The morbidity rates of chronic non-communicable diseases together with medical inflation, have renewed interest in integrative health with the amalgamation of modern science traditional medicine systems. The World Health Organization latest traditional medicine strategy advocates universal access to evidence-based, people-centred traditional, complementary and integrative medicine. In India, Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha, Sowa-Rigpa, Homeopathy (Ayush) and other indigenous medicine systems are deeply rooted in the culture and are currently being mainstreamed through policy and programmatic reforms. This review with bibliographic analysis examines the development, institutionalization and regulation of Ayush in India, together with models of Ayush–biomedicine integration, the available evidence and major barriers. The bibliographic analysis included 256 English-language articles and reviews published between 01.01.2005 and 31.12.2025 in Web of Science and PubMed and identified four major thematic areas, seven co-authorship clusters and increasing publication activity after 2019, reaching 42 publications in 2025.

Available studies suggest potential applications of Ayush in chronic diseases, mental health, supportive oncology care, pain management and preventive health. However, many studies remain small, heterogeneous, adjunctive or observational, showing that the evidence base is still uneven. Several integrative practice and India-specific initiatives are discussed, ranging from co-location and cross-referral to collaborative and community-based care. Institutional development also involves research, education and regulation, public health integration and digital health. Interdisciplinary research, stronger quality regulation, capacity building and further evaluation of integrative models are needed to support an evidence-based and patient-centred healthcare system. Overall, the findings suggest that India is moving beyond medical pluralism towards a more organized integrative healthcare model.

Traditional, complementary and integrative medicine (TCIM) is utilized by billions of people worldwide and is increasingly recognized as an important component of people-centred healthcare and universal health coverage. However, many countries continue to face challenges in incorporating TCIM into mainstream health systems through appropriate governance, regulation, research, education, and service delivery. India has progressively developed an institutional ecosystem for integrating traditional medicine into its public health system through Ministry of Ayush, supported by legislation, regulatory mechanisms, research institutions, educational infrastructure, digital health initiatives, and international partnerships. This review aims to identify policy approaches, implementation strategies, and institutional mechanisms used to facilitate the mainstreaming of Ayush and evaluate their potential relevance for strengthening the incorporation of TCIM into health systems in BRICS countries. Drawing upon peer-reviewed literature, government reports, policy documents, and multilateral declarations, the review traces the evolution of Ayush, the institutional and regulatory architecture including the National Ayush Mission, co-location of Ayush services, Ayushman Arogya Mandirs, national programmes, digital health initiatives, research and education reforms, and international cooperation. The review identifies sustained political commitment, dedicated governance, regulation, investment in research and human resource, digital innovation, and international cooperation as potential enablers, while highlighting continuing challenges evidence generation, quality assurance, financing, interoperability, and monitoring and evaluation. Building on these experiences, the review proposes a strategic framework for BRICS cooperation encompassing joint research, regulatory convergence, pharmacovigilance, digital health, academic exchange, and harmonized evidence standards. India’s experience may provide a relevant policy case for implementing the World Health Organization Traditional Medicine Strategy 2025–2034 and advancing evidence-informed, people-centred health systems.

Tuberculosis (TB) programmatic outcomes are heavily influenced by heterogeneous disease distribution and localized variations in loss to follow-up (LFU). While routine electronic surveillance provides robust epidemiological totals, it may mask localized patterns of treatment attrition.

Aim. To develop an operational geospatial intelligence framework using secondary surveillance data to identify and map LFU hotspots and establish a risk-stratified model for targeted programmatic prioritization.

Materials and Methods. This retrospective operational research study analyzed anonymized treatment outcome records from TB patients (n = 92,824) in Tamil Nadu, 2022. Treatment outcomes were aggregated across 234 tuberculosis units (TU) in 35 districts and integrated into a Geographic Information System framework. Spatial autocorrelation (Global Moran’s I), Getis-Ord Gi* hotspot analysis, and Kernel Density Estimation were applied to identify LFU clusters. Spatial outputs were integrated with core epidemiological indicators within a risk-stratification framework.

Results. Spatial analysis demonstrated significant positive spatial autocorrelation (Global Moran’s I, p < 0.001) and marked heterogeneity in LFU across Tamil Nadu. Getis-Ord Gi* analysis identified statistically significant hotspots (95–99% confidence). District Tuberculosis Centre Vellore showed the highest LFU proportion (12.0%), with additional priority TU identified across Villupuram, Krishnagiri, Coimbatore, Perambalur, and Trichy. Villupuram contributed three hotspot TU. Overall, 8 TU (3.4%) as high-risk programme areas, providing a basis for more focused programme review and prioritisation.

Conclusion. Geospatial analytics directly compliments routine TB surveillance by replacing uniform programmatic strategies with data-driven, geographically targeted actions. This framework offers a scalable, replicable model to improve treatment retention and accelerate TB elimination targets across high-burden settings.

Cancer remains a major public health challenge across BRICS member countries. Together, these countries represent more than 40% of the global population and account for approximately 9.0 million new cancer cases and 4.66 million cancer deaths. This review aims to summarize cancer epidemiology across the 11 BRICS member countries, with emphasis on breast and ovarian cancers, describe India’s cancer-control and digital-health architecture, and assess the evidence and translational potential of iOncology.ai. Cancer patterns and access to screening, early diagnosis, and specialist oncology care vary across member countries. Breast cancer is among the leading malignancies affecting women and is the leading female cancer in most BRICS countries. Ovarian cancer is less common but is frequently diagnosed at advanced stages and is associated with poor outcomes. In India, cancer-control activities are delivered through the National Health Mission, the National Programme for Prevention and Control of Non-Communicable Diseases, and complementary surveillance, population-based screening, tertiary-care, and financial-protection mechanisms. The Viksit Bharat 2047 vision and Digital India programme provide a policy context for digital health development, including the Ayushman Bharat Digital Mission. Within this ecosystem, iOncology.ai is an national artificial-intelligence platform undergoing pilot-stage clinical validation and implementation evaluation. The review also identifies priorities for collaborative digital oncology in the context of India’s BRICS Chairship in 2026.  

The BRICS nations are demographically and geographically diverse but face shared public health challenges that require stronger and more coordinated public health cooperation. The National Public Health Institutes (NPHI) participating in The BRICS Network of National Public Health Institutes (BNN) are science-based national centres of excellence that support public health leadership, capacity building, disease prevention and control, surveillance, emergency preparedness, research, and evidence-informed policy. Building on established international experience with collaborative NPHI and public health networks, the BNN represents a BRICS-specific approach to institutional cooperation. The aim of this article is to examine the 2026 Operational Framework for the BNN in the context of current evidence and international experience, with particular attention to its strategic priorities, governance arrangements, and implementation challenges.

The BNN focuses on NPHI capacity mapping, workforce and faculty exchange, knowledge sharing, public health workforce development, strengthening surveillance and response systems, and collaborative research and innovation across BRICS countries. The 2026 Operational Framework outlines a three-tiered governance model intended to support strategic alignment, coordination, and technical implementation, guided by the principles of collective leadership, country ownership, continuity across Chairships, and result-oriented collaboration. It also proposes mechanisms for strengthening other Public Health Institutes within member countries. The 2026 Operational Framework provides a structured basis for institutional collaboration across BRICS; however, its implementation, sustainability, and effects on public health system performance and population health remain to be evaluated over time.