Bridging the Gap: How Shared Knowledge Can Fix Health Inequities

Global health disparities are growing as worldwide crises reveal deep flaws in how we organize care, share information, and make decisions. A new idea called Global Collaborative Evidence Networks is stepping in to help. These networks gather experts from many fields, pool data, and try to guide policies that reach everyone. The promise of these networks is big. They can bring fresh ideas, combine data from different countries, and help leaders pick the best solutions for people who have been left behind. Yet, they face real hurdles. Who gets to decide what counts as evidence? How are decisions shared across borders? Do all voices, especially those from low‑income regions, get heard?This review looks closely at how these networks are set up. It asks whether their rules and structures truly level the playing field or simply reinforce old power imbalances. The analysis shows that while collaboration is a powerful tool, without fair governance and inclusive participation the networks may end up doing more harm than good. To move forward, the study suggests concrete steps. First, decision‑making bodies must include representatives from under‑represented groups. Second, transparent processes for selecting and evaluating evidence should be public. Third, ongoing training can help members understand how power shapes research priorities. The goal is to turn knowledge into action that benefits all people, not just a privileged few. By rethinking who gets to shape evidence and how decisions are made, Global Collaborative Evidence Networks can become true allies in the fight for health equity.