Black people represent one of the fastest-growing populations in Canada and continue to experience health inequities driven by anti-Black racism, structural discrimination, and unequal social determinants of health. Although previous studies have examined specific health conditions and populations, the broader body of research on Black people’s health in Canada has not been systematically synthesized. As such, this scoping review aims to examine the scope, characteristics and key gaps in research on the health of Black people in Canada. Guided by Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology and Arksey and O’Malley’s scoping review framework, searches were conducted across eight electronic databases and hand-searched reference lists, without restrictions on publication date or language. Eligible studies were peer-reviewed original quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-methods research conducted in Canada addressing physical, mental, or social health, healthcare access, or social structural determinants of health. The review was reported according to PRISMA-ScR guidelines. From 13,610 records identified, 522 studies met the inclusion criteria. Research output increased substantially after 2000, with more than half of the studies published between 2020 and 2025. The literature covered 15 health-related domains, most frequently mental health, communicable diseases, healthcare access, racial discrimination, and immigrant-related stress. Across domains, studies documented disproportionate disease burdens, barriers to culturally safe care, and the pervasive influence of racism and socioeconomic inequities. Important evidence gaps included limited race-disaggregated data, non-representative samples, aggregation of diverse Black populations, and limited longitudinal or intervention-focused research. This scoping review provides a comprehensive mapping of research on Black people’s health in Canada and identifies priorities for equity-oriented research, improved data collection, and policy action.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Williams et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: