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.

The COVID-19 pandemic had an inequitable and disproportionate impact on vulnerable populations, reversing decades of progress toward healthy populations and poverty alleviation. This study examines various programmatic tools and policy measures used by governments to support vulnerable populations during the pandemic. A comparative case study of 15 countries representing all World Health Organization's regions offers a comprehensive picture of countries with varying income statuses, health system arrangements and COVID-19 public health measures. Through a systematic desk review and key informant interviews, we report a spectrum of mitigation strategies deployed in these countries to address five major types of vulnerabilities (health, economic, social, institutional and communicative). We found a multitude of strategies that supported vulnerable populations such as migrant workers, sex workers, prisoners, older persons and school-going children. Prioritising vulnerable populations during the early phase of COVID-19 vaccination campaigns, direct financial subsidies and food assistance programmes were the most common measures reported. Additionally, framing public health information and implementing culturally sensitive health promotion interventions helped bridge the communication barriers in certain instances. However, these measures remain insufficient to protect vulnerable populations comprehensively. Our findings point to the need to expand fiscal space for health, enlarge healthcare coverage, incorporate equity principles in all policies, leverage technology, multi-stakeholder co-production of policies and tailored community engagement mechanisms.

The COVID-19 pandemic was a health emergency requiring rapid fiscal resource mobilisation to support national responses. The use of effective health financing mechanisms and policies, or lack thereof, affected the impact of the pandemic on the population, particularly vulnerable groups and individuals. We provide an overview and illustrative examples of health financing policies adopted in 15 countries during the pandemic, develop a framework for resilient health financing, and use this pandemic to argue a case to move towards universal health coverage (UHC). In this case study, we examined the national health financing policy responses of 15 countries, which were purposefully selected countries to represent all WHO regions and have a range of income levels, UHC index scores, and health system typologies. We did a systematic literature review of peer-reviewed articles, policy documents, technical reports, and publicly available data on policy measures undertaken in response to the pandemic and complemented the data obtained with 61 in-depth interviews with health systems and health financing experts. We did a thematic analysis of our data and organised key themes into a conceptual framework for resilient health financing. Resilient health financing for health emergencies is characterised by two main phases: (1) absorb and recover, where health systems are required to absorb the initial and subsequent shocks brought about by the pandemic and restabilise from them; and (2) sustain, where health systems need to expand and maintain fiscal space for health to move towards UHC while building on resilient health financing structures that can better prepare health systems for future health emergencies. We observed that five key financing policies were implemented across the countries-namely, use of extra-budgetary funds for a swift initial response, repurposing of existing funds, efficient fund disbursement mechanisms to ensure rapid channelisation to the intended personnel and general population, mobilisation of the private sector to mitigate the gaps in public settings, and expansion of service coverage to enhance the protection of vulnerable groups. Accountability and monitoring are needed at every stage to ensure efficient and accountable movement and use of funds, which can be achieved through strong governance and coordination, information technology, and community engagement. Our findings suggest that health systems need to leverage the COVID-19 pandemic as a window of opportunity to make health financing policies robust and need to politically commit to public financing mechanisms that work to prepare for future emergencies and as a lever for UHC. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Objective The increasing chronic disease burden has placed tremendous strain on tertiary healthcare resources in most countries, necessitating a shift in chronic disease management from tertiary to primary care providers. The Primary Care Network (PCN) policy was promulgated as a model of care to organise private general practitioners (GPs) into groups to provide GPs with resources to anchor patients with chronic conditions with them in the community. As PCN is still in its embryonic stages, there is a void in research regarding its ability to empower GPs to manage patients with chronic conditions effectively. This qualitative study aims to explore the facilitators and barriers for the management of patients with chronic conditions by GPs enrolled in PCN. Design We conducted 30 semistructured interviews with GPs enrolled in a PCN followed by a thematic analysis of audio transcripts until data saturation was achieved. Setting Singapore. Results Our results suggest that PCNs facilitated GPs to more effectively manage patients through (1) provision of ancillary services such as diabetic foot screening, diabetic retinal photography and nurse counselling to permit a ‘one-stop-shop’, (2) systematic monitoring of process and clinical outcome indicators through a chronic disease registry (CDR) to promote accountability for patients’ health outcomes and (3) funding streams for PCNs to hire additional manpower to oversee operations and to reimburse GPs for extended consultations. Barriers include high administrative load in maintaining the CDR due to the lack of a smart electronic clinic management system and financial gradient faced by patients seeking services from private GPs which incur higher out-of-pocket expenses than public primary healthcare institutions. Conclusion PCNs demonstrate great promise in empowering enrolled GPs to manage patients with chronic conditions. However, barriers will need to be addressed to ensure the viability of PCNs in managing more patients in the face of an ageing population.