Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41324838›Full record

ArticleJournal of religion and health2026

Individual and Relational Outcomes of Inter-religious Marriage: A Scoping Review.

Jineesh Cyriac, P M Mathew

Abstract readScoping Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of religion and health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Jineesh CyriacDepartment of Social Work, CHRIST (Deemed to be University), Bangaluru, Karnataka, 560029, India. jineesh.cyriac@res.christuniversity.in.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0003-6648-3316
P M MathewDepartment of Social Work, CHRIST (Deemed to be University), Bangaluru, Karnataka, 560029, India.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0002-7702-648X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Inter-religious marriages, where partners come from different religious affiliations, pose unique challenges and opportunities. This scoping review aims to examine the literature on individual and relational outcomes of inter-religious couples and their families, synthesising existing evidence on their social, psychological, and cultural aspects. While numerous studies exist on this topic, their findings have not yet been systematically synthesised. The question for this scoping review was how existing studies explore the individual and relational outcomes of interfaith marriages. A comparative search, following Arksey and O'Malley's five-step framework and PRISMA-ScR guidelines, was conducted across Scopus, ScienceDirect, APA PsycNet, JSTOR, PubMed, Google Scholar, and ProQuest databases from 2004 to 2024. After screening 1,276 references based on inclusion criteria, 19 peer-reviewed articles were selected for the scoping review. Four key themes emerged: (1) Marital adjustment and tensions, (2) Psychological impacts, (3) Marital instability and dissolution, and (4) Strengths and opportunities. This scoping review emphasises the intricate challenges encountered by inter-religious couples, encompassing familial opposition, identity dilemmas, cultural and religious disputes, marital instability, and psychological distress. The review highlights the need for increased societal and institutional support and calls for further research into adaptive coping strategies across diverse cultural contexts.

Indexed as

Interpersonal RelationsMarriageReligion and PsychologyAdaptation, PsychologicalFemaleHumansMaleIndividualInter-religious marriageOutcomesRelationalScoping review

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.