Integration is a means to an end, not an end in itself. This is a key concept proposed at the millennium by the World Health Organisation, who saw integration as a means of improving services in relation to access, quality, user satisfaction and efficiency.

Nowadays it is clear that there is a good body of evidence about how integration has improved processes to the benefit of the public, eg in not having to navigate between services, in a faster overall responses, in streamlined joint assessments, and in more transparent decision-making. However, does integration enable people to live more independently, or have a better quality of life? The evidence on this is much more limited at this stage.

In the earliest studies of joint working, the literature had more evidence about barriers than benefits, ie things that blocked progress or led to failures. These are well summarised in the systematic review by Cameron et al, and include issues which still need attention now. Integrators must beware of: organisational and professional protectionism, unsupportive administration or IT, lack of face-to-face communication, and differing organisational processes and management cultures, to name but a few. Knowing these will help the planning of change.

An easy way into these issues is via the ICN Practical Guide. But for those requiring more detail, go through the summaries of key texts provided on the following pages. They all have full references for further follow up.

To help you identify further background reading, we have included the bibliography of the Better Partnership Working series of books with kind permission of the authors (Glasby J, Dickinson H, Peck E, Carpenter J and Jelphs K) and Policy Press publishers.