Integrated Diagnosis in Africa's Low- and Middle-Income Countries: What Is It, What Works, and for Whom? A Realist Synthesis.

Introduction: Integrated diagnosis can improve health outcomes and patient experiences through early diagnosis and identification of cases that could otherwise be overlooked. Although existing research highlight the feasibility of integrated diagnosis across various conditions, a significant evidence gap remains regarding its direct impact on patient experiences and health outcomes. This review explores the conceptualizations of integrated diagnosis by different stakeholders along the healthcare pathway and examines the necessary contexts and mechanisms crucial for its effectiveness.

Methods: This study adopts a realist methodology to explore integrated diagnosis. Using a systematic approach, the research aims to collect, assess, and synthesize existing evidence on integrated diagnosis, guided by a program theory developed through literature review and expert consultations. Primary studies and reviews related to integrated diagnosis, multi-disease testing, or integrated healthcare with a diagnostic focus were sourced from major databases and global health organization websites. The collected evidence was used to construct and refine the evolving theoretical framework.

Results: This study identified three models of integrated diagnosis interventions: individual/human resource integration, facility or mobile-based integration, and technology integration. Successful implementation of these models relies on understanding the values and perceptions of both healthcare workers and patients/clients. This research emphasizes a holistic approach that considers all elements within the health system and underscores their interdependence. Using the WHO health systems framework to contextualise factors, the study positions diagnosis as an integral component of the broader health ecosystem. A key finding of the research is the importance of addressing the barriers and facilitators of integrated diagnosis interventions. This includes policy frameworks, diagnostic tools, funding mechanisms, treatment pathways, and human resource issues. Improving patient experiences requires cultivating positive relationships with healthcare workers ensuring elements such as respect, confidentiality, accessibility, and timeliness of services are prioritised.

Discussion and conclusion: The diverse conceptualisations of integrated diagnosis highlight the importance of clear definitions for each intervention. This clarity is essential for transferring lessons learned, comparing programs, and effectively measuring results. The success of integrated diagnosis is not a one-size-fits-all scenario; decisions regarding the approach, conditions to be integrated, and timing of integration must be guided by local contexts to ensure sustainable outcomes. The review findings suggest that integrated diagnosis may be suitable at the primary care level in LMICs under specific circumstances. Successful implementation hinges on addressing the perspectives of healthcare workers and patients/clients alike, requiring adequate time, resources, and a well-defined intervention model.