Systematic review of character development in low- and middle-income countries

Figures & data

Table 1. Inclusion criteria.

Category	Criteria
Study design	All empirical studies, i.e. research that used empirical data from individuals was included. Studies that was solely philosophical or theological (without empirical data) were excluded. Studies that focused on the development of measurement instruments, and studies that were literature reviews, were included and analysed separately.
Type of publication	The search was limited to peer-reviewed journal articles. Unpublished studies, conference proceedings, book reviews, media articles, full-length books, and book chapters were excluded.
Language	The search only included articles written and published in the English language.
Population	Articles that dealt substantively with character development in low-income, lower-middle income, and upper-middle income countries (as per list provided in OECD 2022) and focus on individuals were the main subject of the research. Research conducted in high income countries was excluded. Research focused on entities other than individuals (e.g. organizations) was excluded.
Topic	Studies that substantively referenced the literature on character development were included; see further discussion below.
Outcomes	The review was not restricted to specific outcomes.

Table 2. Research questions.

Key questions and sub-questions
What (and who) is being studied?
(1) What are the contexts of these studies? a. Which countries are being studied? b. What is the site of the study? (e.g. schools, communities, religious institutions) (2) Which populations are being studied? a. Which demographics? (Gender, age, income, minorities, disabilities) (3) What aspects of character development are being studied? a. Which character strengths? b. Including interventions – intervention design, duration, dosage.
How are these studies undertaken?
(4) What are the methodological designs of these studies? a. What measurement tools are used in these studies? b. Are these developed for use (or otherwise adapted for use) in these regions? c. What is the quality of these studies?
Who is conducting and publishing this research?
(5) Who is funding and conducting this research? (6) When and where are the studies being published?
What are the key findings?
(7) What are the key findings of these studies?

Figure 1. PRISMA flowchart.

Figure 2. Location of studies by number of articles.

Table 3. Frequency of articles in urban and rural areas.

Classification	Number of articles	Percentage of articles reporting data on location
Urban	50	68.49%
Rural and urban	12	16.44%
Rural	8	10.96%
Urban, rural, peri-urban	2	2.74%
Peri-urban	1	1.37%
N	73

Table 4. Number of articles by sector.

Sector of intervention/research	Number of articles	Percentage of articles reporting data on sector
Education	98	72.59%
Business	12	8.89%
Health	19	14.07%
Other	9	6.67%
N	135

Table 5. Reported gender of research participants.

Gender	Number of participants	Percentage of participants
Male	52,457	48.84%
Female	54,004	50.28%
Gender not reported	953	0.89%
N	107,414

Table 6. Number of articles by developmental stage.

Developmental stage	Number of articles		Percentage of articles
Children (0 to 12 years old)		36	24.83%
Adolescent (13 to 17 years old)		52	35.86%
Emerging adult (18 to 25 years old)		51	35.17%
Adult (25+ years old)		56	38.62%
N		145

The sum of the number of articles exceeds N as one article may report multiple developmental stages.

Table 7. Aspects of character studied.

Number of articles	Aspect of character
45	Kindness
36	Self-regulation
35	Love, spirituality
34	Leadership
33	Social intelligence
30	Teamwork
26	Hope, moral development*, perseverance
25	Curiosity, honesty, love of learning
24	Bravery, fairness, judgement
23	Creativity
22	Perspective
21	Prudence
20	Gratitude
19	Forgiveness, zest
17	Humour, humility
16	Appreciation of beauty and excellence
14	Resilience*
9	Responsibility*
8	Self-efficacy*
6	Self-esteem*, respect*
5	Purpose in life*
3	Integrity*, independence*, tolerance*
2	Growth or strengths mindset*, politeness*
1	Filial piety*, mindfulness*, self-compassion*, altruism*, patience*, adaptability*, entrepreneurialism*

Asterisks indicates aspect of character not included in the VIA framework.

Table 8. Articles using positive youth development (PYD) frameworks.

PYD Qualities	Number of articles	Percentage of total articles
5Cs	24	16.55%
Developmental Assets	11	7.59%
15 PYD attributes Catalano et al. (2004)	13	8.97%
Total	46	31.72%

Table 9. Frequency of intervention characteristics.

Intervention characteristics		Number of articles	Percentage of studies on interventions
Type of Intervention	Courses and curricula	35	67.31%
	Teacher professional development	5	9.62%
	Project-based training and mentorship interventions (i.e. not at educational institutions)	4	7.69%
	Sports-based interventions	3	5.77%
	Religious practices	2	3.85%
	National Youth Service Programme	2	3.85%
	Participating in community service programmes	1	1.92%
Duration	Shorter than 1 month	10	19.23%
	1–6 months	7	13.46%
	longer than 1 year	6	11.54%
	Unclear	29	55.77%
Dosage	Once	13	25.00%
	Twice	2	3.85%
	Unclear	37	71.15%
	N	52

Table 10. Frequency of research design.

Research design	Number of articles	Percentage of total articles
Non-experimental correlation design	89	61.37%
Qualitative	35	24.14%
Randomised Controlled Trial	14	9.66%
Quasi-experimental	7	4.83%
N	145

Table 11. Studies reporting sufficient information for detailed quality assessments.

	Studies reporting sufficient information (revised)	Total studies	Percentage of studies reporting sufficient information (revised)
All studies	101	145	69.66%
Non-experimental correlation design	68	89	76.4%
Qualitative	21	35	60%
Quasi-experimental	4	7	57.14%
RCT	8	14	57.14%

Table 12. Origin of tools.

Country	Number of tools	Percentage of tools
United States of America	45	52.94%
China	12	14.12%
Turkey	5	5.88%
Brazil	4	4.71%
Canada	3	3.53%
Norway	2	2.35%
Various (web-based)^2	3	3.53%
Countries with a single tool cited^3	11	12.94%
Unclear origin	3	3.53%
N	86

Table 13. Number of researchers by number of papers contributed to the review.

Number of papers contributed to review	Number of researchers
5 or more	5
4 or more	8
3 or more	17
2 or more	49
1 or more	570

Table 14. Publications by institution.

Rank	Institution	Country	Number of publications
1	Hong Kong Polytechnic University	China	12
2	City University of Hong Kong	China	10
3	Beijing Normal University	China	7
4–5	Universiti Putra Malaysia	Malaysia	5
4–5	University of Bergen	Norway	5
6–7	Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia	Indonesia	4
6–7	Renmin University of China	China	4

Table 15. Researchers contributing the most papers to the review.

Rank	Author	Institution	Country of institution	Number of publications in review
1	Daniel Shek	Hong Kong Polytechnic University	China	10
2	Xiaoqin Zhu	Hong Kong Polytechnic University	China	7
3	Nora Wiium	University of Bergen	Norway	6
4–5	Wenjie Duan	East China University of Science and Technology	China	5
4–5	Danhua Lin	Beijing Normal University	China	5
6–8	Zhi Ye	Beijing Normal University	China	4
6–8	Jesus Alfonso Datu	Education University of Hong Kong	China	4
6–8	Diya Dou	Hong Kong Polytechnic University	China	4

Table 16. Type of funders.

Type of funder	Number of articles	Percentage of articles that disclosed funding
Government	31	40.79%
University	28	36.84%
Philanthropy	26	34.21%
Type of funder unclear	13	17.11%
Business	1	1.32%
Other	1	1.32%
N	76

Figure 3. Publications over time.

Table 17. Most popular journals.

Rank	Journal or Publication	Number of articles	Percentage of empirical articles
1	Frontiers in Psychology	12	8.28%
2	Current Psychology	5	3.45%
3–4	Cakrawala Pendidikan	4	2.76%
3–4	Journal of Business Ethics	4	2.76%
5–6	Child & Youth Care Forum	3	2.07%
5–6	Children and Youth Services Review	3	2.07%
	N	145

Table 18. Priorities for future research.

Priority identified	Number of studies	Percentage of articles identifying research priorities
Including other variables	46	40.35%
Using larger and more representative samples	40	35.09%
Collecting longitudinal data	39	34.21%
Addressing limitations of self-report data	28	24.56%
Conducting research on the same population	20	17.54%
Using multiple data sources to triangulate findings	20	17.54%
Using experimental methods	16	14.04%
Using better designed tools	15	13.16%
Incorporating perspectives of other actors	14	12.28%
Studying other outcomes	12	10.53%
Studying different cultural groups	12	10.53%
Using more sophisticated statistical designs and methods	12	10.53%
More qualitative or ethnographic research	8	7.02%
N	116

Catalano, R. F., Berglund, M. L., Ryan, J. A. M., Lonczak, H. S., & Hawkins, J. D. (2004). Positive youth development in the United States: Research findings on evaluations of positive youth development programs. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 591(1), 98–124. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716203260102

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Data availability statement

The extracted data is available on request at https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2024.2322464