ArticleBMJ public health2026
Engaging with faith communities to tackle ethnic health inequalities in the UK: a scoping review.
Article in BMJ public 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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To explore how faith communities have been engaged in the design or delivery of public health interventions addressing ethnic health inequalities (EHIs) in the UK, the outcomes reported, and the barriers and facilitators influencing engagement. Design: Scoping review. Data sources: MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science, SCOPUS, Cochrane Library and Healthcare Management Information Consortium were systematically searched. Websites of two leading faith-based organisations-FaithAction and Theos Think Tank-were also hand-searched for grey literature. Eligibility criteria: UK-based empirical studies (2014-2024 inclusive) reporting faith community engagement (CE) in the design or delivery of public health interventions addressing EHIs or their wider social and structural determinants. Non-empirical studies, and studies with no meaningful involvement of faith communities, were excluded. Data extraction and synthesis: Two reviewers independently screened and extracted data. A descriptive analytical approach was used to chart faith CE approaches, reported outcomes, and barriers and facilitators. Results: 16 studies were included. Faith CE involved collaborations and partnerships, volunteer or peer roles, and places of worship as community hubs. Public health interventions, primarily health education, were typically delivered at a local scale. Health system involvement varied across studies, encompassing roles in funding, design, delivery and research. Reported outcomes included direct benefits from engagement processes and indirect benefits from interventions, predominantly psychosocial rather than behavioural or structural. Common barriers included limited resources, mistrust, cultural misalignment and unequal power dynamics; facilitators included trust, cultural alignment, supportive leadership and clearly defined roles. Conclusions: Faith communities are vital partners in tackling EHIs; however, they are currently engaged within a limited scope. Strengthening community-led approaches across health system footprints, addressing power dynamics, and evaluating behavioural, structural, and equity-focused outcomes can enhance their impact. The proposed practical actions provide decision-makers guidance to support inclusive, sustainable, and cost-effective public health interventions tackling EHIs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.