Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2024 Jun;38(6):608-616.
doi: 10.1177/02692163241234800. Epub 2024 Mar 12.

Supporting best practice in reflexive thematic analysis reporting in Palliative Medicine: A review of published research and introduction to the Reflexive Thematic Analysis Reporting Guidelines (RTARG)

Virginia Braun  1 , Victoria Clarke  2
Affiliations
Review

Supporting best practice in reflexive thematic analysis reporting in Palliative Medicine: A review of published research and introduction to the Reflexive Thematic Analysis Reporting Guidelines (RTARG)

Virginia Braun et al. Palliat Med. 2024 Jun.

Abstract

Background: Reflexive thematic analysis is widely used in qualitative research published in Palliative Medicine, and in the broader field of health research. However, this approach is often not used well. Common problems in published reflexive thematic analysis in general include assuming thematic analysis is a singular approach, rather than a family of methods, confusing themes and topics, and treating and reporting reflexive thematic analysis as if it is atheoretical.

Purpose: We reviewed 20 papers published in Palliative Medicine between 2014 and 2022 that cited Braun and Clarke, identified using the search term 'thematic analysis' and the default 'relevance' setting on the journal webpage. The aim of the review was to identify common problems and instances of good practice. Problems centred around a lack of methodological coherence, and a lack of reflexive openness, clarity and detail in reporting. We considered contributors to these common problems, including the use of reporting checklists that are not coherent with the values of reflexive thematic analysis. To support qualitative researchers in producing coherent and reflexively open reports of reflexive thematic analysis we have developed the Reflexive Thematic Analysis Reporting Guidelines (the RTARG; in Supplemental Materials) informed by this review, other reviews we have done and our values and experience as qualitative researchers. The RTARG is also intended for use by peer reviewers to encourage methodologically coherent reviewing.

Key learning points: Methodological incoherence and a lack of transparency are common problems in reflexive thematic analysis research published in Palliative Medicine. Coherence can be facilitated by researchers and reviewers striving to be knowing - thoughtful, deliberative, reflexive and theoretically aware - practitioners and appraisers of reflexive thematic analysis and developing an understanding of the diversity within the thematic analysis family of methods.

Keywords: Coding; interpretative; positivism; qualitative; theme; topic summary.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declaration of conflicting interestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Braun V, Clarke V. One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis? Qual Res Psychol 2021; 18: 328–352.
    1. Finlay L. Thematic analysis: the ‘good’, the ‘bad’ and the ‘ugly’. Eur J Qual Res 2021; 11: 103–116.
    1. Smith B, McGannon KR. Developing rigour in qualitative research: problems and opportunities within sport and exercise psychology. Int Rev Sport Exerc Psychol 2017; 11: 101–121.
    1. Tracy SJ. Qualitative quality: Eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qual Inq. 2010; 16: 837–851.
    1. Kidder LH, Fine M. Qualitative and quantitative methods: When stories converge. In: Mark MM, Shotland L. (eds) New directions in program evaluation. California: Jossey Bass, 1987, pp.57–75.