The impact of Islamophobia on migrants’ health and wellbeing outcomes: a systematic literature review
,
 
,
 
,
 
,
 
,
 
,
 
 
 
More details
Hide details
1
Bennett Institute for Applied Data Science, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
 
2
No affiliation, London, United Kingdom
 
3
Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay, Mumbai, India
 
4
Muslim Doctors Association & Allied Health Professionals CIC, London, United Kingdom
 
5
Department of Psychology, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, India
 
6
Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, United States
 
7
City St George’s, University of London, London, United Kingdom
 
8
Institute for Global Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom
 
 
Popul. Med. 2026;8(Supplement Supplement 1):A2727
 
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND:
Islamophobia, defined as a system of oppression, exclusion and exploitation against Muslims within which discrimination takes place, is dramatically increasing globally according to UN experts. The world’s international migrant population is also growing, estimated at 304 million in mid-2024. Muslims comprise approximately 29% of all international migrants, or 80 million individuals. A systematic review published in 2017 showed that discrimination was negatively associated with mental and physical health indicators and access to healthcare in Muslims or Muslim-like populations in high-income countries. Given the intersection of Muslim and migrant identities, this systematic review aimed to understand the role of Islamophobia on migrants’ health outcomes.

METHODS:
The protocol of this systematic review has been submitted to PROSPERO. We searched the following databases on the 2nd April 2025 for studies reporting primary data (both qualitative and quantitative) that included international Muslim migrants, experiences of Islamophobia or related phenomenon and a health and wellbeing outcome: Medline (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), Global Health (Ovid), AMED (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), CINAHL(EBSCOHost), SCOPUS, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. We will assess the articles’ quality using the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tools and synthesize the findings using a narrative approach, with meta-analysis considered if appropriate.

RESULTS:
A total of 1,368 articles were found in the initial search, of which 444 were duplicates. To date, 101 studies were deemed relevant for full-text review.

CONCLUSIONS:
This study is currently ongoing and its results will be presented at the congress.
eISSN:2654-1459
Journals System - logo
Scroll to top