ArticleGlobalization and health2026
Understandings and practices of solidarity in global health: a scoping review of the literature.
Article in Globalization and health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundsRising interest in solidarity in global health reflects a growing need to understand why and how it can shape global health policy, practice, and research. This study seeks to review existing studies on solidarity in relation to global health and to identify gaps in current knowledge.
methodsWe conducted a scoping review of papers published between 2007 and 2024 to explore how solidarity is conceptualised and practised in the context of global health. Our search, guided by the key concepts of solidarity and global health, identified 752 studies across four databases: SCOPUS, PubMed, Global Health, and Google Scholar. Following a rigorous screening and full-text review process, 83 peer-reviewed journal articles meeting the inclusion criteria were selected for thematic review. This analysis focused on examining the relationships between solidarity and global health problems, norms, and practices.
resultsThe majority of the 83 reviewed articles were theoretical or conceptual in nature (63.9%) and predominantly authored by individuals affiliated with institutions in high-income countries (65.1%). The articles spanned multiple disciplines, with philosophy and applied ethics, including bioethics, being the most prominent (34.9%). Our findings indicate a growing interest in incorporating non-Western perspectives on solidarity and health into recent scholarship. The literature at the intersection of solidarity and global health showed that solidarity is often broadly defined–frequently without explicit reference to global health–and conceptualised in diverse ways, although some agreement exists on its core components. Solidarity’s focus on relationality and interdependence was found to align well with decolonial, feminist or ecological approaches. However, this review also identified a significant gap between the conceptualisation of solidarity and its practical implementation, largely due to structural barriers that impede its translation into action, often leading to undesirable outcomes.
conclusionThis review underscores the conceptual and practical potential of solidarity to reshape some of the foundational assumptions, objectives, and processes of global health. However, substantial work is still needed to clarify more nuanced understandings of solidarity within the global health context, to establish a comprehensive and prescriptive framework that guides an understanding of genuine solidarity and its applications while avoiding merely rhetorical uses and adverse outcomes, and to address the structural barriers that hinder their practical application. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.