In Canada, Métis are one of three distinct Indigenous Peoples whose rights are recognized and affirmed in Section 35 of the federal Constitution Act, 1982. Although previous reviews have been conducted on Métis health and wellness, none have spanned over 40 years nor included comprehensive grey literature searches. In line with Métis having a unique culture, history, language, and way of life, a comprehensive and distinctions-based approach is critical to understanding the current landscape of Métis health. In this paper, we present a scoping review led by the Métis Nation of Ontario (MNO) and supported by researchers to describe the Métis health research landscape between 1980 and 2024. This scoping review followed Arksey and O’Malley’s scoping review methodology. The research question was collaboratively developed between the MNO and researchers, including Métis citizens. We systematically searched 14 electronic databases between January 1980 and April 2024. Comprehensive grey literature searches were conducted, including hand-searching of Métis government and organization websites. Any academic paper or health report that included a Métis-specific health, well-being, or Métis social determinants of health outcome, published between January 1980 and April 2024 in English, was included. Data were extracted and charted using a standardized Excel form. We identified 112 Métis-specific health studies or reports. A majority were Métis-specific ( n = 81) versus pan-Indigenous, published since 2010 ( n = 99) and quantitative ( n = 71). Fifty-eight percent of studies ( n = 65) had evidence of Métis authorship or collaboration with a Métis community. Non-communicable diseases were the most studied health outcomes ( n = 38). The number of Métis-specific health research studies has tripled since 2010 compared to pre-2010. Despite this, knowledge gaps exist for Métis children and youth, in-depth qualitative work around Métis men’s health, communicable diseases, and intervention studies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Simms et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: