Engaging with faith communities to tackle ethnic health inequalities in the UK: a scoping review
File(s)
Accepted version
Author(s)
Hofer, Stuart
Mujong, Datapwa
Powell, Richard
Type
Journal Article
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
Sixteen 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.
Conclusion
Faith communities remain vital partners in tackling EHIs; however, engagement models are currently limited in scope. Strengthening community-led models, addressing power dynamics, and evaluating behavioural, structural and equity-focused outcomes are needed at different footprints of health systems. Suggested practical actions for health systems can guide decision-makers in designing inclusive, sustainable and cost-effective public health interventions.
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
Sixteen 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.
Conclusion
Faith communities remain vital partners in tackling EHIs; however, engagement models are currently limited in scope. Strengthening community-led models, addressing power dynamics, and evaluating behavioural, structural and equity-focused outcomes are needed at different footprints of health systems. Suggested practical actions for health systems can guide decision-makers in designing inclusive, sustainable and cost-effective public health interventions.
Date Acceptance
2025-12-16
Citation
BMJ Public Health
ISSN
2753-4294
Publisher
BMJ Publishing Group
Journal / Book Title
BMJ Public Health
Copyright Statement
Copyright This paper is embargoed until publication. Once published the Version of Record (VoR) will be available on immediate open access.
License URL
Publication Status
Accepted