Understandings and practices of solidarity in global health: a scoping review of the literature.

Abstract

BACKGROUNDS: Rising 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. METHODS: We 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. RESULTS: The 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. CONCLUSION: This 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.