from our analysis of intervention coverage, equity, and drivers of reproductive, maternal, newborn, and child health (RMNCH) in the 81 Countdown countries. First, even though strong progress was made in the coverage of many essential RMNCH interventions during the past decade, many countries are still a long way from universal coverage for most essential interventions. Furthermore, a growing body of evidence suggests that available services in many countries are of poor quality, limiting the potential effect on RMNCH outcomes. Second, within-country inequalities in intervention coverage are reducing in most countries (and are now almost non-existent in a few countries), but the pace is too slow. Third, health-sector (eg, weak country health systems) and non-health-sector drivers (eg, conflict settings) are major impediments to delivering high-quality services to all populations. Although more data for RMNCH interventions are available now, major data gaps still preclude the use of evidence to drive decision making and accountability. Countdown to 2030 is investing in improvements in measurement in several areas, such as quality of care and effective coverage, nutrition programmes, adolescent health, early childhood development, and evidence for conflict settings, and is prioritising its regional networks to enhance local analytic capacity and evidence for RMNCH.

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.