Experiences of loneliness in lower- and middle-income countries: A systematic review of qualitative studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Loneliness is understood as a subjective experience resulting from unmet social relationship expectations. As most loneliness research has been conducted in higher-income-countries, there is limited understanding of loneliness in relation to diverse cultural, economic, and socio-political factors. To address this gap, the present review systematically synthesises existing qualitative studies on the experience of loneliness and social relationship expectations in lower- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Between June and July 2022, six online databases (Embase, Ovid Medline, APA PsycINFO, Global Health, Web of Science, Google Scholar) were searched for peer-reviewed studies from LMICs on loneliness using qualitative methods. There were no restrictions on publication date, language, or study setting. Studies that solely focused on social isolation or were conducted with children (<16 years) were excluded. Risk of bias was assessed with the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme. After deduplication, a total of 7866 records were identified and screened for inclusion, resulting in 24 studies published between 2002 and 2022. The included studies represent data from 728 participants in 15 countries across West Africa (Ghana, Nigeria, Niger, Mali), East Africa (Uganda, Kenya), North Africa (Egypt), West Asia (Iran), South Asia (India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka) and Southeast Asia (Myanmar, Cambodia, Indonesia, Philippines). Data were analysed combining inductive and deductive coding, summarised using narrative synthesis, and examined by geographical region. Common features of loneliness included rejection, overthinking, and pain. Loneliness was related to depression across regions. Whereas loneliness tended to be distinguished from social isolation in studies from Africa, it tended to be related with being alone in studies from Asia. Poverty and stigma were common barriers to fulfilling social relationship expectations. This review illustrates how loneliness and expectations are contextually embedded, with some expectations possibly being specific to a certain culture or life stage, having implications for assessment of and interventions for loneliness worldwide.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.046 | 0.099 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".