Social Isolation in Low-Income Countries Among Young Females: A Review

Abstract

Social isolation constitutes a significant but under-researched determinant of well-being for young females in low-income countries. While extensive literature examines social isolation among older adults in high-income settings, the experiences of adolescent girls and young women in the world’s poorest nations remain poorly understood. This narrative review synthesises qualitative and quantitative evidence published between January 2000 and December 2025 on social isolation among young females (aged 10–24 years) residing in low-income countries. Drawing on 47 studies from 15 countries, the review maps what is known about prevalence, drivers, consequences, and conceptualisations of social isolation while identifying critical knowledge gaps. The evidence reveals that young females consistently experience higher rates of social isolation than their male counterparts, with out-of-school girls, child brides, displaced girls, and those with disabilities being particularly vulnerable. Structural drivers include poverty, gender inequality, displacement, early marriage, and educational exclusion. Consequences span mental health deterioration, reduced educational participation, and constrained economic opportunities. However, the evidence base is characterised by profound conceptual inconsistency, measurement heterogeneity, and geographic concentration in sub-Saharan Africa. Crucially, no studies explicitly defined or measured “social isolation” as a primary outcome using validated instruments among community-dwelling young females in low-income countries. This review argues that social isolation represents a neglected dimension of gendered vulnerability requiring urgent attention. It proposes a coordinated research agenda encompassing conceptual development, culturally validated measurement tools, longitudinal designs, and intervention research to address this blind spot in global health and development.

Introduction

The Social Isolation Evidence Base and Its Limits

Social isolation commonly understood as an objective lack of social connections, network size, and frequency of social contact has emerged as a critical public health concern globally. Extensive research from high-income countries has established robust associations between social isolation and adverse outcomes including premature mortality, cardiovascular disease, depression, and cognitive decline.¹ Recent scholarship has further elucidated the mechanisms linking social connection to psychological well-being, with studies demonstrating how population aggregation, strong and weak social ties, and psychological capital interact to shape individual mental health outcomes.^2,3 However, this evidence base rests almost exclusively on studies conducted in North America, Europe, and other affluent settings, leaving significant uncertainty about how social isolation operates in contexts of widespread poverty, gender inequality, and weak social protection systems.⁴ Having established the limitations of the existing evidence base, we now turn to examine why young females in low-income countries represent a particularly important population for studying social isolation.

Why Young Females in Low-Income Countries?

Young girls in low-income nations face various social environments as they develop their connections with others. The United Nations estimates that nearly 90% of the world’s youth aged 10–24 years reside in low- and middle-income countries, with the highest concentrations in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. The social structures of traditional societies including extended families, kinship networks, and community institutions face erosion due to extreme material deprivation, conflict, displacement, and epidemic disease.^5,6

Social landscapes in this society show that adolescent girls and young women face their most dangerous situation. Intersecting vulnerabilities which stem from gender-based discrimination and restricted mobility and early marriage and school dropout and disproportionate domestic labour burdens create challenges for them.^1,7 The Inter-agency Network for Education in Emergencies explains that

within marginalised groups, any privileges that remain are rarely distributed equally amongst men and women, and boys and girls. The unequal treatment of genders occurs because society maintains harmful gender norms which enforce this behavior. These factors systematically limit girls

ability to interact with peers, participate in social activities, and build social connections in ways that differ from young males and elder females.⁵

Recent empirical work from Kenya demonstrates the salience of these concerns. In a network analysis of 1,445 Kenyan secondary school students, loneliness emerged as the most central psychological variable, directly bridging depressive symptoms, diminished wellbeing, and social support. Critically, gender-stratified analyses revealed that “the positive association between depression and loneliness was significant for girls but was not significant for boys”. This finding underscores that social connection operates through gender-specific pathways that demand focused investigation.^1,8 The vulnerability of young females to social isolation carries implications not only for individual well-being but also for broader demographic and developmental trajectories, as explored in the next section.

The Demographic Imperative

The ongoing demographic shift in low-income countries which sees young people becoming the majority population requires social isolation research in this specific demographic group. The nations need to achieve their demographic dividend which follows decreased fertility rates by supporting their citizens through healthy development and social integration.⁶ The Girls’ Education Challenge evaluation found that schools must establish” suitable learning environments which “enable access to education” for the most remote girls who have “never been to school, dropped out early, or be at particular risk of not learning” because girls face multiple hindrances which match their combined disabilities and ethnic minority status and displacement and extreme poverty and domestic violence and early marriage responsibilities.⁹ Given the demographic significance of this population and the multiple barriers they face, it is striking that social isolation among young females in low-income countries remains largely unexamined in the academic literature, a gap we address in the following section.

The Gap and the Contribution

The academic literature has not produced any research about social isolation which affects young females who live in low-income countries. This gap is particularly notable given that theoretical frameworks developed in other contexts such as the analysis of how population aggregation, strong ties, and psychological capital influence depression have not been systematically applied to understanding social isolation among young women in low-income settings.^2,3 A 2024 systematic review of loneliness in lower- and middle-income countries identified only 24 qualitative studies published between 2002 and 2022 across 15 countries which explicitly excluded studies that focused solely on social isolation research.¹ Research on social marginalisation among adolescents has focused on specific vulnerable subgroups which include refugees and adolescents with disabilities and child brides instead of studying how isolation affects young females who live in various community settings.^7,10 Meanwhile, the voluminous literature on adolescent girls in development programmes has prioritised outcomes such as educational attainment, sexual and reproductive health, and economic empowerment, with social connectedness treated as a means to these ends rather than an outcome worthy of study in its own right.

This narrative review addresses this gap by synthesising available evidence on social isolation among young females in low-income countries. It asks: What is known about the prevalence, drivers, experiences, and consequences of social isolation in this population? How is social isolation conceptualised and measured across different low-income country contexts? What methodological and empirical gaps constrain current understanding, and what priorities should guide future research?

By answering these questions, this review aims to provide a foundation for developing contextually appropriate conceptual frameworks, measurement tools, and interventions to address a neglected dimension of gendered vulnerability in the world’s poorest settings.

This review proceeds as follows. Methodology describes the methodology, including the search strategy, inclusion criteria, and analytic approach. The Conceptual Landscape: What Do We Mean by Social Isolation? examines the conceptual landscape, distinguishing social isolation from related constructs. Results presents the results, covering prevalence, drivers, consequences, and protective factors. The State of the Evidence critically evaluates the state of the evidence, identifying conceptual, measurement, and methodological limitations. Towards a Research Agenda proposes a research agenda, and Implications for Policy and Practice discusses implications for policy and practice. Limitations acknowledges limitations, and Conclusion concludes the review.

Methodology

Search Strategy and Boundaries

This narrative review syntheses literature identified through systematic searches of six electronic databases: PubMed, Web of Science Core Collection, Scopus, PsycINFO (Ovid), Global Health (CAB Direct), and Google Scholar. The search period covered January 2000 to December 2025. Search terms combined three core concepts:¹ population terms (“adolescent”, “youth”, “young women”, “young female”, “girl”) combined with gender terms;² geographic terms (“low-income country”, “developing country”, “Global South”, and specific low-income country names); and³ outcome terms (“social isolation”, “social exclusion”, “loneliness”, “social network”, “social participation”, “social connectedness”). For PubMed, the full search string was: (“adolescent” OR “youth” OR “young women” OR “young female” OR “girl”) AND (“low-income country” OR “developing country” OR “Global South” OR “Afghanistan” OR “Ethiopia” OR “Malawi” OR “Uganda” OR “Bangladesh” OR “Nepal” OR “Rwanda” OR “Mozambique”[tiab] OR “Sierra Leone” OR “Tanzania” OR “Zimbabwe” OR “Yemen” AND (“social isolation” OR “social exclusion” OR “loneliness” OR “social network” OR “social participation” OR “social connectedness”). This strategy combined controlled vocabulary terms (MeSH) with free-text terms (tiab) to maximise sensitivity. Google Scholar was included to capture grey literature and studies published in journals not indexed in the major databases; however, its search results were limited to the first 200 records to maintain feasibility and reproducibility”.

Inclusion Criteria

Studies were included if they: (a) were conducted in a country classified as low-income by the World Bank during any part of the study period; (b) focused on females aged 10–24 years or presented disaggregated data for this subgroup; (c) examined social isolation, loneliness, social networks, social participation, or related constructs; (d) used qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods; and (e) were published as peer-reviewed journal articles or book chapters in English. For the purposes of study classification, “social isolation” was treated as the primary outcome of interest. Studies examining loneliness (subjective experience), social participation (behavioural engagement), social networks (structural characteristics), and social exclusion (processes of marginalisation) were classified as examining related but distinct secondary constructs. When studies reported multiple constructs, they were classified according to their primary stated outcome; where outcomes were co-primary, studies were included in our synthesis of the relevant construct.

The Search Outcome

The searches yielded approximately 8,700 records. Following screening, 47 studies met inclusion criteria and form the basis of this narrative synthesis. Screening and eligibility assessment were conducted by a single reviewer, with a 20% random sample of excluded full-text articles independently checked by a second reviewer to reduce bias (agreement: 94%). Reasons for full-text exclusion are reported in the PRISMA diagram (Figure 1): no female-disaggregated data (n=58), no social isolation-related outcome (n=45), review/commentary not primary research (n=32), non-English (n=12), and duplicate/overlapping publication (n=6). These studies represent 15 low-income countries across sub-Saharan Africa (n=32), South Asia (n=11), and fragile states (n=4). Study designs included qualitative research (n=28), cross-sectional surveys (n=12), mixed-methods studies (n=5), and longitudinal cohort studies (n=2). Publication dates ranged from 2002 to 2025, with a marked increase after 2015 (n=36).

Figure 1.

The PRISMA 2020 Flow chart for Social Isolation in Low-Income Countries Among Young Females.

Analytic Approach

This review employs a narrative synthesis approach organised thematically. Given the heterogeneity of the evidence base, the goal is interpretation and agenda-setting rather than meta-analysis. The synthesis proceeded through four iterative steps. First, all included studies were read in full and key characteristics (country, population, study design, outcome measures, main findings) were extracted into a standardised summary table Second, studies were coded thematically according to their primary focus: prevalence/patterns, drivers, consequences, or protective factors. Third, within each theme, we identified recurring patterns and divergent findings through an iterative process of comparison and synthesis. This involved deductive coding using the GAGE framework’s domains (capabilities, gender roles and norms, family and community contexts) and inductive identification of emergent themes not captured by the framework. Fourth, we synthesised findings across themes to identify cross-cutting patterns and knowledge gaps. The review draws on the Gender and Adolescence: Global Evidence (GAGE) conceptual framework, which “accounts for gender roles and norms, family, community and political economy contexts in shaping adolescents’ capabilities”, and applies an intersectional lens to understand how multiple axes of inequality shape isolation experiences.¹¹

The Conceptual Landscape: What Do We Mean by Social Isolation?

Distinguishing Isolation from Loneliness

The review presents a fundamental discovery which shows that different studies handle their research concepts in different ways. Only 8 of 47 studies (17.0%) explicitly defined “social isolation” as a distinct construct This conceptual vagueness is a major limitation; for example, only 21% (7/34) of studies in a key subset clearly distinguished social isolation from the related but distinct construct of loneliness.¹² Social isolation defines a condition where people do not have social contacts or social interactions with their family members and friends and people from their community. The definition of this term differs from the definition of loneliness which denotes the personal experience of being cut off from essential social connections.

The distinction matters. The Akhter-Khan systematic review established that these two concepts exist as separate entities which different cultural settings create different ways to experience and understand them. The review showed that African studies treated social isolation as a separate concept from loneliness while Asian studies connected social isolation with the experience of being by oneself. This finding shows that different cultures have different ways of understanding social connections. Despite this, widely used scales like the UCLA Loneliness Scale (subjective) and the Lubben Social Network Scale (objective) are rarely adapted or validated for use in low-income countries.¹³

Related but Distinct Constructs

The studies analyzed related but separate conceptual elements through their research work. The research studies used social participation as a measure to evaluate community attendance and religious event participation and peer group meeting attendance (n=19). The research study about extreme poverty in rural Malawi showed that girls experienced less social participation and higher isolation than boys did because girls participated in activities at a lower rate than boys did. This finding is quantified by evidence showing that out-of-school girls in Malawi had 40% smaller social networks than their in-school counterparts.¹⁴

11 studies investigated social network attributes by assessing network dimensions and member composition and relationship density. The Malawi study reported that “in-school youth had larger, more interactive, and more supportive networks than out-of-school youth”, with girls particularly disadvantaged. Nine studies dedicated their research to exploring loneliness.^4,10 Recent network analysis from Kenya found that loneliness “emerged as the most central psychological variable, directly bridging depressive symptoms, diminished wellbeing, and social support”. The researchers studied social exclusion in 7 studies which focused on specific marginalized populations that included disabled adolescents and refugees and child brides. The GAGE research programme’s work on socially marginalised adolescents in LMICs provided extensive qualitative data on exclusion processes affecting young females.⁷

The Conceptual Gap

Notably, no study used a validated, multi-item scale specifically designed to measure social isolation as a distinct construct in community-dwelling young females in low-income countries. Studies that quantified isolation typically relied on single-item indicators (eg. “How often do you meet with friends?”) or adapted measures developed in high-income settings without cultural validation. This conceptual vagueness has prevented cumulative knowledge development and limits comparability across studies and settings.

Results

Prevalence and Patterns

Estimating prevalence is hampered by measurement heterogeneity. However, several consistent patterns emerged across studies:

Gender disparities: Young females showed higher social isolation results across multiple indicators when researchers conducted studies that compared males and females. All age groups studied in the Malawi research showed that “girls described less social participation and more isolation than boys”.¹⁵ The studies conducted in Ethiopia Bangladesh and Uganda produced results which demonstrated identical findings.^16,17 The Kenya network analysis discovered that “family support was more central for girls” while “support from friends was more central for boys” which shows different ways that boys and girls build their social connections.

Age gradients: The research found that social isolation levels increased during the teenage years because girls between the ages of 15 and 19 maintained fewer social connections than their younger counterparts between the ages of 10 and 14. The research found that people who had just started their first sexual relationship tended to develop social isolation because they experienced difficulties with sexual relationships and school and marriage transition.

Geographic variation: The research produced conflicting results about urban and rural areas. The studies discovered that rural girls faced higher isolation rates because their communities were spread out and lacked proper facilities while urban slums experienced higher isolation rates because their residents had low social trust and faced safety issues that made it hard to move around.

Vulnerable subgroups: Certain groups of young females demonstrated particularly high vulnerability (Table 1):

• Out-of-school girls (examined in 14 studies) consistently reported smaller social networks and less frequent peer interaction than their in-school counterparts. The Girls’ Education Challenge found that reaching these girls required addressing “intersectional barriers such as disability, ethnic minority status, displacement, extreme poverty”. A study from Malawi quantified this, showing out-of-school girls had 40% smaller networks.¹⁵ The Girls’ Education Challenge found that reaching these girls required addressing intersectional barriers such as disability, ethnic minority status, displacement, extreme poverty.²²

• Child brides and young married women (12 studies) described profound isolation following marriage. The risk is substantial, with evidence suggesting child brides face a threefold risk of social isolation compared to their unmarried peers.¹⁹ As Plan International’s CEO noted, “married girls are more likely to experience intimate partner violence” and “87% of married adolescent girls are out of school globally”. Research from Nepal documented how girls like Binita, married at 13 to a man 11 years her senior, are “forced to stay, even if she’s beaten or unhappy”.²³

• Displaced and refugee girls (6 studies) experienced traumatic disruption of social networks. Research on Rohingya students in Bangladesh found that “disabled girls encountered dual marginalisation through bullying and stereotyping”.²⁴ In Kenya, girls like 17-year-old Esther Chebet, displaced by government evictions from the Mau Forest, found their education shattered and themselves working on farms to survive.²⁰

• Adolescent girls with disabilities (8 studies) faced compounded exclusion. This group experiences compounded marginalisation, requiring significantly more resources for inclusion.²⁵ The Girls’ Education Challenge found that “the cost per girl with disabilities was estimated in some cases to be 58%–105% higher than the cost per girl without disabilities” due to the intensive support required. In Ethiopia, these costs included “providing assistive devices and medical coverage, paying fuel, accommodation and per diem costs for parents and children”.⁴

• Adolescent mothers (5 studies) reported stigma-driven exclusion from peer networks and community life.

Table 1.

Vulnerable Subgroups and Their Experiences of Social Isolation

Subgroup	Key Studies	Prevalence/Impact	Mechanisms of Isolation	Protective Factors
Out-of-school girls	Rock 2022.8 Jones 2023.18	40% smaller networks	Loss of primary peer interaction site; time poverty due to domestic work	Re-entry programs; community-based girls’ groups
Child brides	Wodon 2021.19	3x higher isolation risk	Relocation to husband’s community; restricted mobility; power differentials with in-laws	Married girls’ support groups; family engagement
Displaced girls	Chowdhury 2024.10 Enns 2022.20	Network destruction	Traumatic network disruption; security concerns limiting movement	Safe spaces in camps; peer mentoring
Girls with disabilities	Plan International 2024.9	58-105% higher costs	Physical inaccessibility; stigma; exclusion from school	Assistive devices; inclusive programming
Adolescent mothers	Kiptoo-Tarus 2020.21	Stigma-driven exclusion	Shame; caregiving responsibilities; school exclusion	Re-entry policies; childcare support

Structural Drivers of Social Isolation

The synthesis identified multiple interacting structural drivers operating at individual, household, community, and policy levels.

Poverty and material deprivation emerged as the most pervasive driver across all studies. Poverty constrained social participation through multiple pathways: directly by denying young females the material means to participate in school, religious activities, and community organisations; and indirectly by reducing time and emotional resources and creating shame and stigma. The psychological burden of poverty shame, stress, sadness further inhibited girls’ capacity to form and maintain relationships.²⁶

Gender norms and patriarchy structured girls’ social worlds in fundamental ways. Studies from all regions documented how norms around female respectability, modesty, and safety restricted girls’ mobility and access to public spaces. Puberty marked a transition to heightened surveillance and restriction, with girls expected to withdraw from mixed-gender peer groups and limit independent movement. The INEE analysis documented how “in crisis contexts, heightened gender norms perpetuate labour markets and public spaces that exclude women and girls”.²⁷ These restrictions intensified following marriage, when young wives often relocated to their husbands’ communities and came under the authority of mothers-in-law.

Displacement and humanitarian crises disrupted social ecologies catastrophically. Among displaced female youth, traumatic events had profound implications for social trust and network formation. Displacement severed connections to extended family, neighbourhood, and community institutions while exposing girls to ongoing security threats that constrained social participation. As the G7 Global Objectives Report noted, “children who were most marginalised prior to the crisis will likely suffer the greatest disadvantage during and after the crisis as well”.²¹

Educational exclusion operated as both a driver and consequence of social isolation. Out-of-school girls lost the primary institutional setting for peer interaction in most low-income countries.²⁸ Schools provided not only structured social contact but also access to friendship networks, supportive adults, and information. Once excluded from school, girls faced formidable barriers to re-entering social spaces.²⁴

Early marriage represented a particularly potent driver of isolation. Studies from multiple countries documented how marriage removed girls from their natal families, peer networks, and familiar communities, placing them in households where they often had little autonomy and few opportunities for social contact outside the marital home.¹⁹ The GAGE programme identified married adolescents as a priority marginalised group precisely because of this isolation.

Disability compounded other vulnerabilities to produce extreme social exclusion. Girls with physical, sensory, or intellectual disabilities faced barriers to accessing school, community spaces, and peer networks while also experiencing stigma, harassment, and being viewed as burdens on their families.

Consequences of Social Isolation

Mental health impacts were the most consistently reported outcomes. Isolated girls young women described symptoms of depression, anxiety, and psychological distress. A meta-analysis confirms this link, with isolated adolescents having an odds ratio of 2.1 for depression.²⁹ The Kenya network analysis found that loneliness “directly bridg[ed] depressive symptoms, diminished wellbeing, and social support”.³⁰ Among displaced female youth, poor mental health and psychosocial functioning was central, with suicidal ideation documented. Social connections, conversely, provided critical resources for coping.

Educational consequences included reduced school attendance and completion among isolated girls. The effect is stark, with a risk ratio of 1.8 for dropout among socially isolated girls.³¹ Social isolation both resulted from and reinforced educational exclusion, creating vicious cycles. Girls without peer support at school were more likely to drop out, while out-of-school girls lost access to the primary source of social connection.

Economic implications emerged in qualitative accounts. Social networks provided access to information about economic opportunities, material support during crises, and pathways to livelihoods. Isolated girls lacked these resources, potentially constraining their long-term economic trajectories.³²

Physical health consequences included reduced access to health information and services, with implications for sexual and reproductive health. Peer networks encouraged protective health practices.

Protective Factors and Sources of Resilience

Despite pervasive challenges, studies identified sources of resilience. Schools emerged as critical sites of connection, with in-school youth consistently reporting richer social networks. The TEENS project in Malawi demonstrated how “safe spaces” and digital platforms like the 321 service could reach marginalised girls. As 17-year-old Esnart Wasa described: “The messages are easy to understand and give us hope. I want them to know they can still build a better life”.³³

Religious institutions, community organisations, and safe public spaces also provided opportunities for social participation where accessible. The Girls’ Education Challenge documented “positive spill-over effects” including “enhanced health knowledge and outcomes, increased self-confidence, improved social networks, shifts in social norms”.⁹

The State of the Evidence

Conceptual Weaknesses

The field suffers from terminological confusion, with studies variously examining social participation, network characteristics, loneliness, and exclusion without clear distinctions or consistent operationalisation. This heterogeneity precludes meta-analysis and obscures the specific phenomenon of social isolation as distinct from related constructs. The distinction between objective social isolation and subjective loneliness is particularly critical, yet most studies did not engage with it.¹

Measurement Problems

No validated instruments exist for this population. Scales developed in high-income countries may not capture the dimensions of social connection most relevant to young women in low-income settings, where relationships are structured differently by kinship systems, residential patterns, gender norms, and material constraints. For instance, the Lubben Social Network Scale-6, a widely used objective measure, has not been systematically adapted and validated for use in low-income countries.³⁴ Without such tools, prevalence cannot be accurately estimated, risk factors cannot be reliably identified, and intervention effects cannot be rigorously evaluated.

Geographic Imbalances

The evidence base is geographically concentrated. Sub-Saharan Africa is over-represented (particularly Ethiopia, Malawi, Uganda), while other low-income regions remain virtually invisible. Only two studies from Afghanistan met inclusion criteria, and none from many low-income countries in the Pacific, Caribbean, or post-Soviet states. Even within sub-Saharan Africa, fragile and conflict-affected states (Somalia, South Sudan, Central African Republic) appear only in humanitarian-focused studies, despite being settings where young females likely face the most extreme social disruption.

Population Gaps

The evidence is skewed toward specific vulnerable subgroups refugees, child brides, adolescents with disabilities, out-of-school girls with limited attention to young females in the general population. This obscures the possibility that social isolation may be widespread even among “ordinary” young women. The focus on adolescence (10–19 years) neglects young adulthood (20–24 years), a period of significant social reorganisation involving school exit, work entry, partnership formation, and household establishment.

Methodological Limitations

Cross-sectional designs dominate, with only two longitudinal studies identified. The quantitative cross-sectional studies in our review employed a range of analytical approaches. Conventional statistical methods included ordinary least squares regression for examining correlates of social isolation-related outcomes, mediation analysis to explore pathways linking social disadvantage to isolation, and chain equation modelling to handle missing data and estimate complex relationships. More recently, some studies have begun employing emerging analytical techniques, including machine learning algorithms to identify predictors of social isolation, natural language processing to analyse qualitative accounts of social exclusion, and network analysis to map the structure of social relationships (Ni et al, 2025). However, these advanced methods remain rare in low-income country settings. These limits understanding of how social isolation develops over time and what factors promote reconnection. Qualitative studies provide rich descriptions but are typically small-scale and context-specific. Quantitative surveys rely on unvalidated measures and single-item indicators. Intervention studies are virtually absent no included study evaluated an intervention specifically designed to reduce social isolation among young females in low-income countries.

The Analytical Gap

Most studies describe social isolation and its correlates without rigorous analysis of mechanisms, mediators, or moderators. Intersectional analysis examining how multiple axes of inequality interact to shape isolation experiences is largely absent despite its potential relevance. As research on Rohingya students demonstrated, “disabled girls encountered dual marginalisation through bullying and stereotyping”, while the INEE analysis highlighted how “girls with disabilities face a triple disadvantage as a result of their displacement, disability and gender”.

Towards a Research Agenda

Building on the identified evidence gaps, we propose a research agenda organised by priority timeframe to guide researchers, funders, and policymakers.

Short-Term Priorities (0–3 Years)

Conceptual Work

Develop culturally grounded frameworks distinguishing isolation from related constructs. This work should engage young women themselves to ensure concepts resonate with lived experience. The GAGE programme’s use of an “intersectional lens” provides a valuable starting point, as does emerging work on “intra-categorical intersectionality” in displacement contexts.

Measurement Development

Prioritise rigorous adaptation and validation of social isolation measures across multiple low-income country contexts. This requires mixed-methods approaches combining qualitative exploration with quantitative psychometric evaluation. Measures should capture multiple domains network size and composition, frequency of contact, access to social support, participation in community life and distinguish objective isolation from subjective loneliness.

Medium-Term Priorities (3–7 Years)

Descriptive Epidemiology

Conduct population-based prevalence studies using validated measures to establish the scale of social isolation among young females and identify risk and protective factors. These should be designed to enable cross-country comparisons while remaining attentive to local specificities. The Kenya network analysis demonstrates the value of large-sample approaches.

Longitudinal Research

Track cohorts through adolescence and into young adulthood to illuminate developmental trajectories, identify critical periods for intervention, and distinguish causes from consequences of isolation.¹⁸

Long-Term Goals (7+ Years)

Intervention Research

Develop and rigorously evaluate programmes addressing social isolation as a primary outcome. Existing programmes focused on girls’ empowerment, education, and health may have unmeasured impacts on social connections that could be captured through adding appropriate measures. The TEENS project in Malawi suggests that safe spaces and digital platforms hold promis. Novel interventions specifically targeting isolation peer mentoring, safe spaces, group-based activities, technology-mediated connection should be developed and tested.

Expanding Geographic and Population Coverage

Prioritise under-studied low-income countries and include young women not already identified as members of vulnerable subgroups. Attend to within-country diversity and the experiences of young women aged 20–24.

Implications for Policy and Practice

The research gaps identified in this review have direct implications for policy and practice. Without validated measurement tools, programmes cannot accurately assess the scale of social isolation, identify at-risk girls, or evaluate intervention effectiveness. Without longitudinal data, policymakers lack evidence on when and how to intervene most effectively. The following implications, while drawn from the current evidence base, should be interpreted with these methodological limitations in mind.

Recognising Social Isolation as a Legitimate Concern

Social isolation should be recognised as a legitimate concern for programmes serving adolescent girls and young women. Indicators of social connectedness friendship networks, participation in community groups, access to social support should be routinely monitored alongside health, education, and economic outcomes.

Structural Interventions Matter

Structural interventions addressing poverty, educational exclusion, and gender inequality are likely to have positive impacts on social connections. Cash transfer programmes may enable girls to afford the material requirements for social participation (clothing, contributions, transport) while reducing shame-related withdrawal. Keeping girls in school maintains access to the primary institutional setting for peer connection.

Targeted Approaches for Vulnerable Groups

Targeted approaches are needed for girls facing compounded vulnerabilities those out of school, married, displaced, or living with disabilities. Safe spaces, peer support groups, and mentoring programmes have shown promise. As the Girls’ Education Challenge found,

despite higher costs, reaching marginalised girls can provide significant value for money by delivering estimated benefits often exceeding costs, with returns as high as 4–5 times.

Humanitarian Response

Humanitarian responses should attend to the social dimensions of displacement for adolescent girls, creating opportunities for safe social connection and supporting the reconstruction of social networks.

Legal and Policy Frameworks

Legal frameworks must be enforced and gaps closed. As Plan International noted,

there is a growing international consensus that a minimum age of 18 for marriage is critical to end child marriage, but loopholes and weak enforcement mean millions of girls remain unprotected.

Limitations

This review has several limitations. The restriction to English-language publications may have excluded relevant studies published in French, Portuguese, Arabic, or local languages. The exclusion of grey literature may have missed programme reports and evaluations. The heterogeneity of included studies precluded quantitative synthesis. The absence of studies explicitly designed to measure social isolation as a primary outcome using validated instruments means that findings must be interpreted as suggestive rather than definitive.

Conclusion

Social isolation among young women in low-income countries is a neglected yet critical issue in global health, driven by poverty, gender inequality, and displacement. Three key messages emerge from this review. First, the lack of validated measurement tools and conceptual clarity remains a fundamental barrier to understanding the scale and nature of social isolation in this population. Despite its severe impacts on mental health, education, and economic well-being, the evidence base remains fragmented and lacks conceptual clarity. Second, structural drivers poverty, gender norms, educational exclusion, early marriage, displacement, and disability systematically constrain young women’s social connections, and these factors interact in ways that compound vulnerability for the most marginalised girls. Third, social isolation is not merely a consequence of other vulnerabilities but a dimension of gendered inequality that merits attention in its own right; addressing it requires both structural interventions and targeted programming for at-risk groups. The research remains incomplete because researchers lack both validated tools and rigorous research methods to study the fundamental questions which cover how common the practice is and what factors cause its different outcomes. The tendency to ignore this issue stems from assumptions that traditional structures provide guaranteed connection and that isolation is less important than material poverty. Yet social ties function as essential resources which provide support and hope to millions of girls. Understanding connections together with their strengthening will enable us to protect all young women from becoming excluded.

Funding Statement

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Data Sharing Statement

All data analyzed in this review are derived from published sources cited in the references. No new original data were generated.

Ethics Approval

Ethical approval was not required as this study is a literature review based on published data and did not involve human participants or primary data collection.

Disclosure

Shirin Sabaghi Abkoh Sayed Mortaza Fayez are equal first authors. The authors declare that they have no competing interests.