Sexual and reproductive health and rights are fundamental to both human and societal wellbeing and sustainable development, and encompass a broad array of sociocultural and clinical issues that affect all people across the life course. In 2018, the Guttmacher-Lancet Commission described sexual and reproductive health as a state of physical, emotional, mental, and social wellbeing in relation to all aspects of sexuality and reproduction, not merely the absence of disease, dysfunction, or infirmity. The Commission advocated for a positive approach to sexuality and reproduction that recognises the role of pleasurable sexual relationships, trust, and communication in promoting self-esteem and overall wellbeing. The Commission also stipulated that people have a right to make decisions governing their bodies and to access services that support that right. In light of recent sociocultural changes, biomedical advances that have impacted sexual and reproductive health and rights, and the key findings of the Guttmacher-Lancet Commission, we bring together themes from this Lancet Series to discuss the new scientific developments and sociopolitical changes that affect the programmatic integration of sexual and reproductive health services. As people who present for one sexual and reproductive health service frequently have other unmet sexual and reproductive health-related needs, there are often benefits to interventions and services that address multiple connected sexual and reproductive health issues during one clinical encounter (eg, family planning visits, including testing for HIV and other sexually transmitted infections), which supports the rationale for an integrated approach. Historically, key components of sexual and reproductive health have been managed separately, partly because of siloed and inadequate funding streams and structural limitations (eg, separate location of service delivery or insufficient staff cross-training). Vertical methods have also evolved from the need for different approaches to reach key populations, who might be reluctant to seek care from primary health care clinics. We build on the findings of the papers in this Series to discuss the rationale for sexual and reproductive health programmatic integration, which has the potential to better engage patients in care by meeting their preferences, simplify the user experience, and save resources when implemented in a thoughtful, culturally tailored manner. However, wide-scale sexual and reproductive health programmatic integration faces multiple challenges, requiring broadly trained health-care providers, a range of clinical and outreach channels, and well-resourced health systems. Programmatic integration might be further constrained by societal norms and regulations (eg, punitive laws, institutional homophobia, legal restrictions on access to safe abortion, and opposition to sexual and reproductive rights). Notably, the Trump Administration's withdrawal of support from various sexual and reproductive health programmes in January, 2025, is a major threat to continued progress. This Series paper provides a call to action based on the key findings from this Series that delineates the steps needed to better integrate programmes to optimise sexual and reproductive health outcomes.

This Series paper provides a summary of what is known about the funding, cost, and cost-effectiveness of sexual and reproductive health and rights interventions, interrogates the likely impacts of increasing or reducing future sexual and reproductive health and rights funding, and provides recommendations for policy and regulatory changes from an economic perspective. Interventions that target HIV and sexually transmitted infections, contraceptive interventions, and abortion care are among the most cost-effective health interventions worldwide, but their funding is under severe duress. In 2023, approximately US$35 billion was spent on these intervention areas across low-income and middle-income countries-only two-thirds of the $52 billion needed per year. HIV treatment and prevention, as well as contraceptive commodities, rely heavily on donor funding, which has decreased since 2017. The discontinuation of the US Agency for International Development funding in early 2025, in particular, requires that the most impacted countries will have to do more with much less going forward.