Global health ethics is a relatively new term that is used to conceptualize the process of applying moral value to health issues that are typically characterized by a global level effect or require action coordinated at a global level. It is important to acknowledge that this account of global health ethics takes a predominantly geographic approach and may infer that the subject relates primarily to macro-level health phenomena. However, global health ethics could alternatively be thought of as another branch of health ethics. It may then relate to specific topics in themselves, which might also include micro-level health phenomena. In its broadest sense, global health ethics is a normative project that is best characterized by the challenge of developing common values and universal norms for responding to global health threats. Consequently, many subjects fall within its scope. Whilst several accounts of global health ethics have been conceptualized in the literature, a concise demarcation of the paradigm is still needed. Through means of a literature review, this paper presents a two-part introduction to global health ethics. First, the framework of ‘borrowed’ ethics that currently form the core of global health ethics is discussed in relation to two essential ethical considerations: 1) what is the moral significance of health and 2) what is the moral significance of boundaries? Second, a selection of exemplar ethical topics is presented to illustrate the range of topics within global health ethics.

BACKGROUND:Professional development of public health leaders requires a form of instruction which is competency-based to help them develop the abilities to address complex and evolving demands of health care systems. Concurrently, emotional intelligence (EI) is a key to organisational success. Our aim was twofold: i) to assess the relationship between the level of self-assessed public health and EI competencies among Master of European Public Health (MEPH) students and graduates at Maastricht University, and; ii) to determine the relationship between different groups of public health competencies and specific EI skills.METHODS:A cross-sectional study was conducted including all recent MEPH graduates and students from 2009-2012, out of 67 eligible candidates N = 51 were contacted and N = 33 responded (11 males and 22 females; overall response: 64.7%).Two validated tools were employed: i) public health competencies self-assessment questionnaire, and; ii) Assessing Emotions Scale.RESULTS:Females scored higher than males in all seven domains of the self-assessed key public health competencies (NS) and emotional intelligence competences (P = 0.022). Overall, the mean value of public health competencies was the lowest in students with "staff" preferences and the highest among students with mixed job preferences (P < 0.001). There was evidence of a correlation between the overall public health competencies and the overall emotional intelligence competencies (r = 0.61, P < 0.001).CONCLUSIONS:The study shows a positive correlation between public health specific competencies and EI attributes. It can contribute to the improvement of the educational content of PH curricula by rising awareness through self-assessment and supporting the identification of further educational needs related to leadership.

Although leadership is a well-known concept within organisational science, public health leadership is still not well-defined. Further, leadership is not commonly included in most public health training programs. Faced with immense changes in population health needs, public health professionals require a broader range of skills and expertise than ever before. In response to these issues the article aims to describe the development of a public health leadership curriculum as part of the European project entitled Leaders for European Public Health (LEPHIE) supported by the European Commission Lifelong Learning Programme. The article first discusses the theoretical underpinnings related to the public health leadership curriculum development. Secondly, its mission and objectives will be discussed. Thirdly, the methodological approaches and architecture of the programme are presented, and finally illustrates the features for quality assurance and the potential for future use in different contexts.

BACKGROUND:Hospital partnerships, mergers and cooperatives are arrangements frequently seen as a means of improving health service delivery. Many of the assumptions used in planning hospital cooperatives are not stated clearly and are often based on limited or poor scientific evidence.METHODS:This is a protocol for a systematic review, following the Cochrane EPOC methodology. The review aims to document, catalogue and synthesize the existing literature on the reported methods for the evaluation of hospital cooperation activities as well as methods of hospital cooperation. We will search the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness, the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and bibliographic databases including PubMed (via NLM), Web of Science, NHS EED, Business Source Premier (via EBSCO) and Global Health for publications that report on methods for evaluating hospital cooperatives, strategic partnerships, mergers, alliances, networks and related activities and methods used for such partnerships. The method proposed by the Cochrane EPOC group regarding randomized study designs, controlled clinical trials, controlled before and after studies, and interrupted time series will be followed. In addition, we will also include cohort, case-control studies, and relevant non-comparative publications such as case reports. We will categorize and analyze the review findings according to the study design employed, the study quality (low versus high quality studies) and the method reported in the primary studies. We will present the results of studies in tabular form.DISCUSSION:Overall, the systematic review aims to identify, assess and synthesize the evidence to underpin hospital cooperation activities as defined in this protocol. As a result, the review will provide an evidence base for partnerships, alliances or other fields of cooperation in a hospital setting. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42011001579.