Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34770035›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of environmental research and public health2021

A Conceptual Review of Loneliness in Adults: Qualitative Evidence Synthesis.

Louise Mansfield, Christina Victor, Catherine Meads, Norma Daykin, Alan Tomlinson, Jack Lane, Karen Gray, Alex Golding

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

42 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. "I don't want to make trouble": Emotional Distress, Disconnection, and Loneliness Among Older People in China.The journals of gerontology. Series B, Psychological sciences and social sciences · 2025
    Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Louise MansfieldCentre for Health and Wellbeing across the Lifecourse, College of Health, Medicine & Life Sciences, Brunel University London, Uxbridge UB8 3PH, UK.
Christina VictorCentre for Health and Wellbeing across the Lifecourse, College of Health, Medicine & Life Sciences, Brunel University London, Uxbridge UB8 3PH, UK.
Catherine MeadsFaculty of Health, Education, Medicine and Social Care, Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge CB1 1PT, UK.
Norma DaykinNew Social Research, Faculty of IT and Communication Sciences, Tampere University, 33100 Tampere, Finland.
Alan TomlinsonCentre for Arts and Wellbeing, School of Humanities, University of Brighton, Brighton BN2 4AT, UK.
Jack LaneCentre for Arts and Wellbeing, School of Humanities, University of Brighton, Brighton BN2 4AT, UK.
Karen GrayCentre for Health and Wellbeing across the Lifecourse, College of Health, Medicine & Life Sciences, Brunel University London, Uxbridge UB8 3PH, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0559-8112
Alex GoldingCentre for Health and Wellbeing across the Lifecourse, College of Health, Medicine & Life Sciences, Brunel University London, Uxbridge UB8 3PH, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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.

Indexed as

LonelinessAdultHumansQualitative ResearchResearch Designconceptual reviewemotional lonelinessexistential lonelinesslonelinesssocial loneliness

Identifiers

PMID34770035
PMCPMC8582800

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.