Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2021 Nov 2;18(21):11522.
doi: 10.3390/ijerph182111522.

A Conceptual Review of Loneliness in Adults: Qualitative Evidence Synthesis

Affiliations
Review

A Conceptual Review of Loneliness in Adults: Qualitative Evidence Synthesis

Louise Mansfield et al. Int J Environ Res Public Health. .

Abstract

The paper reports an evidence synthesis of how loneliness is conceptualised in qualitative studies in adults. Using PRISMA guidelines, our review evaluated exposure to or experiences of loneliness by adults (aged 16+) in any setting as outcomes, processes, or both. Our initial review included any qualitative or mixed-methods study, published or unpublished, in English, from 1945 to 2018, if it employed an identified theory or concept for understanding loneliness. The review was updated to include publications up to November 2020. We used a PEEST (Participants, Exposure, Evaluation, Study Design, Theory) inclusion criteria. Data extraction and quality assessment (CASP) were completed and cross-checked by a second reviewer. The Evidence of Reviews of Qualitative Research (CERQual) was used to evaluate confidence in the findings. We undertook a thematic synthesis using inductive methods for peer-reviewed papers. The evidence identified three types of distinct but overlapping conceptualisations of loneliness: social, emotional, and existential. We have high confidence in the evidence conceptualising social loneliness and moderate confidence in the evidence on emotional and existential loneliness. Our findings provide a more nuanced understanding of these diverse conceptualisations to inform more effective decision-making and intervention development to address the negative wellbeing impacts of loneliness.

Keywords: conceptual review; emotional loneliness; existential loneliness; loneliness; social loneliness.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
PRISMA flowchart.

References

    1. Rotenberg K. Childhood and adolescent loneliness: An introduction. In: Rotenberg K., Hymel S., editors. Loneliness in Childhood and Adolescence. Cambridge University Press; Cambridge, UK: 1999. pp. 3–10.
    1. Mijuskovic B. Loneliness and human nature. Psychol. Perspect. 1981;12:69–77. doi: 10.1080/00332928108408679. - DOI
    1. Russell D., Peplau L.A., Cutrona C.E. The revised UCLA Loneliness Scale: Concurrent and discriminant validity evidence. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1980;39:472–480. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.39.3.472. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Smith K.J., Victor C. Typologies of loneliness, living alone and social isolation, and their associations with physical and mental health. Ageing Soc. 2018;39:1709–1730. doi: 10.1017/S0144686X18000132. - DOI
    1. Gerst-Emerson K., Jayawardhana J. Loneliness as a public health issue: The impact of loneliness on health care utilization among older adults. Am. J. Public Health. 2015;105:1013–1019. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2014.302427. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources