Background Health workforce governance has been proposed as key to improving health services delivery, yet few studies have examined the conceptualisation of health workforce governance in detail and exploration in literature remains limited. Methods A literature review using PubMed, Google Scholar and grey literature search was conducted to map out the current conceptualisation of health workforce governance. We identified all published literature relating to governance in health workforce since 2000 and analysed them on two fronts: the broad definition of governance, and the operationalisation of broad definition into key dimensions of governance. Results Existing literature adopts governance concepts established in health literature and does not adapt understanding to the health workforce context. Definitions are largely quoted from health literature whilst dimensions are focused around the sub-functions of governance which emphasise operationalising governance practices over further conceptualisation. Two sub-functions are identified as essential to the governance process: stakeholder participation and strategic direction. Conclusions Although governance in health systems has gained increasing attention, governance in health workforce remains poorly conceptualised in literature. We propose an improved conceptualisation in the form of a stakeholder-driven network governance model with the national government as a strong steward against vested stakeholder interests. Further research is needed to explore and develop on the conceptual thinking behind health workforce governance.

The practice of medicine—and especially the patient-doctor relationship—has seen exceptional shifts in ethical standards of care over the past few years, which by and large originate in occidental countries and are then extrapolated worldwide. However, this phenomenon is blind to the fact that an ethical practice of medicine remains hugely dependent on prevailing cultural and societal expectations of the community in which it serves. One model aiming to conceptualise the dichotomous efforts for global standardisation of medical care against differing sociocultural expectations is the individualism-collectivism model, with the ‘West’ being seen as individualistic and the ‘East’ being seen as collectivistic. This has been used by many academics to explain differences in approach towards ethical practice on key concepts such as informed consent and patient autonomy. However, I argue that this characterisation is incomplete and lacks nuance into the complexities surrounding cross-cultural ethics in practice, and I propose an alternative model based on the ethics of clinical care in Hong Kong, China. Core ethical principles need not be culture-bound—indeed, their very existence mandates for them to be universal and non-derogable—but instead cultural alignment occurs in the particular implementation of these principles, insofar as they respect the general spirit of contemporary ethical standards.