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).

IF 3.6 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Palliative Medicine Pub Date : 2024-06-01 Epub Date: 2024-03-12 DOI:10.1177/02692163241234800
Virginia Braun, Victoria Clarke
{"title":"Supporting best practice in reflexive thematic analysis reporting in <i>Palliative Medicine</i>: A review of published research and introduction to the <i>Reflexive Thematic Analysis Reporting Guidelines</i> (RTARG).","authors":"Virginia Braun, Victoria Clarke","doi":"10.1177/02692163241234800","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Reflexive thematic analysis is widely used in qualitative research published in <i>Palliative Medicine</i>, and in the broader field of health research. However, this approach is often not used <i>well.</i> Common problems in published reflexive thematic analysis <i>in general</i> 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.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>We reviewed 20 papers published in <i>Palliative Medicine</i> 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 <i>Reflexive Thematic Analysis Reporting Guidelines</i> (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.</p><p><strong>Key learning points: </strong>Methodological incoherence and a lack of transparency are common problems in reflexive thematic analysis research published in <i>Palliative Medicine</i>. Coherence can be facilitated by researchers and reviewers striving to be <i>knowing</i> - 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.</p>","PeriodicalId":19849,"journal":{"name":"Palliative Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11157981/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Palliative Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/02692163241234800","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/12 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

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.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
支持姑息医学中反思性专题分析报告的最佳实践:回顾已发表的研究成果,介绍《反思性专题分析报告指南》(RTARG)。
背景:在《姑息医学》以及更广泛的健康研究领域发表的定性研究中,反思性主题分析被广泛使用。然而,这种方法往往没有得到很好的应用。目的:我们对2014年至2022年间发表在《姑息医学》上的20篇论文进行了综述,这些论文引用了布劳恩和克拉克的观点,我们使用 "专题分析 "这一搜索词以及期刊网页上默认的 "相关性 "设置对这些论文进行了识别。综述的目的是找出常见问题和良好实践的实例。问题主要集中在方法缺乏连贯性,以及报告缺乏开放性、清晰性和详细性。我们考虑了造成这些常见问题的因素,包括使用与反思性专题分析价值不一致的报告清单。为了支持定性研究人员撰写连贯、开放的反思性专题分析报告,我们根据本综述、我们所做的其他综述以及我们作为定性研究人员的价值观和经验,制定了《反思性专题分析报告指南》(RTARG,见补充材料)。RTARG 也供同行评审人员使用,以鼓励方法一致的评审:学习要点:在《姑息医学》上发表的反思性专题分析研究中,方法不连贯和缺乏透明度是常见问题。研究人员和审稿人应努力成为反思性专题分析的实践者和评估者,并对专题分析方法的多样性有所了解,这样才能促进一致性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Palliative Medicine
Palliative Medicine 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
7.60
自引率
9.10%
发文量
125
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Palliative Medicine is a highly ranked, peer reviewed scholarly journal dedicated to improving knowledge and clinical practice in the palliative care of patients with far advanced disease. This outstanding journal features editorials, original papers, review articles, case reports, correspondence and book reviews. Essential reading for all members of the palliative care team. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
期刊最新文献
Utilizing intricate care networks: An ethnography of patients and families navigating palliative care in a resource-limited setting. Definition and recommendations of advance care planning: A Delphi study in five Asian sectors. Pharmacological treatment of pain, dyspnea, death rattle, fever, nausea, and vomiting in the last days of life in older people: A systematic review. A pragmatic approach to selecting a grading system for clinical practice recommendations in palliative care. 'A good ending but not the end': Exploring family preparations surrounding a relative's death and the Afterlife - A qualitative study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1