Engaging with faith communities to tackle ethnic health inequalities in the UK: a scoping review

TL;DR

This study reviews how UK faith communities have been involved in public health efforts to reduce ethnic health inequalities, highlighting outcomes and challenges.

Contribution

The paper provides a scoping review of faith community engagement in public health interventions targeting ethnic health inequalities in the UK.

Findings

Faith communities were engaged through partnerships, volunteer roles, and as community hubs.

Outcomes were mostly psychosocial, with limited focus on behavioral or structural changes.

Barriers included mistrust and unequal power dynamics, while facilitators included trust and cultural alignment.

Abstract

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.

Scoping review.

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.

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.

Two reviewers independently screened and extracted data. A descriptive analytical approach was used to chart faith CE approaches, reported outcomes, and barriers and facilitators.

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.

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.

Figures