Background The field of bioethics has evolved over the past half-century, incorporating new domains of inquiry that signal developments in health research, clinical practice, public health in its broadest sense and more recently sensitivity to the interdependence of global health and the environment. These extensions of the reach of bioethics are a welcome response to the growth of global health as a field of vital interest and activity. Methods This paper provides a critical interpretive review of how the term “global health ethics” has been used and defined in the literature to date to identify ethical issues that arise and need to be addressed when deliberating on and working to improve the discourse on ethical issues in health globally. Results Selected publications were analyzed by year of publication and geographical distribution, journal and field, level of engagement, and ethical framework. Of the literature selected, 151 articles (88%) were written by authors in high-income countries (HIC), as defined by the World Bank country classifications, 8 articles (5%) were written by authors in low- or middle-income countries (LMIC), and 13 articles (7%) were collaborations between authors in HIC and LMIC. All of the articles selected except one from 1977 were published after 1998. Literature on global health ethics spiked considerably from the early 2000s, with the highest number in 2011. One hundred twenty-seven articles identified were published in academic journals, 1 document was an official training document, and 44 were chapters in published books. The dominant journals were the American Journal of Bioethics ( n = 10), Developing World Bioethics ( n = 9), and Bioethics ( n = 7). We coded the articles by level of engagement within the ethical domain at different levels: (1) interpersonal, (2) institutional, (3) international, and (4) structural. The ethical frameworks at use corresponded to four functional categories: those examining practical or narrowly applied ethical questions; those concerned with normative ethics; those examining an issue through a single philosophical tradition; and those comparing and contrasting insights from multiple ethical frameworks. Conclusions This critical interpretive review is intended to delineate the current contours and revitalize the conversation around the future charge of global health ethics scholarship. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12910-019-0391-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract

Background Justice-involved youth have high rates of suicidal behavior and co-morbid psychiatric disorders, yet low rates of service use. Implementation efforts aimed at supporting cross-agency linkage protocols may be useful components of interventions promoting behavioral healthcare service access for youths on probation. The purpose of this study was to develop clear referral Pathways for three suicide risk classifications of youth, across 10 counties in a single state through a community-academic partnership in New York state, a strategic planning process between county Probation departments and community Behavioral Health. Results We sought to clarify service destinations for youth in three classes of risk for suicidal behavior: Class I (Crisis, Imminent Risk); Class II (Crisis, Non-Imminent Risk); and Class III (Non-Crisis but in Need of Service). Prior to Pathway Meetings, there was a low degree of agreement between Probation and Behavioral Health leadership for the appropriate service destination for youths in crisis, whether at imminent risk (Class I: 57.8% overlap) or at lower than imminent risk (Class II: 45.6% overlap). Options for referral destinations for Classes I and II decreased significantly (indicating greater overlap) as a result of Pathway Meetings [(Class I: from 2.5 to 1.1 (t(9) = 3.28, p < 0.01); Class II: from 2.8 to 1.3 (t(9) = 4.025, p < 0.003)]. Pathway Meetings allowed Behavioral Health and Juvenile Justice systems to make joint decisions regarding referral pathways, resulting in innovative solutions, such as the use of mobile crisis. Conclusions The community-academic partnership served to bring internal (Juvenile Justice) and external (Behavioral Health) contexts together to successfully generate agreed upon Pathways to care for youths demonstrating risk for suicidal behavior. Bridging Behavioral Health and Juvenile Justice systems together to agree to referral Pathways for each risk class can increase appropriate service use. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03586895. Registered 21 June 2018, https://register.clinicaltrials.gov/prs/app/template/EditRecord.vm?epmode=Edit&listmode=Edit&uid=U0003B7I&ts=4&sid=S00080NN&cx=-n4kinh

Objective: Youth involved in the justice system (YIJ) have higher rates of suicidal thoughts and behaviors (STB) and associated behavioral health (BH) problems, yet lower levels of service use compared to youth in the general population. This study examined the efficacy of e-Connect, a digital clinical decision support system (CDSS), at improving STB risk identification, referral, and linkage to BH services by probation officers. As the intervention spanned pre-and post-COVID-19 shutdown periods, we also examined the disruption in public agencies' service provision on study outcomes. Method: Administrative record data (1,488 youth, ages 10-18 years, 56% male, 56% White) allowed examination of differences between care-as-usual (baseline) and e-Connect in screening, identification of STB and BH problems, referral, and treatment initiation. Results: Compared to care-as-usual, probation officers using e-Connect were over five times as likely to identify YIJ with STB (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 5.86; 95% confidence interval, CI [3.24, 11.7]) and over 11 times more likely to refer YIJ in need of BH services to treatment (aOR = 11.04; 95% CI [6.54, 19.43]). In turn, youth referred to treatment via e-Connect were nearly 17 times more likely to initiate (aOR = 16.92; 95% CI [9.17, 32.60]). Results remained unchanged during the pre-and post-COVID-19 shutdown periods. Conclusion: e-Connect is one of the first digital STB screening, referral, and linkage-to-service systems that use CDSS technology to successfully assist probation officers in linking youth on their caseload to treatment. Such an approach may support identification of STB and crosssystems linkage in other youth-serving organizations, such as schools, that increasingly manage youth BH problems with minimal clinical support. What is the public health significance of this article?Youth in all types of justice settings are at substantial risk for suicidal behavior and associated poor outcomes, yet protocols for identification and service delivery are rare for those in community settings (e.g., probation). e-Connect, by training probation officers and providing them with mobile technology, is one of the first digital clinical decision support systems that integrates screening, referral, and linkage guidance to assist probation officers with identification of suicide thoughts and behaviors, referral to care, and cross-system linkage.

Despite high rates of substance use, youth involved in the juvenile justice system are unlikely to be linked to the treatment services they need. Family Connect is a flexible, family-focused, linkage intervention developed to address multilevel barriers and increase youth engagement in care through the introduction of a linkage specialist. We describe the components of Family Connect and present findings from the intervention pilot test comparing 18 youth–caregiver dyads to 95 historical controls on referral, attending intake and initiating treatment. Results indicated preliminary support for Family Connect as an approach to increase cross-systems linkage and access to behavioral health care. Findings also suggested support for the feasibility of the intervention and indicated that justice-involved youth and their caregivers found the intervention to be acceptable. In addition to discussing our findings in the context of recent justice reforms, and the importance of improving access to treatment, we make recommendations to inform a future trial of Family Connect.