Background: Low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are facing a combined affliction from both tuberculosis (TB) and noncommunicable diseases (NCDs), which threatens population health and further strains the already stressed health systems. Integrating services for TB and NCDs is advantageous in tackling this joint burden of diseases effectively. Therefore, this systematic review explores the mechanisms for service integration for TB and NCDs and elucidates the facilitators and barriers for implementing integrated service models in LMIC settings.Methods and findings: A systematic search was conducted in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, Bibliography of Asian Studies, and the Global Index Medicus from database inception to November 4, 2021. For our search strategy, the terms “tuberculosis” AND “NCDs” (and their synonyms) AND (“delivery of healthcare, integrated” OR a range of other terms representing integration) were used. Articles were included if they were descriptions or evaluations of a management or organisational change strategy made within LMICs, which aim to increase integration between TB and NCD management at the service delivery level. We performed a comparative analysis of key themes from these studies and organised the themes based on integration of service delivery options for TB and NCD services. Subsequently, these themes were used to reconfigure and update an existing framework for integration of TB and HIV services by Legido-Quigley and colleagues, which categorises the levels of integration according to types of services and location where services were offered. Additionally, we developed themes on the facilitators and barriers facing integrated service delivery models and mapped them to the World Health Organization’s (WHO) health systems framework, which comprises the building blocks of service delivery, human resources, medical products, sustainable financing and social protection, information, and leadership and governance.A total of 22 articles published between 2011 and 2021 were used, out of which 13 were cross-sectional studies, 3 cohort studies, 1 case–control study, 1 prospective interventional study, and 4 were mixed methods studies. The studies were conducted in 15 LMICs in Asia, Africa, and the Americas. Our synthesised framework explicates the different levels of service integration of TB and NCD services. We categorised them into 3 levels with entry into the health system based on either TB or NCDs, with level 1 integration offering only testing services for either TB or NCDs, level 2 integration offering testing and referral services to linked care, and level 3 integration providing testing and treatment services at one location. Some facilitators of integrated service include improved accessibility to integrated services, motivated and engaged providers, and low to no cost for additional services for patients. A few barriers identified were poor public awareness of the diseases leading to poor uptake of services, lack of programmatic budget and resources, and additional stress on providers due to increased workload. The limitations include the dearth of data that explores the experiences of patients and providers and evaluates programme effectiveness.Conclusions: Integration of TB and NCD services encourages the improvement of health service delivery across disease conditions and levels of care to address the combined burden of diseases in LMICs. This review not only offers recommendations for policy implementation and improvements for similar integrated programmes but also highlights the need for more high-quality TB–NCD research.

Antimicrobial Resistance is recognized as a major threat to global health security. The WHO Southeast Asia region is dubbed a “global hub for AMR emergence”, as it runs the highest risk for AMR emergence among all WHO regions in Asia. Hence, there is a need for Asia-centric, collaborative AMR research aligned with the true needs and priorities of the region. This study aimed to identify and understand the challenges and opportunities for such collaborative endeavors to enhance equitable partnerships. This qualitative study adopted an interpretative approach involving a thematic analysis of 15 semi-structured interviews with AMR experts conducting research in the region. The study identified several factors influencing research collaborations, such as the multi-dimensional nature of AMR, limited or lack of funds, different AMR research priorities in Asian countries, absence of Asia-centric AMR leadership, lack of trust and, unequal power relationships between researchers, and the negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in research collaborations. It also identified some opportunities, such as the willingness of researchers to collaborate, the formation of a few networks, and the prioritization by many academics of the One Health paradigm for framing AMR research. Participants reported that the initiation of stronger cross-discipline and cross-country networks, the development of Asia-centric AMR leadership, flexible research agendas with shared priorities, transparent and transferable funds, and support to enhance research capacity in LMICs could assist in developing more equitable collaborative research in Asia.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has revealed how conventional top-down, expert-driven indicators often fail to align with local community realities, marginalising their perspectives, concerns, knowledge, and narratives. However, the limitations of pandemic-related and global health security indicators are not unique but reflect recurring patterns across major social metrics. In response, an alternative paradigm advocates for grassroots-inclusive approaches to developing indicators. Our objective is to assess how and why grassroots-inclusive approaches complement top-down approaches to developing indicators, and to synthesise their theoretical and practical contributions to public health. Methods: We conducted a scoping review in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. We systematically searched six databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, Scopus, and PsycINFO), as well as Google Scholar, to identify relevant articles published from their inception to September 1, 2024. We included peer-reviewed articles, opinion pieces, and book chapters, narratively synthesising their findings. Results: This review included 43 studies from various disciplines. Across these studies, communities co-produced indicators through participatory workshops, interviews, and consensus exercises in areas such as environmental sustainability, disaster resilience, public health, well-being, and local development. The reported strengths included greater local relevance, community ownership, and accountability, alongside challenges in sustaining participation, integrating into top-down systems, and addressing data gaps. Notably, no study applied grassroots-inclusive indicators to health security or pandemic preparedness. Conclusion: Despite retrieving and analysing articles from various disciplines, no study has specifically applied grassroots-inclusive indicators to health security or pandemic preparedness. However, the evidence clearly shows that it is both feasible and practical to integrate expert and non-expert perspectives when developing indicators.