Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38805676›Full record

ReviewHealth promotion international2024

A critical review of the reporting of reflexive thematic analysis in Health Promotion International.

Virginia Braun, Victoria Clarke

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Health promotion international, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 148 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
148citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

148 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Response to "Methodological Considerations on Coding Analysis and Sampling in a Study of ED Patient Expectations".Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 2026
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

88 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Virginia BraunSchool of Psychology, The University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland Mail Centre 1142, New Zealand.ORCID 0000-0002-3435-091X
Victoria ClarkeSchool of Social Sciences, University of the West of England, Coldharbour Lane, Bristol BS16 1QY, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9405-7363

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Using the concept of methodological congruence-where the different elements of a study 'fit' together-we explore both problematic and good practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis (TA) as reported in Health Promotion International (HPI). Aligning with the importance we place on 'owning your perspectives' we situate this exploration in relation to our understanding of the variation in approaches to TA and qualitative research more broadly. This contextualization is necessary for highlighting why we judge practices to be in/congruent, and to facilitate more knowing congruence in future research. We critically reviewed a 'sample' of 31 papers published in HPI between 2010 and 2023 citing Braun and Clarke as reference for TA. We overview a range of problematic and good features of the use of TA in HPI, before focusing on two domains that seemed to present key challenges: theory and themes. Methodological incongruence can occur when postpositivist values and practices unwittingly creep into ostensibly non-positivist TA; we encourage thoughtfully and what we term 'knowing' consideration of theory, and quality practices and criteria. Methodological incongruence can also occur through mismatched conceptualizations of themes-notably, the use of 'topic summaries' as themes for reflexive TA (and fragmented thematic structures with 'thin' themes). We provide examples from the reviewed papers to demonstrate good practice in researcher reflexivity, articulation of theoretical and methodological frameworks and congruent themes. However, mindful of power dynamics, we only discuss problematic practice in general terms, to protect author anonymity. To facilitate thoughtful, quality TA-of all kinds-we provide eight pointers for researchers (and reviewers) to guide quality practice, and facilitate the use of concepts, procedures and criteria that promote knowing methodological congruence.

Indexed as

Health PromotionQualitative ResearchHumansResearch DesignBig Q qualitativecodingmethodological congruencesaturationsmall q qualitativethemetopic summary

Identifiers

PMID38805676
PMCPMC11132294

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.