OnNoncommercial three.0 Unported License (http:creativecommons.orglicensesbync3.0), permitting all noncommercial use, distributionOnNoncommercial 3.0 Unported License

OnNoncommercial three.0 Unported License (http:creativecommons.orglicensesbync3.0), permitting all noncommercial use, distribution
OnNoncommercial 3.0 Unported License (http:creativecommons.orglicensesbync3.0), permitting all noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, offered the original function is appropriately cited. Citation: Int J Qualitative Stud Health Wellbeing 200, 5: 4654 DOI: 0.3402qhw.v5i.(web page quantity not for citation goal)S. Hauge M. Kirkevold conceptualizations from the term, both in everyday language and in the study literature. Inside the classical investigation literature on loneliness, there are actually two substantially diverse definitions and descriptions of the notion. Isoarnebin 4 chemical information Karnick (2005) and Mijuskovic (979) view loneliness as a normal, universal, and existential phenomenon relevant for all human beings, with both positive and negative connotations. In contrast, Weiss, Riesman, and Bowlby (973) describe loneliness as an abnormal, and solely damaging feeling related to social and emotional isolation. These diverse understandings of loneliness mirror the conceptual diversity discussed in various theoretical analyses in the concept (de Jong Gierveld, 998; Donaldson Watson, 996; Karnick, 2005; Nilsson, Lindstrom, Naden, 2006; Weeks, 994). For instance, Karnick (2005) claims that loneliness “is deemed good when it is viewed as creative, productive and maturing, and as damaging when it’s defined as physical, emotional or social alienation, or isolation from PubMed ID:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24951279 self or other” (p. 9). Even though the concept of “positive loneliness” is applied in some publications (Dahlberg, 2007; Karnick, 2005; Nilsson et al 2006; Routasalo Pitkala, 2003; Tornstam, 990), in most instances loneliness is interpreted as a term applied to describe a adverse and unpleasant state. Additionally, there is certainly also confusion in the literature with regard for the fact that the terms “loneliness,” “being alone,” and “living alone” are employed interchangeably (Davies, 996; Karnick, 2005; Routasalo Pitkala, 2003), and that loneliness is even utilized as a term to describe depression (Barg et al 2006). Additionally, the concept of solitude, typically employed to describe a constructive state (Long, Seburn, Averill, Additional, 2003), is in some situations applied to describe a adverse state (Long et al 2003; Moustakas, 972; Pilkington, 2005). In response towards the confusing use with the terms, attempts have already been created to describe loneliness, and the relationship amongst loneliness and also other related ideas, along a continuum (Killeen, 998; Younger, 995). Killeen (998) has proposed a continuum which ranges from alienation to connectedness. In his analysis, loneliness is reserved for any smaller part of the continuum and is differentiated in the much more unfavorable state of alienation, and in the much more positive state of social isolation. Based on Killeen (998), social isolation is usually interpreted as something less painful than loneliness. Offered the prevalence of loneliness among older men and women and also the lack of clarity inside the literature about the phenomenon, more analysis about how older folks realize loneliness is expected. Such understanding could enable us address loneliness within a much more informed way. This study was performed to address this problem. Methods This was a qualitative interview study performed within a hermeneutic interpretive tradition (Fleming, Gaidys, Robb, 2003; Gadamer, 2004; Kvale, 2007). As outlined by Gadamer (2004), researchers’ preunderstanding can be a crucial a part of a study’s interpretative foundations. Our preunderstanding was colored by the literature evaluation above. In specific, we assumed.