In recent years, the discourse surrounding global health has increasingly centered on the imperative to decolonize the field—a transformative approach that challenges entrenched power dynamics and calls for a more equitable partnership among nations. A pioneering study published in Global Health Research and Policy in 2025 by Amri, Filart, Yang, and colleagues provides an extensive scoping review that elucidates the core components, actionable recommendations, and key contributors to this urgent movement. This comprehensive review not only charts the intellectual and practical landscape of decolonizing global health but also serves as a clarion call for systemic change.
Decolonizing global health signifies a fundamental shift in paradigms, seeking to dismantle historical legacies of colonialism that have shaped research priorities, funding mechanisms, and the governance of health interventions worldwide. The authors outline how these legacies manifest in disproportionate influence held by high-income countries, often at the expense of local contexts, knowledge, and agency in low- and middle-income countries. By foregrounding equity and justice, the study advances a vision wherein global health is co-created through genuinely reciprocal partnerships.
The scoping review methodologically synthesizes a breadth of literature and case studies, highlighting recurring themes and divergent perspectives that shape contemporary debates. Central to the authors’ findings is the recognition of power asymmetries that permeate global health institutions—ranging from funding bodies to academic journals. This power imbalance manifests not only in decision-making authority but also in the ownership and dissemination of knowledge, frequently marginalizing indigenous and community-based health practices.
The researchers further dissect the multifaceted strategies proposed for decolonization, which encompass epistemological shifts and structural reforms. Epistemologically, the study advocates for an expanded conception of valid knowledge systems, emphasizing Indigenous methodologies and community knowledge as critical complements to Western scientific paradigms. This challenges the dominant discourse that often privileges quantitative metrics and randomized controlled trials as the gold standard.
Structural reforms recommended include revising funding allocation models to foster equitable resource distribution and promoting leadership roles for researchers and practitioners from underrepresented regions. These recommendations underscore the necessity for global health organizations to embed inclusivity and diversity not as peripheral goals but as foundational principles that shape governance structures and operational policies.
Importantly, Amri and colleagues highlight the role of education and capacity-building in fostering a new generation of global health professionals attuned to the ethics and praxis of decolonization. Curriculum reforms that incorporate critical historical perspectives and emphasize collaborative, context-sensitive research methods are deemed essential for this transformative agenda. Such educational shifts aim to equip practitioners not only with technical expertise but also with a critical consciousness that recognizes the socio-political dimensions of health.
The review also addresses challenges to decolonization efforts, acknowledging the inertia of entrenched systems and resistance from stakeholders benefiting from the status quo. The authors argue for sustained advocacy, strategic alliances, and leveraging global platforms to keep the issue at the forefront of international health dialogues. They stress that decolonization is not a finite destination but an ongoing, dynamic process requiring vigilance and reflexivity.
A particularly striking insight from the study concerns language and knowledge production. The dominance of English-language publications and Western academic standards act as gatekeepers that restrict the inclusion of diverse epistemologies. The authors call for democratizing knowledge production by supporting multilingual dissemination and recognizing alternative scholarly outputs, such as community reports and oral histories.
In synthesizing these perspectives, the review foregrounds the contributions of a wide array of actors, including scholars from the Global South, indigenous leaders, community organizations, and transnational coalitions. Their voices illuminate lived experiences of marginalization and offer innovative approaches that transcend conventional donor-recipient frameworks. This multiplicity of contributors enriches the conversation by situating decolonization within broader struggles for social justice and human rights.
The study further examines how global health crises, such as pandemics and endemic diseases, expose and exacerbate colonial residues within health systems and responses. The COVID-19 pandemic, in particular, serves as a case study demonstrating how inequitable access to vaccines and technologies is rooted in historical patterns of exploitation and neglect. Decolonizing global health, therefore, is unraveled as not only a theoretical aspiration but a pragmatic necessity to ensure resilience and fairness in global health emergencies.
Technological advancements and digital health tools emerge in the analysis as double-edged swords. While offering unprecedented opportunities for data sharing and health innovation, these tools also risk perpetuating inequalities if dominated by Western-centric designs and proprietary interests. The authors advocate for inclusive technology governance frameworks that prioritize community needs and sovereignty over data.
The ethical dimensions of decolonizing global health are intricately unpacked, highlighting the imperative for respect, reciprocity, and accountability in research and interventions. This ethical lens challenges practices that have historically treated populations as mere subjects or beneficiaries rather than active agents. In this light, informed consent, benefit-sharing, and culturally sensitive engagement assume paramount importance.
Moreover, the study underscores how decolonization intersects with other critical dimensions such as gender, race, and economic inequality. Intersectionality is posited as a valuable framework that helps reveals layered injustices and informs more holistic interventions that address root causes rather than symptoms alone.
Policy implications emerging from the review are substantial, urging policymakers to enact frameworks that embed decolonial principles at every stage—from agenda setting to implementation and evaluation. This involves rethinking metrics of success to include social justice indicators and fostering accountability mechanisms that are transparent and participatory.
The authors conclude with an optimistic yet cautious note, emphasizing that while the movement to decolonize global health faces formidable obstacles, it also benefits from a growing constellation of committed actors and an expanding knowledge base. The study serves as both a roadmap and a manifesto, urging the global health community to embrace radical transformation that honors dignity, diversity, and equity.
In sum, Amri, Filart, Yang, and colleagues’ scoping review stands as a landmark contribution that rigorously maps the terrain of decolonizing global health. It integrates theoretical insights with practical recommendations, weaving together a narrative that is both intellectually compelling and urgently actionable. As global health continues to evolve in a complex world, this work offers an essential guide for those striving to remake the field in the image of justice and shared humanity.
Subject of Research: Decolonizing global health, examining its components, proposed actions, and stakeholders involved.
Article Title: Decolonizing global health: a scoping review of its key components, proposed actions, and contributors.
Article References:
Amri, M., Filart, J., Yang, J. et al. Decolonizing global health: a scoping review of its key components, proposed actions, and contributors. Glob Health Res Policy 10, 54 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41256-025-00436-8
Image Credits: AI Generated
