This scoping review examines the role of global health partnerships (GHPs) in achieving vaccine equity. GHPs, which include governments, private foundations, NGOs, and international agencies, aim to incentivize vaccine development, fund production, and support delivery to those in need. The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the inequities in vaccine access, prompting the creation of COVAX, a GHP aimed at ensuring equitable vaccine distribution. The review identifies key lessons from previous GHP experiences, focusing on their mechanisms for supporting vaccine access, challenges in implementation, and critiques of their influence on global health decision-making. GHPs have evolved from concerns about slow progress in vaccine access, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). They include various partnership types, such as product development partnerships (PDPs), access partnerships, and financing mechanisms like advance market commitments (AMCs). These partnerships have contributed to vaccine innovation and access, but face challenges such as donor fatigue, limited transparency, and the need for health systems strengthening. PDPs, for example, have supported vaccine development but often lack local stakeholder engagement and may prioritize profit over public health. COVAX, a major GHP, aims to ensure equitable vaccine access but faces challenges in achieving its goals due to issues like vaccine nationalism and limited manufacturing capacity in LMICs. The review highlights the need for increased transparency, stronger health systems, and incentives for cooperative vaccine research and development. It also notes the growing influence of private foundations like the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) in global health decision-making, which can overshadow the role of international organizations like the World Health Organization (WHO). Critiques of GHPs include their focus on specific diseases, creating disease silos, and limited engagement with social determinants of health. Additionally, GHPs often prioritize financial interests over public health, which can hinder equitable vaccine access. The review concludes that while GHPs have made significant contributions to vaccine innovation and access, they face inherent challenges in achieving global vaccine equity. Further research is needed to explore how GHPs can better support global health governance and ensure equitable vaccine distribution.This scoping review examines the role of global health partnerships (GHPs) in achieving vaccine equity. GHPs, which include governments, private foundations, NGOs, and international agencies, aim to incentivize vaccine development, fund production, and support delivery to those in need. The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the inequities in vaccine access, prompting the creation of COVAX, a GHP aimed at ensuring equitable vaccine distribution. The review identifies key lessons from previous GHP experiences, focusing on their mechanisms for supporting vaccine access, challenges in implementation, and critiques of their influence on global health decision-making. GHPs have evolved from concerns about slow progress in vaccine access, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). They include various partnership types, such as product development partnerships (PDPs), access partnerships, and financing mechanisms like advance market commitments (AMCs). These partnerships have contributed to vaccine innovation and access, but face challenges such as donor fatigue, limited transparency, and the need for health systems strengthening. PDPs, for example, have supported vaccine development but often lack local stakeholder engagement and may prioritize profit over public health. COVAX, a major GHP, aims to ensure equitable vaccine access but faces challenges in achieving its goals due to issues like vaccine nationalism and limited manufacturing capacity in LMICs. The review highlights the need for increased transparency, stronger health systems, and incentives for cooperative vaccine research and development. It also notes the growing influence of private foundations like the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) in global health decision-making, which can overshadow the role of international organizations like the World Health Organization (WHO). Critiques of GHPs include their focus on specific diseases, creating disease silos, and limited engagement with social determinants of health. Additionally, GHPs often prioritize financial interests over public health, which can hinder equitable vaccine access. The review concludes that while GHPs have made significant contributions to vaccine innovation and access, they face inherent challenges in achieving global vaccine equity. Further research is needed to explore how GHPs can better support global health governance and ensure equitable vaccine distribution.