The dramatic scale-up of HIV services in lower-income countries has led to the development of service delivery models reflecting the specific characteristics of HIV and its treatment as well as local contexts and cultures. Given the shared barriers and challenges faced by health programmes in lower-income countries, many of the implementation approaches developed for HIV programmes have the potential to contribute to the continuity care framework needed to address non-communicable diseases (NCDs) in resource-limited settings. HIV programmes are, in fact, the first large-scale chronic disease programmes in many countries, offering local and effective tools, models and approaches that can be replicated, adapted and expanded. As such, they might be used to ‘jumpstart’ the development of initiatives to provide prevention, care and treatment services for NCDs and other chronic conditions.

Background: Integration of HIV services with other health services has been proposed as an important strategy to boost the sustainability of the global HIV response. We conducted a systematic and comprehensive synthesis of the existing scientific evidence on the impact of service integration on the HIV care cascade, health outcomes, and cost-effectiveness.Methods and findings: We reviewed the global quantitative empirical evidence on integration published between 1 January 2010 and 10 September 2021. We included experimental and observational studies that featured both an integration intervention and a comparator in our review. Of the 7,118 unique peer-reviewed English-language studies that our search algorithm identified, 114 met all of our selection criteria for data extraction. Most of the studies (90) were conducted in sub-Saharan Africa, primarily in East Africa (55) and Southern Africa (24). The most common forms of integration were (i) HIV testing and counselling added to non-HIV services and (ii) non-HIV services added to antiretroviral therapy (ART). The most commonly integrated non-HIV services were maternal and child healthcare, tuberculosis testing and treatment, primary healthcare, family planning, and sexual and reproductive health services. Values for HIV care cascade outcomes tended to be better in integrated services: uptake of HIV testing and counselling (pooled risk ratio [RR] across 37 studies: 1.67 [95% CI 1.41–1.99],p <0.001), ART initiation coverage (pooled RR across 19 studies: 1.42 [95% CI 1.16–1.75],p =0.002), time until ART initiation (pooled RR across 5 studies: 0.45 [95% CI 0.20–1.00],p =0.050), retention in HIV care (pooled RR across 19 studies: 1.68 [95% CI 1.05–2.69],p =0.031), and viral suppression (pooled RR across 9 studies: 1.19 [95% CI 1.03–1.37],p =0.025). Also, treatment success for non-HIV-related diseases and conditions and the uptake of non-HIV services were commonly higher in integrated services. We did not find any significant differences for the following outcomes in our meta-analyses: HIV testing yield, ART adherence, HIV-free survival among infants, and HIV and non-HIV mortality. We could not conduct meta-analyses for several outcomes (HIV infections averted, costs, and cost-effectiveness), because our systematic review did not identify sufficient poolable studies. Study limitations included possible publication bias of studies with significant or favourable findings and comparatively weak evidence from some world regions and on integration of services for key populations in the HIV response.Conclusions: Integration of HIV services and other health services tends to improve health and health systems outcomes. Despite some scientific limitations, the global evidence shows that service integration can be a valuable strategy to boost the sustainability of the HIV response and contribute to the goal of ‘ending AIDS by 2030’, while simultaneously supporting progress towards universal health coverage.

Background: Simplifying antiretroviral therapy for clinically stable people living with HIV (PLHIV) is important but insufficient to meet their health care needs, including prevention and treatment of tuberculosis and noncommunicable diseases, routine primary care, and family planning. Integrating these services into differentiated service delivery (DSD) platforms is a promising avenue to achieve such coverage. We propose a transition from an HIV-focused “DSD 1.0” to a patient-centered “DSD 2.0” that is inclusive of additional chronic care services for PLHIV. Discussion: The lack of coordination between HIV programs and these critical services puts a burden on both PLHIV and health systems. For individual patients, fractionated services increase cost and time, diminish the actual and perceived quality of care, and increase the risk that they will disengage from health care altogether. The burden on the health system is one of inefficiency and suboptimal outcomes resulting from the parallel systems required to manage multiple vertical programs. Conclusions: DSD 2.0 provides an opportunity for the HIV and Universal Health Coverage agendas—which can seem to be at odds—to achieve greater collective impact for patients and health systems by integrating strong vertical HIV, tuberculosis and family planning programs, and relatively weaker noncommunicable disease programs. Increasing coordination of care for PLHIV will increase the likelihood of achieving and sustaining UNAIDS′ goals of retention on antiretroviral therapy and viral suppression. Eventually, this shift to DSD 2.0 for PLHIV could evolve to a more person-centered vision of chronic care services that would also serve the general population.

Since the beginning of the Syrian conflict in 2011, Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey have hosted large refugee populations, with a high pre-conflict burden of non-communicable diseases (NCDs). We aimed to describe the ways in which these three host country health systems have provided NCD services to Syrian refugees over time, and to highlight the successes and challenges they encountered. We conducted a descriptive review of the academic and grey literature, published between March 2011 and March 2017, using PubMed and Google searches complemented with documents provided by relevant stakeholders. Forty-one articles and reports met our search criteria. Despite the scarcity of systematic population-level data, these documents highlight the high burden of reported NCDs among Syrian refugees, especially amongst older adults. The three host countries utilized different approaches to the design, delivery and financing of NCD services for these refugees. In Jordan and Lebanon, Ministries of Health and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) coordinate a diverse group of health care providers to deliver health services to Syrian refugees at a subsidized cost. In Turkey, however, services are provided solely by the Disaster and Emergency Management Presidency (AFAD), a Turkish governmental agency, with no cost to patients for primary or secondary care. Access to NCD services varied both within and between countries, with no data available from Turkey. The cost of NCD treatment is the primary barrier to accessing healthcare, with high out-of-pocket payments required for medications and secondary and tertiary care services, despite the availability of free or subsidized primary health services. Financial impediments led refugees to adopt coping strategies, including returning to Syria to seek treatment, with associated frequent treatment interruptions. These gaps were compounded by health system related barriers such as complex referral systems, lack of effective guidance on navigating the health system, limited health facility capacity and suboptimal NCD health education. As funding shortages for refugee services continue, innovative service delivery models are needed to create responsive and sustainable solutions to the NCD burden among refugees in host countries.

The scale-up of HIV services in sub-Saharan Africa has catalyzed the development of highly effective chronic care systems. The strategies, systems, and tools developed to support life-long HIV care and treatment are locally owned contextually appropriate resources, many of which could be adapted to support continuity care for noncommunicable chronic diseases (NCD), such as diabetes mellitus (DM). We conducted two proof-of-concept studies to further the understanding of the status of NCD programs and the feasibility and effectiveness of adapting HIV program-related tools and systems for patients with DM. In Swaziland, a rapid assessment illustrated gaps in the approaches used to support DM services at 15 health facilities, despite the existence of chronic care systems at HIV clinics in the same hospitals, health centers, and clinics. In Ethiopia, a pilot study found similar gaps in DM services at baseline and illustrated the potential to rapidly improve the quality of care and treatment for DM by adapting HIV-specific policies, systems, and tools.

Although health systems in most low-income countries largely provide episodic care for acute symptomatic conditions, many HIV programs have developed effective, locally owned and contextually appropriate policies, systems and tools to support chronic care services for persons living with HIV (PLWH). The continuity of care provided by such programs may be especially critical for older PLWH, who are at risk for more rapid progression of disease and are more likely to have complications of HIV and its treatment than their younger counterparts. Older PLWH are also more likely to have other chronic noncommunicable diseases (NCDs), including hypertension, diabetes, cancers and chronic lung disease. As the number of older PLWH rises, enhanced chronic care systems will be required to optimize their health and wellbeing. These systems, lessons and resources can also be leveraged to support the burgeoning numbers of HIV-negative individuals with chronic NCD in need of ongoing care.