Social Isolation and Loneliness Among Older Asian Immigrants Through the Lens of Sense of Coherence: Systematic Review of Qualitative Studies.
Della Maneze, Brandon W Smith, Hadwan Aldahmashi et al.
✦ AI-curated · Sources linked
In 30 seconds
This systematic review synthesised 10 qualitative papers on community-living Asian immigrants aged 65 and over in Western countries who experienced social isolation and loneliness. Using Antonovsky’s Sense of Coherence framework, the review examined how participants understood these experiences, managed them and found meaning. Isolation and loneliness were described as shaped by cultural and environmental dislocation, language barriers, family conflict, declining health or mobility, and socioeconomic challenges. Family and ethnic-community support, culturally specific activities, spirituality, community involvement, acceptance and independence were described as resources that could support resilience and meaning.
Key findings
- Ten qualitative papers were included; analysis was organised around comprehensibility, manageability and meaningfulness.
- Participants linked isolation and loneliness to migration-related dislocation, language barriers, intergenerational conflict, health and mobility changes, and socioeconomic challenges.
- Family and ethnic-community support, culture-specific programs and ethnic enclaves were described as ways to mitigate isolation and loneliness.
- Spirituality, community involvement, cultural practices, acceptance and independent living helped participants find resilience or meaning.
Why it matters
The review highlights that social isolation and loneliness among older Asian immigrants are shaped by migration, cultural identity and changing family relationships, rather than by social circumstances alone. Understanding these intersecting experiences can help health and community services recognise both barriers and sources of resilience, and frame support in ways that are responsive to cultural context and individual adaptation.
What to keep in mind
The review synthesised qualitative studies, so its findings describe experiences and themes rather than estimating prevalence or intervention effects.