Bridging international borders through global health diplomacy: A comprehensive bibliometric analysis of the state of play and leads for advancing this domain

2025

Full text Open access: Gold Metadata (CSL-JSON)
DOI 10.34172/hpp.025.44650
Data confidence 70 medium
How this score is calculated

It is built from checkable properties of the record itself: whether the article has a DOI, how many independent sources confirmed its data, whether the required fields are filled in, and how recent the latest confirmation is. Disagreement between sources and a missing identifier lower it. A value of 80 or above means the record was published without further checking; 60 to 79 means it is published at reduced confidence, with a manual check advisable. A record verified by an editor by hand is never pushed below 90 by a recalculation. This scores our data about the article, not the article itself.

Abstract

Background: Global health diplomacy (GHD) is an emerging intersection of health and international relations, particularly in transnational health challenges. Though growingly important, especially in the current global health scenario, this study aimed to perform a bibliometric analysis of GHD to identify emerging themes, leading contributors, research gaps for further studies and policy directions. Methods: A bibliometric analysis was done on SCOPUS, and a return of 242 articles published between 2007 and 2024 contained the keyword "global health diplomacy." The data was analyzed using Biblioshiny and then exported to Microsoft Excel for thematic coding. Key indicators included publication trends, co-authorship networks, and keyword co-occurrences to establish key trends and gaps. Results: A growing body of research observed an annual growth rate of 7.65% [95% CI]. North American and European countries led the research, especially the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom. The dominant themes included vaccine diplomacy, global health, Artificial Intelligence-Machine Learning and digital health, governance, and international cooperation. However, there were significant gaps, including underrepresentation from low-and middle-income countries (LMICs), limited focus on noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) including mental health, and neglected climate-health intersections. Conclusion: This study highlights the fast growth and changing nature of GHD research while indicating some key gaps that deserve further research. Strengthening contributions of LMICs, expanding thematic focus to NCDs and environmental health, and fostering interdisciplinary approaches are crucial for advancing the field. The findings are highly relevant for policy and research purposes and will push forward an impactful GHD for global health challenges.