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

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.
(© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press.)