thematic analysis literature review

The Guide to Thematic Analysis

• What is Thematic Analysis?
• Advantages of Thematic Analysis
• Disadvantages of Thematic Analysis
• Thematic Analysis Examples
• How to Do Thematic Analysis
• Thematic Coding
• Collaborative Thematic Analysis
• Thematic Analysis Software
• Thematic Analysis in Mixed Methods Approach
• Abductive Thematic Analysis
• Deductive Thematic Analysis
• Inductive Thematic Analysis
• Reflexive Thematic Analysis
• Thematic Analysis in Observations
• Thematic Analysis in Surveys
• Thematic Analysis for Interviews
• Thematic Analysis for Focus Groups
• Thematic Analysis for Case Studies
• Thematic Analysis of Secondary Data
• Introduction

What is a thematic literature review?

Advantages of a thematic literature review, structuring and writing a thematic literature review.

• Thematic Analysis vs. Phenomenology
• Thematic vs. Content Analysis
• Thematic Analysis vs. Grounded Theory
• Thematic Analysis vs. Narrative Analysis
• Thematic Analysis vs. Discourse Analysis
• Thematic Analysis vs. Framework Analysis
• Thematic Analysis in Social Work
• Thematic Analysis in Psychology
• Thematic Analysis in Educational Research
• Thematic Analysis in UX Research
• How to Present Thematic Analysis Results
• Increasing Rigor in Thematic Analysis
• Peer Review in Thematic Analysis

Thematic Analysis Literature Review

A thematic literature review serves as a critical tool for synthesizing research findings within a specific subject area. By categorizing existing literature into themes, this method offers a structured approach to identify and analyze patterns and trends across studies. The primary goal is to provide a clear and concise overview that aids scholars and practitioners in understanding the key discussions and developments within a field. Unlike traditional literature reviews , which may adopt a chronological approach or focus on individual studies, a thematic literature review emphasizes the aggregation of findings through key themes and thematic connections. This introduction sets the stage for a detailed examination of what constitutes a thematic literature review, its benefits, and guidance on effectively structuring and writing one.

A thematic literature review methodically organizes and examines a body of literature by identifying, analyzing, and reporting themes found within texts such as journal articles, conference proceedings, dissertations, and other forms of academic writing. While a particular journal article may offer some specific insight, a synthesis of knowledge through a literature review can provide a comprehensive overview of theories across relevant sources in a particular field.

Unlike other review types that might organize literature chronologically or by methodology , a thematic review focuses on recurring themes or patterns across a collection of works. This approach enables researchers to draw together previous research to synthesize findings from different research contexts and methodologies, highlighting the overarching trends and insights within a field.

At its core, a thematic approach to a literature review research project involves several key steps. Initially, it requires the comprehensive collection of relevant literature that aligns with the review's research question or objectives. Following this, the process entails a meticulous analysis of the texts to identify common themes that emerge across the studies. These themes are not pre-defined but are discovered through a careful reading and synthesis of the literature.

The thematic analysis process is iterative, often involving the refinement of themes as the review progresses. It allows for the integration of a broad range of literature, facilitating a multidimensional understanding of the research topic. By organizing literature thematically, the review illuminates how various studies contribute to each theme, providing insights into the depth and breadth of research in the area.

A thematic literature review thus serves as a foundational element in research, offering a nuanced and comprehensive perspective on a topic. It not only aids in identifying gaps in the existing literature but also guides future research directions by underscoring areas that warrant further investigation. Ultimately, a thematic literature review empowers researchers to construct a coherent narrative that weaves together disparate studies into a unified analysis.

Organize your literature search with ATLAS.ti

Collect and categorize documents to identify gaps and key findings with ATLAS.ti. Download a free trial.

Conducting a literature review thematically provides a comprehensive and nuanced synthesis of research findings, distinguishing it from other types of literature reviews. Its structured approach not only facilitates a deeper understanding of the subject area but also enhances the clarity and relevance of the review. Here are three significant advantages of employing a thematic analysis in literature reviews.

Enhanced understanding of the research field

Thematic literature reviews allow for a detailed exploration of the research landscape, presenting themes that capture the essence of the subject area. By identifying and analyzing these themes, reviewers can construct a narrative that reflects the complexity and multifaceted nature of the field.

This process aids in uncovering underlying patterns and relationships, offering a more profound and insightful examination of the literature. As a result, readers gain an enriched understanding of the key concepts, debates, and evolutionary trajectories within the research area.

Identification of research gaps and trends

One of the pivotal benefits of a thematic literature review is its ability to highlight gaps in the existing body of research. By systematically organizing the literature into themes, reviewers can pinpoint areas that are under-explored or warrant further investigation.

Additionally, this method can reveal emerging trends and shifts in research focus, guiding scholars toward promising areas for future study. The thematic structure thus serves as a roadmap, directing researchers toward uncharted territories and new research questions .

Facilitates comparative analysis and integration of findings

A thematic literature review excels in synthesizing findings from diverse studies, enabling a coherent and integrated overview. By concentrating on themes rather than individual studies, the review can draw comparisons and contrasts across different research contexts and methodologies . This comparative analysis enriches the review, offering a panoramic view of the field that acknowledges both consensus and divergence among researchers.

Moreover, the thematic framework supports the integration of findings, presenting a unified and comprehensive portrayal of the research area. Such integration is invaluable for scholars seeking to navigate the extensive body of literature and extract pertinent insights relevant to their own research questions or objectives.

The process of structuring and writing a thematic literature review is pivotal in presenting research in a clear, coherent, and impactful manner. This review type necessitates a methodical approach to not only unearth and categorize key themes but also to articulate them in a manner that is both accessible and informative to the reader. The following sections outline essential stages in the thematic analysis process for literature reviews , offering a structured pathway from initial planning to the final presentation of findings.

Identifying and categorizing themes

The initial phase in a thematic literature review is the identification of themes within the collected body of literature. This involves a detailed examination of texts to discern patterns, concepts, and ideas that recur across the research landscape. Effective identification hinges on a thorough and nuanced reading of the literature, where the reviewer actively engages with the content to extract and note significant thematic elements. Once identified, these themes must be meticulously categorized, often requiring the reviewer to discern between overarching themes and more nuanced sub-themes, ensuring a logical and hierarchical organization of the review content.

Analyzing and synthesizing themes

After categorizing the themes, the next step involves a deeper analysis and synthesis of the identified themes. This stage is critical for understanding the relationships between themes and for interpreting the broader implications of the thematic findings. Analysis may reveal how themes evolve over time, differ across methodologies or contexts, or converge to highlight predominant trends in the research area. Synthesis involves integrating insights from various studies to construct a comprehensive narrative that encapsulates the thematic essence of the literature, offering new interpretations or revealing gaps in existing research.

Presenting and discussing findings

The final stage of the thematic literature review is the discussion of the thematic findings in a research paper or presentation. This entails not only a descriptive account of identified themes but also a critical examination of their significance within the research field. Each theme should be discussed in detail, elucidating its relevance, the extent of research support, and its implications for future studies. The review should culminate in a coherent and compelling narrative that not only summarizes the key thematic findings but also situates them within the broader research context, offering valuable insights and directions for future inquiry.

Gain a comprehensive understanding of your data with ATLAS.ti

Analyze qualitative data with specific themes that offer insights. See how with a free trial.

Educational resources and simple solutions for your research journey

How to Write a Thematic Literature Review: A Beginner’s Guide

Literature reviews provide a comprehensive understanding of existing knowledge in a particular field, offer insights into gaps and trends, and ultimately lay the foundation for innovative research. However, when tackling complex topics spanning multiple issues, the conventional approach of a standard literature review might not suffice. Many researchers present a literature review without giving any thought to its organization or structure, but this is where a thematic literature review comes into play. In this article, we will explore the significance of thematic reviews, delve into how and when to undertake them, and offer invaluable guidance on structuring and crafting a compelling thematic literature review.

Table of Contents

What is a thematic literature review?

A thematic literature review, also known as a thematic review, involves organizing and synthesizing the existing literature based on recurring themes or topics rather than a chronological or methodological sequence. Typically, when a student or researcher works intensively on their research there are many sub-domains or associated spheres of knowledge that one encounters. While these may not have a direct bearing on the main idea being explored, they provide a much-needed background or context to the discussion. This is where a thematic literature review is useful when dealing with complex research questions that involve multiple facets, as it allows for a more in-depth exploration of specific themes within the broader context.

When to opt for thematic literature review?

It is common practice for early career researchers and students to collate all the literature reviews they have undertaken under one single broad umbrella. However, when working on a literature review that involves multiple themes, lack of organization and structure can slow you down and create confusion. Deciding to embark on a thematic literature review is a strategic choice that should align with your research objectives. Here are some scenarios where opting for a thematic review is advantageous:

• Broad Research Questions: When your research question spans across various dimensions and cannot be adequately addressed through a traditional literature review.
• Interdisciplinary Research: In cases where your research draws from multiple disciplines, a thematic review helps in synthesizing diverse literature cohesively.
• Emerging Research Areas: When exploring emerging fields or topics with limited existing literature, a thematic review can provide valuable insights by focusing on available themes.
• Complex Issues: Thematic reviews are ideal for dissecting complex issues with multiple contributing factors or dimensions.

Advantages of a Thematic Literature Review

With better comprehension and broad insights, thematic literature reviews can help in identifying possible research gaps across themes. A thematic literature review has several advantages over a general or broad-based approach, especially for those working on multiple related themes.

• It provides a comprehensive understanding of specific themes within a broader context, allowing for a deep exploration of relevant literature.
• Thematic reviews offer a structured approach to organizing and synthesizing diverse sources, making it easier to identify trends, patterns, and gaps.
• Researchers can focus on key themes, enabling a more detailed analysis of specific aspects of the research question.
• Thematic reviews facilitate the integration of literature from various disciplines, offering a holistic view of the topic.
• Researchers can provide targeted recommendations or insights related to specific themes, aiding in the formulation of research hypotheses.

Now that we know the benefits of a thematic literature review, what is the best way to arrange reviewed literature in a thematic format?

How to write a thematic literature review

To effectively structure and write a thematic literature review, follow these key steps:

• Define Your Research Question: Clearly define the overarching research question or topic you aim to explore thematically. When writing a thematic literature review, go through different literature review sections of published research work and understand the subtle nuances associated with this approach.
• Identify Themes: Analyze the literature to identify recurring themes or topics relevant to your research question. Categorize the bibliography by dividing them into relevant clusters or units, each dealing with a specific issue. For example, you can divide a topic based on a theoretical approach, methodology, discipline or by epistemology. A theoretical review of related literature for example, may also look to break down geography or issues pertaining to a single country into its different parts or along rural and urban divides.
• Organize the Literature: Group the literature into thematic clusters based on the identified themes. Each cluster represents a different aspect of your research question. It is up to you to define the different narratives of thematic literature reviews depending on the project being undertaken; there is no one formal way of doing this. You can weigh how specific areas stack up against others in terms of existing literature or studies and how many more aspects may need to be added or further looked into.
• Review and Synthesize: Within each thematic cluster, review and synthesize the relevant literature, highlighting key findings and insights. It is recommended to identify any theme-related strengths or weaknesses using an analytical lens.
• Integrate Themes: Analyze how the themes interact with each other, draw linkages between earlier studies and see how they contribute to your own research. A thematic literature review presents readers with a comprehensive overview of the literature available on and around the research topic.
• Provide a Framework: Develop a framework or conceptual model that illustrates the relationships between the themes. Present the most relevant part of the thematic review toward the end and study it in greater detail as it reflects the literature most relevant and directly related to the main research topic.
• Conclusion: Conclude your thematic literature review by summarizing the key findings and their implications for your research question. Be sure to highlight any gaps or areas requiring further investigation in this section.
• Cite and Reference: It is important to remember that a thematic review of literature for a PhD thesis or research paper lends greater credibility to the student or researcher. So ensure that you properly cite and reference all sources according to your chosen citation style.
• Edit and Proofread: Take some time to review your work, ensure proper structure and flow and eliminate any language, grammar, or spelling errors that could deviate reader attention. This will help you deliver a well-structured and elegantly written thematic literature review.

Thematic literature review example

In essence, a thematic literature review allows researchers to dissect complex topics into smaller manageable themes, providing a more focused and structured approach to literature synthesis. This method empowers researchers to gain deeper insights, identify gaps, and generate new knowledge within the context of their research.

To illustrate the process mentioned above, let’s consider an example of a thematic literature review in the context of sustainable development. Imagine the overarching research question is: “What are the key factors influencing sustainable urban planning?” Potential themes could include environmental sustainability, social equity, economic viability, and governance. Each theme would have a dedicated section in the review, summarizing relevant literature and discussing how these factors intersect and impact sustainable urban planning. Close with a strong conclusion that highlights research gaps or areas of investigation. Finally, review and refine the thematic literature review, adding citations and references as required.

In conclusion, when tackling multifaceted research questions, a thematic literature review proves to be an indispensable tool for researchers and students alike. By adopting this approach, scholars can navigate the intricate web of existing literature, unearth meaningful patterns, and contribute to the advancement of knowledge in their respective fields. We hope the information in this article helps you create thematic reviews that illuminate your path to new discoveries and innovative insights.

R Discovery is a literature search and research reading platform that accelerates your research discovery journey by keeping you updated on the latest, most relevant scholarly content. With 250M+ research articles sourced from trusted aggregators like CrossRef, Unpaywall, PubMed, PubMed Central, Open Alex and top publishing houses like Springer Nature, JAMA, IOP, Taylor & Francis, NEJM, BMJ, Karger, SAGE, Emerald Publishing and more, R Discovery puts a world of research at your fingertips.  

Try R Discovery Prime FREE for 1 week or upgrade at just US$72 a year to access premium features that let you listen to research on the go, read in your language, collaborate with peers, auto sync with reference managers, and much more. Choose a simpler, smarter way to find and read research – Download the app and start your free 7-day trial today !  

Related Posts

Simple Random Sampling: Definition, Methods, and Examples

What is a Case Study in Research? Definition, Methods, and Examples

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

• How to Do Thematic Analysis | Step-by-Step Guide & Examples

How to Do Thematic Analysis | Step-by-Step Guide & Examples

Published on September 6, 2019 by Jack Caulfield . Revised on June 22, 2023.

Thematic analysis is a method of analyzing qualitative data . It is usually applied to a set of texts, such as an interview or transcripts . The researcher closely examines the data to identify common themes – topics, ideas and patterns of meaning that come up repeatedly.

There are various approaches to conducting thematic analysis, but the most common form follows a six-step process: familiarization, coding, generating themes, reviewing themes, defining and naming themes, and writing up. Following this process can also help you avoid confirmation bias when formulating your analysis.

This process was originally developed for psychology research by Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke . However, thematic analysis is a flexible method that can be adapted to many different kinds of research.

Table of contents

When to use thematic analysis, different approaches to thematic analysis, step 1: familiarization, step 2: coding, step 3: generating themes, step 4: reviewing themes, step 5: defining and naming themes, step 6: writing up, other interesting articles.

Thematic analysis is a good approach to research where you’re trying to find out something about people’s views, opinions, knowledge, experiences or values from a set of qualitative data – for example, interview transcripts , social media profiles, or survey responses .

Some types of research questions you might use thematic analysis to answer:

• How do patients perceive doctors in a hospital setting?
• What are young women’s experiences on dating sites?
• What are non-experts’ ideas and opinions about climate change?
• How is gender constructed in high school history teaching?

To answer any of these questions, you would collect data from a group of relevant participants and then analyze it. Thematic analysis allows you a lot of flexibility in interpreting the data, and allows you to approach large data sets more easily by sorting them into broad themes.

However, it also involves the risk of missing nuances in the data. Thematic analysis is often quite subjective and relies on the researcher’s judgement, so you have to reflect carefully on your own choices and interpretations.

Pay close attention to the data to ensure that you’re not picking up on things that are not there – or obscuring things that are.

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

Once you’ve decided to use thematic analysis, there are different approaches to consider.

There’s the distinction between inductive and deductive approaches:

• An inductive approach involves allowing the data to determine your themes.
• A deductive approach involves coming to the data with some preconceived themes you expect to find reflected there, based on theory or existing knowledge.

Ask yourself: Does my theoretical framework give me a strong idea of what kind of themes I expect to find in the data (deductive), or am I planning to develop my own framework based on what I find (inductive)?

There’s also the distinction between a semantic and a latent approach:

• A semantic approach involves analyzing the explicit content of the data.
• A latent approach involves reading into the subtext and assumptions underlying the data.

Ask yourself: Am I interested in people’s stated opinions (semantic) or in what their statements reveal about their assumptions and social context (latent)?

After you’ve decided thematic analysis is the right method for analyzing your data, and you’ve thought about the approach you’re going to take, you can follow the six steps developed by Braun and Clarke .

The first step is to get to know our data. It’s important to get a thorough overview of all the data we collected before we start analyzing individual items.

This might involve transcribing audio , reading through the text and taking initial notes, and generally looking through the data to get familiar with it.

Next up, we need to code the data. Coding means highlighting sections of our text – usually phrases or sentences – and coming up with shorthand labels or “codes” to describe their content.

Let’s take a short example text. Say we’re researching perceptions of climate change among conservative voters aged 50 and up, and we have collected data through a series of interviews. An extract from one interview looks like this:

In this extract, we’ve highlighted various phrases in different colors corresponding to different codes. Each code describes the idea or feeling expressed in that part of the text.

At this stage, we want to be thorough: we go through the transcript of every interview and highlight everything that jumps out as relevant or potentially interesting. As well as highlighting all the phrases and sentences that match these codes, we can keep adding new codes as we go through the text.

After we’ve been through the text, we collate together all the data into groups identified by code. These codes allow us to gain a a condensed overview of the main points and common meanings that recur throughout the data.

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

Next, we look over the codes we’ve created, identify patterns among them, and start coming up with themes.

Themes are generally broader than codes. Most of the time, you’ll combine several codes into a single theme. In our example, we might start combining codes into themes like this:

At this stage, we might decide that some of our codes are too vague or not relevant enough (for example, because they don’t appear very often in the data), so they can be discarded.

Other codes might become themes in their own right. In our example, we decided that the code “uncertainty” made sense as a theme, with some other codes incorporated into it.

Again, what we decide will vary according to what we’re trying to find out. We want to create potential themes that tell us something helpful about the data for our purposes.

Now we have to make sure that our themes are useful and accurate representations of the data. Here, we return to the data set and compare our themes against it. Are we missing anything? Are these themes really present in the data? What can we change to make our themes work better?

If we encounter problems with our themes, we might split them up, combine them, discard them or create new ones: whatever makes them more useful and accurate.

For example, we might decide upon looking through the data that “changing terminology” fits better under the “uncertainty” theme than under “distrust of experts,” since the data labelled with this code involves confusion, not necessarily distrust.

Now that you have a final list of themes, it’s time to name and define each of them.

Defining themes involves formulating exactly what we mean by each theme and figuring out how it helps us understand the data.

Naming themes involves coming up with a succinct and easily understandable name for each theme.

For example, we might look at “distrust of experts” and determine exactly who we mean by “experts” in this theme. We might decide that a better name for the theme is “distrust of authority” or “conspiracy thinking”.

Finally, we’ll write up our analysis of the data. Like all academic texts, writing up a thematic analysis requires an introduction to establish our research question, aims and approach.

We should also include a methodology section, describing how we collected the data (e.g. through semi-structured interviews or open-ended survey questions ) and explaining how we conducted the thematic analysis itself.

The results or findings section usually addresses each theme in turn. We describe how often the themes come up and what they mean, including examples from the data as evidence. Finally, our conclusion explains the main takeaways and shows how the analysis has answered our research question.

In our example, we might argue that conspiracy thinking about climate change is widespread among older conservative voters, point out the uncertainty with which many voters view the issue, and discuss the role of misinformation in respondents’ perceptions.

If you want to know more about statistics , methodology , or research bias , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

• Normal distribution
• Measures of central tendency
• Chi square tests
• Confidence interval
• Quartiles & Quantiles
• Cluster sampling
• Stratified sampling
• Discourse analysis
• Cohort study
• Peer review
• Ethnography

Research bias

• Implicit bias
• Cognitive bias
• Conformity bias
• Hawthorne effect
• Availability heuristic
• Attrition bias
• Social desirability bias

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

Caulfield, J. (2023, June 22). How to Do Thematic Analysis | Step-by-Step Guide & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved June 30, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/thematic-analysis/

Is this article helpful?

Jack Caulfield

Other students also liked, what is qualitative research | methods & examples, inductive vs. deductive research approach | steps & examples, critical discourse analysis | definition, guide & examples, get unlimited documents corrected.

✔ Free APA citation check included ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts

• - Google Chrome

Intended for healthcare professionals

• My email alerts
• BMA member login
• Username * Password * Forgot your log in details? Need to activate BMA Member Log In Log in via OpenAthens Log in via your institution

Search form

• Advanced search
• Search responses
• Search blogs
• Practical thematic...

Practical thematic analysis: a guide for multidisciplinary health services research teams engaging in qualitative analysis

• Related content
• Peer review
• on behalf of the Coproduction Laboratory
• 1 Dartmouth Health, Lebanon, NH, USA
• 2 Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth College, Lebanon, NH, USA
• 3 Center for Primary Care and Public Health (Unisanté), Lausanne, Switzerland
• 4 Jönköping Academy for Improvement of Health and Welfare, School of Health and Welfare, Jönköping University, Jönköping, Sweden
• 5 Highland Park, NJ, USA
• 6 Division of Public Health Sciences, Department of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO, USA
• Correspondence to: C H Saunders catherine.hylas.saunders{at}dartmouth.edu
• Accepted 26 April 2023

Qualitative research methods explore and provide deep contextual understanding of real world issues, including people’s beliefs, perspectives, and experiences. Whether through analysis of interviews, focus groups, structured observation, or multimedia data, qualitative methods offer unique insights in applied health services research that other approaches cannot deliver. However, many clinicians and researchers hesitate to use these methods, or might not use them effectively, which can leave relevant areas of inquiry inadequately explored. Thematic analysis is one of the most common and flexible methods to examine qualitative data collected in health services research. This article offers practical thematic analysis as a step-by-step approach to qualitative analysis for health services researchers, with a focus on accessibility for patients, care partners, clinicians, and others new to thematic analysis. Along with detailed instructions covering three steps of reading, coding, and theming, the article includes additional novel and practical guidance on how to draft effective codes, conduct a thematic analysis session, and develop meaningful themes. This approach aims to improve consistency and rigor in thematic analysis, while also making this method more accessible for multidisciplinary research teams.

Through qualitative methods, researchers can provide deep contextual understanding of real world issues, and generate new knowledge to inform hypotheses, theories, research, and clinical care. Approaches to data collection are varied, including interviews, focus groups, structured observation, and analysis of multimedia data, with qualitative research questions aimed at understanding the how and why of human experience. 1 2 Qualitative methods produce unique insights in applied health services research that other approaches cannot deliver. In particular, researchers acknowledge that thematic analysis is a flexible and powerful method of systematically generating robust qualitative research findings by identifying, analysing, and reporting patterns (themes) within data. 3 4 5 6 Although qualitative methods are increasingly valued for answering clinical research questions, many researchers are unsure how to apply them or consider them too time consuming to be useful in responding to practical challenges 7 or pressing situations such as public health emergencies. 8 Consequently, researchers might hesitate to use them, or use them improperly. 9 10 11

Although much has been written about how to perform thematic analysis, practical guidance for non-specialists is sparse. 3 5 6 12 13 In the multidisciplinary field of health services research, qualitative data analysis can confound experienced researchers and novices alike, which can stoke concerns about rigor, particularly for those more familiar with quantitative approaches. 14 Since qualitative methods are an area of specialisation, support from experts is beneficial. However, because non-specialist perspectives can enhance data interpretation and enrich findings, there is a case for making thematic analysis easier, more rapid, and more efficient, 8 particularly for patients, care partners, clinicians, and other stakeholders. A practical guide to thematic analysis might encourage those on the ground to use these methods in their work, unearthing insights that would otherwise remain undiscovered.

Given the need for more accessible qualitative analysis approaches, we present a simple, rigorous, and efficient three step guide for practical thematic analysis. We include new guidance on the mechanics of thematic analysis, including developing codes, constructing meaningful themes, and hosting a thematic analysis session. We also discuss common pitfalls in thematic analysis and how to avoid them.

Summary points

Qualitative methods are increasingly valued in applied health services research, but multidisciplinary research teams often lack accessible step-by-step guidance and might struggle to use these approaches

A newly developed approach, practical thematic analysis, uses three simple steps: reading, coding, and theming

Based on Braun and Clarke’s reflexive thematic analysis, our streamlined yet rigorous approach is designed for multidisciplinary health services research teams, including patients, care partners, and clinicians

This article also provides companion materials including a slide presentation for teaching practical thematic analysis to research teams, a sample thematic analysis session agenda, a theme coproduction template for use during the session, and guidance on using standardised reporting criteria for qualitative research

In their seminal work, Braun and Clarke developed a six phase approach to reflexive thematic analysis. 4 12 We built on their method to develop practical thematic analysis ( box 1 , fig 1 ), which is a simplified and instructive approach that retains the substantive elements of their six phases. Braun and Clarke’s phase 1 (familiarising yourself with the dataset) is represented in our first step of reading. Phase 2 (coding) remains as our second step of coding. Phases 3 (generating initial themes), 4 (developing and reviewing themes), and 5 (refining, defining, and naming themes) are represented in our third step of theming. Phase 6 (writing up) also occurs during this third step of theming, but after a thematic analysis session. 4 12

Key features and applications of practical thematic analysis

Step 1: reading.

All manuscript authors read the data

All manuscript authors write summary memos

Step 2: Coding

Coders perform both data management and early data analysis

Codes are complete thoughts or sentences, not categories

Step 3: Theming

Researchers host a thematic analysis session and share different perspectives

Themes are complete thoughts or sentences, not categories

Applications

For use by practicing clinicians, patients and care partners, students, interdisciplinary teams, and those new to qualitative research

When important insights from healthcare professionals are inaccessible because they do not have qualitative methods training

When time and resources are limited

Steps in practical thematic analysis

• Download figure
• Open in new tab
• Download powerpoint

We present linear steps, but as qualitative research is usually iterative, so too is thematic analysis. 15 Qualitative researchers circle back to earlier work to check whether their interpretations still make sense in the light of additional insights, adapting as necessary. While we focus here on the practical application of thematic analysis in health services research, we recognise our approach exists in the context of the broader literature on thematic analysis and the theoretical underpinnings of qualitative methods as a whole. For a more detailed discussion of these theoretical points, as well as other methods widely used in health services research, we recommend reviewing the sources outlined in supplemental material 1. A strong and nuanced understanding of the context and underlying principles of thematic analysis will allow for higher quality research. 16

Practical thematic analysis is a highly flexible approach that can draw out valuable findings and generate new hypotheses, including in cases with a lack of previous research to build on. The approach can also be used with a variety of data, such as transcripts from interviews or focus groups, patient encounter transcripts, professional publications, observational field notes, and online activity logs. Importantly, successful practical thematic analysis is predicated on having high quality data collected with rigorous methods. We do not describe qualitative research design or data collection here. 11 17

In supplemental material 1, we summarise the foundational methods, concepts, and terminology in qualitative research. Along with our guide below, we include a companion slide presentation for teaching practical thematic analysis to research teams in supplemental material 2. We provide a theme coproduction template for teams to use during thematic analysis sessions in supplemental material 3. Our method aligns with the major qualitative reporting frameworks, including the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ). 18 We indicate the corresponding step in practical thematic analysis for each COREQ item in supplemental material 4.

Familiarisation and memoing

We encourage all manuscript authors to review the full dataset (eg, interview transcripts) to familiarise themselves with it. This task is most critical for those who will later be engaged in the coding and theming steps. Although time consuming, it is the best way to involve team members in the intellectual work of data interpretation, so that they can contribute to the analysis and contextualise the results. If this task is not feasible given time limitations or large quantities of data, the data can be divided across team members. In this case, each piece of data should be read by at least two individuals who ideally represent different professional roles or perspectives.

We recommend that researchers reflect on the data and independently write memos, defined as brief notes on thoughts and questions that arise during reading, and a summary of their impressions of the dataset. 2 19 Memoing is an opportunity to gain insights from varying perspectives, particularly from patients, care partners, clinicians, and others. It also gives researchers the opportunity to begin to scope which elements of and concepts in the dataset are relevant to the research question.

Data saturation

The concept of data saturation ( box 2 ) is a foundation of qualitative research. It is defined as the point in analysis at which new data tend to be redundant of data already collected. 21 Qualitative researchers are expected to report their approach to data saturation. 18 Because thematic analysis is iterative, the team should discuss saturation throughout the entire process, beginning with data collection and continuing through all steps of the analysis. 22 During step 1 (reading), team members might discuss data saturation in the context of summary memos. Conversations about saturation continue during step 2 (coding), with confirmation that saturation has been achieved during step 3 (theming). As a rule of thumb, researchers can often achieve saturation in 9-17 interviews or 4-8 focus groups, but this will vary depending on the specific characteristics of the study. 23

Data saturation in context

Braun and Clarke discourage the use of data saturation to determine sample size (eg, number of interviews), because it assumes that there is an objective truth to be captured in the data (sometimes known as a positivist perspective). 20 Qualitative researchers often try to avoid positivist approaches, arguing that there is no one true way of seeing the world, and will instead aim to gather multiple perspectives. 5 Although this theoretical debate with qualitative methods is important, we recognise that a priori estimates of saturation are often needed, particularly for investigators newer to qualitative research who might want a more pragmatic and applied approach. In addition, saturation based, sample size estimation can be particularly helpful in grant proposals. However, researchers should still follow a priori sample size estimation with a discussion to confirm saturation has been achieved.

Definition of coding

We describe codes as labels for concepts in the data that are directly relevant to the study objective. Historically, the purpose of coding was to distil the large amount of data collected into conceptually similar buckets so that researchers could review it in aggregate and identify key themes. 5 24 We advocate for a more analytical approach than is typical with thematic analysis. With our method, coding is both the foundation for and the beginning of thematic analysis—that is, early data analysis, management, and reduction occur simultaneously rather than as different steps. This approach moves the team more efficiently towards being able to describe themes.

Building the coding team

Coders are the research team members who directly assign codes to the data, reading all material and systematically labelling relevant data with appropriate codes. Ideally, at least two researchers would code every discrete data document, such as one interview transcript. 25 If this task is not possible, individual coders can each code a subset of the data that is carefully selected for key characteristics (sometimes known as purposive selection). 26 When using this approach, we recommend that at least 10% of data be coded by two or more coders to ensure consistency in codebook application. We also recommend coding teams of no more than four to five people, for practical reasons concerning maintaining consistency.

Clinicians, patients, and care partners bring unique perspectives to coding and enrich the analytical process. 27 Therefore, we recommend choosing coders with a mix of relevant experiences so that they can challenge and contextualise each other’s interpretations based on their own perspectives and opinions ( box 3 ). We recommend including both coders who collected the data and those who are naive to it, if possible, given their different perspectives. We also recommend all coders review the summary memos from the reading step so that key concepts identified by those not involved in coding can be integrated into the analytical process. In practice, this review means coding the memos themselves and discussing them during the code development process. This approach ensures that the team considers a diversity of perspectives.

Coding teams in context

The recommendation to use multiple coders is a departure from Braun and Clarke. 28 29 When the views, experiences, and training of each coder (sometimes known as positionality) 30 are carefully considered, having multiple coders can enhance interpretation and enrich findings. When these perspectives are combined in a team setting, researchers can create shared meaning from the data. Along with the practical consideration of distributing the workload, 31 inclusion of these multiple perspectives increases the overall quality of the analysis by mitigating the impact of any one coder’s perspective. 30

Coding tools

Qualitative analysis software facilitates coding and managing large datasets but does not perform the analytical work. The researchers must perform the analysis themselves. Most programs support queries and collaborative coding by multiple users. 32 Important factors to consider when choosing software can include accessibility, cost, interoperability, the look and feel of code reports, and the ease of colour coding and merging codes. Coders can also use low tech solutions, including highlighters, word processors, or spreadsheets.

Drafting effective codes

To draft effective codes, we recommend that the coders review each document line by line. 33 As they progress, they can assign codes to segments of data representing passages of interest. 34 Coders can also assign multiple codes to the same passage. Consensus among coders on what constitutes a minimum or maximum amount of text for assigning a code is helpful. As a general rule, meaningful segments of text for coding are shorter than one paragraph, but longer than a few words. Coders should keep the study objective in mind when determining which data are relevant ( box 4 ).

Code types in context

Similar to Braun and Clarke’s approach, practical thematic analysis does not specify whether codes are based on what is evident from the data (sometimes known as semantic) or whether they are based on what can be inferred at a deeper level from the data (sometimes known as latent). 4 12 35 It also does not specify whether they are derived from the data (sometimes known as inductive) or determined ahead of time (sometimes known as deductive). 11 35 Instead, it should be noted that health services researchers conducting qualitative studies often adopt all these approaches to coding (sometimes known as hybrid analysis). 3

In practical thematic analysis, codes should be more descriptive than general categorical labels that simply group data with shared characteristics. At a minimum, codes should form a complete (or full) thought. An easy way to conceptualise full thought codes is as complete sentences with subjects and verbs ( table 1 ), although full sentence coding is not always necessary. With full thought codes, researchers think about the data more deeply and capture this insight in the codes. This coding facilitates the entire analytical process and is especially valuable when moving from codes to broader themes. Experienced qualitative researchers often intuitively use full thought or sentence codes, but this practice has not been explicitly articulated as a path to higher quality coding elsewhere in the literature. 6

Example transcript with codes used in practical thematic analysis 36

• View inline

Depending on the nature of the data, codes might either fall into flat categories or be arranged hierarchically. Flat categories are most common when the data deal with topics on the same conceptual level. In other words, one topic is not a subset of another topic. By contrast, hierarchical codes are more appropriate for concepts that naturally fall above or below each other. Hierarchical coding can also be a useful form of data management and might be necessary when working with a large or complex dataset. 5 Codes grouped into these categories can also make it easier to naturally transition into generating themes from the initial codes. 5 These decisions between flat versus hierarchical coding are part of the work of the coding team. In both cases, coders should ensure that their code structures are guided by their research questions.

Developing the codebook

A codebook is a shared document that lists code labels and comprehensive descriptions for each code, as well as examples observed within the data. Good code descriptions are precise and specific so that coders can consistently assign the same codes to relevant data or articulate why another coder would do so. Codebook development is iterative and involves input from the entire coding team. However, as those closest to the data, coders must resist undue influence, real or perceived, from other team members with conflicting opinions—it is important to mitigate the risk that more senior researchers, like principal investigators, exert undue influence on the coders’ perspectives.

In practical thematic analysis, coders begin codebook development by independently coding a small portion of the data, such as two to three transcripts or other units of analysis. Coders then individually produce their initial codebooks. This task will require them to reflect on, organise, and clarify codes. The coders then meet to reconcile the draft codebooks, which can often be difficult, as some coders tend to lump several concepts together while others will split them into more specific codes. Discussing disagreements and negotiating consensus are necessary parts of early data analysis. Once the codebook is relatively stable, we recommend soliciting input on the codes from all manuscript authors. Yet, coders must ultimately be empowered to finalise the details so that they are comfortable working with the codebook across a large quantity of data.

Assigning codes to the data

After developing the codebook, coders will use it to assign codes to the remaining data. While the codebook’s overall structure should remain constant, coders might continue to add codes corresponding to any new concepts observed in the data. If new codes are added, coders should review the data they have already coded and determine whether the new codes apply. Qualitative data analysis software can be useful for editing or merging codes.

We recommend that coders periodically compare their code occurrences ( box 5 ), with more frequent check-ins if substantial disagreements occur. In the event of large discrepancies in the codes assigned, coders should revise the codebook to ensure that code descriptions are sufficiently clear and comprehensive to support coding alignment going forward. Because coding is an iterative process, the team can adjust the codebook as needed. 5 28 29

Quantitative coding in context

Researchers should generally avoid reporting code counts in thematic analysis. However, counts can be a useful proxy in maintaining alignment between coders on key concepts. 26 In practice, therefore, researchers should make sure that all coders working on the same piece of data assign the same codes with a similar pattern and that their memoing and overall assessment of the data are aligned. 37 However, the frequency of a code alone is not an indicator of its importance. It is more important that coders agree on the most salient points in the data; reviewing and discussing summary memos can be helpful here. 5

Researchers might disagree on whether or not to calculate and report inter-rater reliability. We note that quantitative tests for agreement, such as kappa statistics or intraclass correlation coefficients, can be distracting and might not provide meaningful results in qualitative analyses. Similarly, Braun and Clarke argue that expecting perfect alignment on coding is inconsistent with the goal of co-constructing meaning. 28 29 Overall consensus on codes’ salience and contributions to themes is the most important factor.

Definition of themes

Themes are meta-constructs that rise above codes and unite the dataset ( box 6 , fig 2 ). They should be clearly evident, repeated throughout the dataset, and relevant to the research questions. 38 While codes are often explicit descriptions of the content in the dataset, themes are usually more conceptual and knit the codes together. 39 Some researchers hypothesise that theme development is loosely described in the literature because qualitative researchers simply intuit themes during the analytical process. 39 In practical thematic analysis, we offer a concrete process that should make developing meaningful themes straightforward.

Themes in context

According to Braun and Clarke, a theme “captures something important about the data in relation to the research question and represents some level of patterned response or meaning within the data set.” 4 Similarly, Braun and Clarke advise against themes as domain summaries. While different approaches can draw out themes from codes, the process begins by identifying patterns. 28 35 Like Braun and Clarke and others, we recommend that researchers consider the salience of certain themes, their prevalence in the dataset, and their keyness (ie, how relevant the themes are to the overarching research questions). 4 12 34

Use of themes in practical thematic analysis

Constructing meaningful themes

After coding all the data, each coder should independently reflect on the team’s summary memos (step 1), the codebook (step 2), and the coded data itself to develop draft themes (step 3). It can be illuminating for coders to review all excerpts associated with each code, so that they derive themes directly from the data. Researchers should remain focused on the research question during this step, so that themes have a clear relation with the overall project aim. Use of qualitative analysis software will make it easy to view each segment of data tagged with each code. Themes might neatly correspond to groups of codes. Or—more likely—they will unite codes and data in unexpected ways. A whiteboard or presentation slides might be helpful to organise, craft, and revise themes. We also provide a template for coproducing themes (supplemental material 3). As with codebook justification, team members will ideally produce individual drafts of the themes that they have identified in the data. They can then discuss these with the group and reach alignment or consensus on the final themes.

The team should ensure that all themes are salient, meaning that they are: supported by the data, relevant to the study objectives, and important. Similar to codes, themes are framed as complete thoughts or sentences, not categories. While codes and themes might appear to be similar to each other, the key distinction is that the themes represent a broader concept. Table 2 shows examples of codes and their corresponding themes from a previously published project that used practical thematic analysis. 36 Identifying three to four key themes that comprise a broader overarching theme is a useful approach. Themes can also have subthemes, if appropriate. 40 41 42 43 44

Example codes with themes in practical thematic analysis 36

Thematic analysis session

After each coder has independently produced draft themes, a carefully selected subset of the manuscript team meets for a thematic analysis session ( table 3 ). The purpose of this session is to discuss and reach alignment or consensus on the final themes. We recommend a session of three to five hours, either in-person or virtually.

Example agenda of thematic analysis session

The composition of the thematic analysis session team is important, as each person’s perspectives will shape the results. This group is usually a small subset of the broader research team, with three to seven individuals. We recommend that primary and senior authors work together to include people with diverse experiences related to the research topic. They should aim for a range of personalities and professional identities, particularly those of clinicians, trainees, patients, and care partners. At a minimum, all coders and primary and senior authors should participate in the thematic analysis session.

The session begins with each coder presenting their draft themes with supporting quotes from the data. 5 Through respectful and collaborative deliberation, the group will develop a shared set of final themes.

One team member facilitates the session. A firm, confident, and consistent facilitation style with good listening skills is critical. For practical reasons, this person is not usually one of the primary coders. Hierarchies in teams cannot be entirely flattened, but acknowledging them and appointing an external facilitator can reduce their impact. The facilitator can ensure that all voices are heard. For example, they might ask for perspectives from patient partners or more junior researchers, and follow up on comments from senior researchers to say, “We have heard your perspective and it is important; we want to make sure all perspectives in the room are equally considered.” Or, “I hear [senior person] is offering [x] idea, I’d like to hear other perspectives in the room.” The role of the facilitator is critical in the thematic analysis session. The facilitator might also privately discuss with more senior researchers, such as principal investigators and senior authors, the importance of being aware of their influence over others and respecting and eliciting the perspectives of more junior researchers, such as patients, care partners, and students.

To our knowledge, this discrete thematic analysis session is a novel contribution of practical thematic analysis. It helps efficiently incorporate diverse perspectives using the session agenda and theme coproduction template (supplemental material 3) and makes the process of constructing themes transparent to the entire research team.

Writing the report

We recommend beginning the results narrative with a summary of all relevant themes emerging from the analysis, followed by a subheading for each theme. Each subsection begins with a brief description of the theme and is illustrated with relevant quotes, which are contextualised and explained. The write-up should not simply be a list, but should contain meaningful analysis and insight from the researchers, including descriptions of how different stakeholders might have experienced a particular situation differently or unexpectedly.

In addition to weaving quotes into the results narrative, quotes can be presented in a table. This strategy is a particularly helpful when submitting to clinical journals with tight word count limitations. Quote tables might also be effective in illustrating areas of agreement and disagreement across stakeholder groups, with columns representing different groups and rows representing each theme or subtheme. Quotes should include an anonymous label for each participant and any relevant characteristics, such as role or gender. The aim is to produce rich descriptions. 5 We recommend against repeating quotations across multiple themes in the report, so as to avoid confusion. The template for coproducing themes (supplemental material 3) allows documentation of quotes supporting each theme, which might also be useful during report writing.

Visual illustrations such as a thematic map or figure of the findings can help communicate themes efficiently. 4 36 42 44 If a figure is not possible, a simple list can suffice. 36 Both must clearly present the main themes with subthemes. Thematic figures can facilitate confirmation that the researchers’ interpretations reflect the study populations’ perspectives (sometimes known as member checking), because authors can invite discussions about the figure and descriptions of findings and supporting quotes. 46 This process can enhance the validity of the results. 46

In supplemental material 4, we provide additional guidance on reporting thematic analysis consistent with COREQ. 18 Commonly used in health services research, COREQ outlines a standardised list of items to be included in qualitative research reports ( box 7 ).

Reporting in context

We note that use of COREQ or any other reporting guidelines does not in itself produce high quality work and should not be used as a substitute for general methodological rigor. Rather, researchers must consider rigor throughout the entire research process. As the issue of how to conceptualise and achieve rigorous qualitative research continues to be debated, 47 48 we encourage researchers to explicitly discuss how they have looked at methodological rigor in their reports. Specifically, we point researchers to Braun and Clarke’s 2021 tool for evaluating thematic analysis manuscripts for publication (“Twenty questions to guide assessment of TA [thematic analysis] research quality”). 16

Avoiding common pitfalls

Awareness of common mistakes can help researchers avoid improper use of qualitative methods. Improper use can, for example, prevent researchers from developing meaningful themes and can risk drawing inappropriate conclusions from the data. Braun and Clarke also warn of poor quality in qualitative research, noting that “coherence and integrity of published research does not always hold.” 16

Weak themes

An important distinction between high and low quality themes is that high quality themes are descriptive and complete thoughts. As such, they often contain subjects and verbs, and can be expressed as full sentences ( table 2 ). Themes that are simply descriptive categories or topics could fail to impart meaningful knowledge beyond categorisation. 16 49 50

Researchers will often move from coding directly to writing up themes, without performing the work of theming or hosting a thematic analysis session. Skipping concerted theming often results in themes that look more like categories than unifying threads across the data.

Unfocused analysis

Because data collection for qualitative research is often semi-structured (eg, interviews, focus groups), not all data will be directly relevant to the research question at hand. To avoid unfocused analysis and a correspondingly unfocused manuscript, we recommend that all team members keep the research objective in front of them at every stage, from reading to coding to theming. During the thematic analysis session, we recommend that the research question be written on a whiteboard so that all team members can refer back to it, and so that the facilitator can ensure that conversations about themes occur in the context of this question. Consistently focusing on the research question can help to ensure that the final report directly answers it, as opposed to the many other interesting insights that might emerge during the qualitative research process. Such insights can be picked up in a secondary analysis if desired.

Inappropriate quantification

Presenting findings quantitatively (eg, “We found 18 instances of participants mentioning safety concerns about the vaccines”) is generally undesirable in practical thematic analysis reporting. 51 Descriptive terms are more appropriate (eg, “participants had substantial concerns about the vaccines,” or “several participants were concerned about this”). This descriptive presentation is critical because qualitative data might not be consistently elicited across participants, meaning that some individuals might share certain information while others do not, simply based on how conversations evolve. Additionally, qualitative research does not aim to draw inferences outside its specific sample. Emphasising numbers in thematic analysis can lead to readers incorrectly generalising the findings. Although peer reviewers unfamiliar with thematic analysis often request this type of quantification, practitioners of practical thematic analysis can confidently defend their decision to avoid it. If quantification is methodologically important, we recommend simultaneously conducting a survey or incorporating standardised interview techniques into the interview guide. 11

Neglecting group dynamics

Researchers should concertedly consider group dynamics in the research team. Particular attention should be paid to power relations and the personality of team members, which can include aspects such as who most often speaks, who defines concepts, and who resolves disagreements that might arise within the group. 52

The perspectives of patient and care partners are particularly important to cultivate. Ideally, patient partners are meaningfully embedded in studies from start to finish, not just for practical thematic analysis. 53 Meaningful engagement can build trust, which makes it easier for patient partners to ask questions, request clarification, and share their perspectives. Professional team members should actively encourage patient partners by emphasising that their expertise is critically important and valued. Noting when a patient partner might be best positioned to offer their perspective can be particularly powerful.

Insufficient time allocation

Researchers must allocate enough time to complete thematic analysis. Working with qualitative data takes time, especially because it is often not a linear process. As the strength of thematic analysis lies in its ability to make use of the rich details and complexities of the data, we recommend careful planning for the time required to read and code each document.

Estimating the necessary time can be challenging. For step 1 (reading), researchers can roughly calculate the time required based on the time needed to read and reflect on one piece of data. For step 2 (coding), the total amount of time needed can be extrapolated from the time needed to code one document during codebook development. We also recommend three to five hours for the thematic analysis session itself, although coders will need to independently develop their draft themes beforehand. Although the time required for practical thematic analysis is variable, teams should be able to estimate their own required effort with these guidelines.

Practical thematic analysis builds on the foundational work of Braun and Clarke. 4 16 We have reframed their six phase process into three condensed steps of reading, coding, and theming. While we have maintained important elements of Braun and Clarke’s reflexive thematic analysis, we believe that practical thematic analysis is conceptually simpler and easier to teach to less experienced researchers and non-researcher stakeholders. For teams with different levels of familiarity with qualitative methods, this approach presents a clear roadmap to the reading, coding, and theming of qualitative data. Our practical thematic analysis approach promotes efficient learning by doing—experiential learning. 12 29 Practical thematic analysis avoids the risk of relying on complex descriptions of methods and theory and places more emphasis on obtaining meaningful insights from those close to real world clinical environments. Although practical thematic analysis can be used to perform intensive theory based analyses, it lends itself more readily to accelerated, pragmatic approaches.

Strengths and limitations

Our approach is designed to smooth the qualitative analysis process and yield high quality themes. Yet, researchers should note that poorly performed analyses will still produce low quality results. Practical thematic analysis is a qualitative analytical approach; it does not look at study design, data collection, or other important elements of qualitative research. It also might not be the right choice for every qualitative research project. We recommend it for applied health services research questions, where diverse perspectives and simplicity might be valuable.

We also urge researchers to improve internal validity through triangulation methods, such as member checking (supplemental material 1). 46 Member checking could include soliciting input on high level themes, theme definitions, and quotations from participants. This approach might increase rigor.

Implications

We hope that by providing clear and simple instructions for practical thematic analysis, a broader range of researchers will be more inclined to use these methods. Increased transparency and familiarity with qualitative approaches can enhance researchers’ ability to both interpret qualitative studies and offer up new findings themselves. In addition, it can have usefulness in training and reporting. A major strength of this approach is to facilitate meaningful inclusion of patient and care partner perspectives, because their lived experiences can be particularly valuable in data interpretation and the resulting findings. 11 30 As clinicians are especially pressed for time, they might also appreciate a practical set of instructions that can be immediately used to leverage their insights and access to patients and clinical settings, and increase the impact of qualitative research through timely results. 8

Practical thematic analysis is a simplified approach to performing thematic analysis in health services research, a field where the experiences of patients, care partners, and clinicians are of inherent interest. We hope that it will be accessible to those individuals new to qualitative methods, including patients, care partners, clinicians, and other health services researchers. We intend to empower multidisciplinary research teams to explore unanswered questions and make new, important, and rigorous contributions to our understanding of important clinical and health systems research.

Acknowledgments

All members of the Coproduction Laboratory provided input that shaped this manuscript during laboratory meetings. We acknowledge advice from Elizabeth Carpenter-Song, an expert in qualitative methods.

Coproduction Laboratory group contributors: Stephanie C Acquilano ( http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1215-5531 ), Julie Doherty ( http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5279-6536 ), Rachel C Forcino ( http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9938-4830 ), Tina Foster ( http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6239-4031 ), Megan Holthoff, Christopher R Jacobs ( http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5324-8657 ), Lisa C Johnson ( http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7448-4931 ), Elaine T Kiriakopoulos, Kathryn Kirkland ( http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9851-926X ), Meredith A MacMartin ( http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6614-6091 ), Emily A Morgan, Eugene Nelson, Elizabeth O’Donnell, Brant Oliver ( http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7399-622X ), Danielle Schubbe ( http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9858-1805 ), Gabrielle Stevens ( http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9001-178X ), Rachael P Thomeer ( http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5974-3840 ).

Contributors: Practical thematic analysis, an approach designed for multidisciplinary health services teams new to qualitative research, was based on CHS’s experiences teaching thematic analysis to clinical teams and students. We have drawn heavily from qualitative methods literature. CHS is the guarantor of the article. CHS, AS, CvP, AMK, JRK, and JAP contributed to drafting the manuscript. AS, JG, CMM, JAP, and RWY provided feedback on their experiences using practical thematic analysis. CvP, LCL, SLB, AVC, GE, and JKL advised on qualitative methods in health services research, given extensive experience. All authors meaningfully edited the manuscript content, including AVC and RKS. The corresponding author attests that all listed authors meet authorship criteria and that no others meeting the criteria have been omitted.

Funding: This manuscript did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at https://www.icmje.org/disclosure-of-interest/ and declare: no support from any organisation for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.

Provenance and peer review: Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

• Ziebland S ,
• ↵ A Hybrid Approach to Thematic Analysis in Qualitative Research: Using a Practical Example. 2018. https://methods.sagepub.com/case/hybrid-approach-thematic-analysis-qualitative-research-a-practical-example .
• Maguire M ,
• Vindrola-Padros C ,
• Vindrola-Padros B
• ↵ Vindrola-Padros C. Rapid Ethnographies: A Practical Guide . Cambridge University Press 2021. https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=n80HEAAAQBAJ
• Schroter S ,
• Merino JG ,
• Barbeau A ,
• ↵ Padgett DK. Qualitative and Mixed Methods in Public Health . SAGE Publications 2011. https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=LcYgAQAAQBAJ
• Scharp KM ,
• Korstjens I
• Barnett-Page E ,
• ↵ Guest G, Namey EE, Mitchell ML. Collecting Qualitative Data: A Field Manual for Applied Research . SAGE 2013. https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=-3rmWYKtloC
• Sainsbury P ,
• Emerson RM ,
• Saunders B ,
• Kingstone T ,
• Hennink MM ,
• Kaiser BN ,
• Hennink M ,
• O’Connor C ,
• ↵ Yen RW, Schubbe D, Walling L, et al. Patient engagement in the What Matters Most trial: experiences and future implications for research. Poster presented at International Shared Decision Making conference, Quebec City, Canada. July 2019.
• ↵ Got questions about Thematic Analysis? We have prepared some answers to common ones. https://www.thematicanalysis.net/faqs/ (accessed 9 Nov 2022).
• ↵ Braun V, Clarke V. Thematic Analysis. SAGE Publications. 2022. https://uk.sagepub.com/en-gb/eur/thematic-analysis/book248481 .
• Kalpokas N ,
• Radivojevic I
• Campbell KA ,
• Durepos P ,
• ↵ Understanding Thematic Analysis. https://www.thematicanalysis.net/understanding-ta/ .
• Saunders CH ,
• Stevens G ,
• CONFIDENT Study Long-Term Care Partners
• MacQueen K ,
• Vaismoradi M ,
• Turunen H ,
• Schott SL ,
• Berkowitz J ,
• Carpenter-Song EA ,
• Goldwag JL ,
• Durand MA ,
• Goldwag J ,
• Saunders C ,
• Mishra MK ,
• Rodriguez HP ,
• Shortell SM ,
• Verdinelli S ,
• Scagnoli NI
• Campbell C ,
• Sparkes AC ,
• McGannon KR
• Sandelowski M ,
• Connelly LM ,
• O’Malley AJ ,

An official website of the United States government

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.

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.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• BMC Med Res Methodol

Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews

James thomas.

1 EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London, UK

Angela Harden

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

There is a growing recognition of the value of synthesising qualitative research in the evidence base in order to facilitate effective and appropriate health care. In response to this, methods for undertaking these syntheses are currently being developed. Thematic analysis is a method that is often used to analyse data in primary qualitative research. This paper reports on the use of this type of analysis in systematic reviews to bring together and integrate the findings of multiple qualitative studies.

We describe thematic synthesis, outline several steps for its conduct and illustrate the process and outcome of this approach using a completed review of health promotion research. Thematic synthesis has three stages: the coding of text 'line-by-line'; the development of 'descriptive themes'; and the generation of 'analytical themes'. While the development of descriptive themes remains 'close' to the primary studies, the analytical themes represent a stage of interpretation whereby the reviewers 'go beyond' the primary studies and generate new interpretive constructs, explanations or hypotheses. The use of computer software can facilitate this method of synthesis; detailed guidance is given on how this can be achieved.

We used thematic synthesis to combine the studies of children's views and identified key themes to explore in the intervention studies. Most interventions were based in school and often combined learning about health benefits with 'hands-on' experience. The studies of children's views suggested that fruit and vegetables should be treated in different ways, and that messages should not focus on health warnings. Interventions that were in line with these suggestions tended to be more effective. Thematic synthesis enabled us to stay 'close' to the results of the primary studies, synthesising them in a transparent way, and facilitating the explicit production of new concepts and hypotheses.

We compare thematic synthesis to other methods for the synthesis of qualitative research, discussing issues of context and rigour. Thematic synthesis is presented as a tried and tested method that preserves an explicit and transparent link between conclusions and the text of primary studies; as such it preserves principles that have traditionally been important to systematic reviewing.

The systematic review is an important technology for the evidence-informed policy and practice movement, which aims to bring research closer to decision-making [ 1 , 2 ]. This type of review uses rigorous and explicit methods to bring together the results of primary research in order to provide reliable answers to particular questions [ 3 - 6 ]. The picture that is presented aims to be distorted neither by biases in the review process nor by biases in the primary research which the review contains [ 7 - 10 ]. Systematic review methods are well-developed for certain types of research, such as randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Methods for reviewing qualitative research in a systematic way are still emerging, and there is much ongoing development and debate [ 11 - 14 ].

In this paper we present one approach to the synthesis of findings of qualitative research, which we have called 'thematic synthesis'. We have developed and applied these methods within several systematic reviews that address questions about people's perspectives and experiences [ 15 - 18 ]. The context for this methodological development is a programme of work in health promotion and public health (HP & PH), mostly funded by the English Department of Health, at the EPPI-Centre, in the Social Science Research Unit at the Institute of Education, University of London in the UK. Early systematic reviews at the EPPI-Centre addressed the question 'what works?' and contained research testing the effects of interventions. However, policy makers and other review users also posed questions about intervention need, appropriateness and acceptability, and factors influencing intervention implementation. To address these questions, our reviews began to include a wider range of research, including research often described as 'qualitative'. We began to focus, in particular, on research that aimed to understand the health issue in question from the experiences and point of view of the groups of people targeted by HP&PH interventions (We use the term 'qualitative' research cautiously because it encompasses a multitude of research methods at the same time as an assumed range of epistemological positions. In practice it is often difficult to classify research as being either 'qualitative' or 'quantitative' as much research contains aspects of both [ 19 - 22 ]. Because the term is in common use, however, we will employ it in this paper).

When we started the work for our first series of reviews which included qualitative research in 1999 [ 23 - 26 ], there was very little published material that described methods for synthesising this type of research. We therefore experimented with a variety of techniques borrowed from standard systematic review methods and methods for analysing primary qualitative research [ 15 ]. In later reviews, we were able to refine these methods and began to apply thematic analysis in a more explicit way. The methods for thematic synthesis described in this paper have so far been used explicitly in three systematic reviews [ 16 - 18 ].

The review used as an example in this paper

To illustrate the steps involved in a thematic synthesis we draw on a review of the barriers to, and facilitators of, healthy eating amongst children aged four to 10 years old [ 17 ]. The review was commissioned by the Department of Health, England to inform policy about how to encourage children to eat healthily in the light of recent surveys highlighting that British children are eating less than half the recommended five portions of fruit and vegetables per day. While we focus on the aspects of the review that relate to qualitative studies, the review was broader than this and combined answering traditional questions of effectiveness, through reviewing controlled trials, with questions relating to children's views of healthy eating, which were answered using qualitative studies. The qualitative studies were synthesised using 'thematic synthesis' – the subject of this paper. We compared the effectiveness of interventions which appeared to be in line with recommendations from the thematic synthesis with those that did not. This enabled us to see whether the understandings we had gained from the children's views helped us to explain differences in the effectiveness of different interventions: the thematic synthesis had enabled us to generate hypotheses which could be tested against the findings of the quantitative studies – hypotheses that we could not have generated without the thematic synthesis. The methods of this part of the review are published in Thomas et al . [ 27 ] and are discussed further in Harden and Thomas [ 21 ].

Qualitative research and systematic reviews

The act of seeking to synthesise qualitative research means stepping into more complex and contested territory than is the case when only RCTs are included in a review. First, methods are much less developed in this area, with fewer completed reviews available from which to learn, and second, the whole enterprise of synthesising qualitative research is itself hotly debated. Qualitative research, it is often proposed, is not generalisable and is specific to a particular context, time and group of participants. Thus, in bringing such research together, reviewers are open to the charge that they de-contextualise findings and wrongly assume that these are commensurable [ 11 , 13 ]. These are serious concerns which it is not the purpose of this paper to contest. We note, however, that a strong case has been made for qualitative research to be valued for the potential it has to inform policy and practice [ 11 , 28 - 30 ]. In our experience, users of reviews are interested in the answers that only qualitative research can provide, but are not able to handle the deluge of data that would result if they tried to locate, read and interpret all the relevant research themselves. Thus, if we acknowledge the unique importance of qualitative research, we need also to recognise that methods are required to bring its findings together for a wide audience – at the same time as preserving and respecting its essential context and complexity.

The earliest published work that we know of that deals with methods for synthesising qualitative research was written in 1988 by Noblit and Hare [ 31 ]. This book describes the way that ethnographic research might be synthesised, but the method has been shown to be applicable to qualitative research beyond ethnography [ 32 , 11 ]. As well as meta-ethnography, other methods have been developed more recently, including 'meta-study' [ 33 ], 'critical interpretive synthesis' [ 34 ] and 'metasynthesis' [ 13 ].

Many of the newer methods being developed have much in common with meta-ethnography, as originally described by Noblit and Hare, and often state explicitly that they are drawing on this work. In essence, this method involves identifying key concepts from studies and translating them into one another. The term 'translating' in this context refers to the process of taking concepts from one study and recognising the same concepts in another study, though they may not be expressed using identical words. Explanations or theories associated with these concepts are also extracted and a 'line of argument' may be developed, pulling corroborating concepts together and, crucially, going beyond the content of the original studies (though 'refutational' concepts might not be amenable to this process). Some have claimed that this notion of 'going beyond' the primary studies is a critical component of synthesis, and is what distinguishes it from the types of summaries of findings that typify traditional literature reviews [e.g. [ 32 ], p209]. In the words of Margarete Sandelowski, "metasyntheses are integrations that are more than the sum of parts, in that they offer novel interpretations of findings. These interpretations will not be found in any one research report but, rather, are inferences derived from taking all of the reports in a sample as a whole" [[ 14 ], p1358].

Thematic analysis has been identified as one of a range of potential methods for research synthesis alongside meta-ethnography and 'metasynthesis', though precisely what the method involves is unclear, and there are few examples of it being used for synthesising research [ 35 ]. We have adopted the term 'thematic synthesis', as we translated methods for the analysis of primary research – often termed 'thematic' – for use in systematic reviews [ 36 - 38 ]. As Boyatzis [[ 36 ], p4] has observed, thematic analysis is "not another qualitative method but a process that can be used with most, if not all, qualitative methods..." . Our approach concurs with this conceptualisation of thematic analysis, since the method we employed draws on other established methods but uses techniques commonly described as 'thematic analysis' in order to formalise the identification and development of themes.

We now move to a description of the methods we used in our example systematic review. While this paper has the traditional structure for reporting the results of a research project, the detailed methods (e.g. precise terms we used for searching) and results are available online. This paper identifies the particular issues that relate especially to reviewing qualitative research systematically and then to describing the activity of thematic synthesis in detail.

When searching for studies for inclusion in a 'traditional' statistical meta-analysis, the aim of searching is to locate all relevant studies. Failing to do this can undermine the statistical models that underpin the analysis and bias the results. However, Doyle [[ 39 ], p326] states that, "like meta-analysis, meta-ethnography utilizes multiple empirical studies but, unlike meta-analysis, the sample is purposive rather than exhaustive because the purpose is interpretive explanation and not prediction" . This suggests that it may not be necessary to locate every available study because, for example, the results of a conceptual synthesis will not change if ten rather than five studies contain the same concept, but will depend on the range of concepts found in the studies, their context, and whether they are in agreement or not. Thus, principles such as aiming for 'conceptual saturation' might be more appropriate when planning a search strategy for qualitative research, although it is not yet clear how these principles can be applied in practice. Similarly, other principles from primary qualitative research methods may also be 'borrowed' such as deliberately seeking studies which might act as negative cases, aiming for maximum variability and, in essence, designing the resulting set of studies to be heterogeneous, in some ways, instead of achieving the homogeneity that is often the aim in statistical meta-analyses.

However you look, qualitative research is difficult to find [ 40 - 42 ]. In our review, it was not possible to rely on simple electronic searches of databases. We needed to search extensively in 'grey' literature, ask authors of relevant papers if they knew of more studies, and look especially for book chapters, and we spent a lot of effort screening titles and abstracts by hand and looking through journals manually. In this sense, while we were not driven by the statistical imperative of locating every relevant study, when it actually came down to searching, we found that there was very little difference in the methods we had to use to find qualitative studies compared to the methods we use when searching for studies for inclusion in a meta-analysis.

Quality assessment

Assessing the quality of qualitative research has attracted much debate and there is little consensus regarding how quality should be assessed, who should assess quality, and, indeed, whether quality can or should be assessed in relation to 'qualitative' research at all [ 43 , 22 , 45 ]. We take the view that the quality of qualitative research should be assessed to avoid drawing unreliable conclusions. However, since there is little empirical evidence on which to base decisions for excluding studies based on quality assessment, we took the approach in this review to use 'sensitivity analyses' (described below) to assess the possible impact of study quality on the review's findings.

In our example review we assessed our studies according to 12 criteria, which were derived from existing sets of criteria proposed for assessing the quality of qualitative research [ 46 - 49 ], principles of good practice for conducting social research with children [ 50 ], and whether studies employed appropriate methods for addressing our review questions. The 12 criteria covered three main quality issues. Five related to the quality of the reporting of a study's aims, context, rationale, methods and findings (e.g. was there an adequate description of the sample used and the methods for how the sample was selected and recruited?). A further four criteria related to the sufficiency of the strategies employed to establish the reliability and validity of data collection tools and methods of analysis, and hence the validity of the findings. The final three criteria related to the assessment of the appropriateness of the study methods for ensuring that findings about the barriers to, and facilitators of, healthy eating were rooted in children's own perspectives (e.g. were data collection methods appropriate for helping children to express their views?).

Extracting data from studies

One issue which is difficult to deal with when synthesising 'qualitative' studies is 'what counts as data' or 'findings'? This problem is easily addressed when a statistical meta-analysis is being conducted: the numeric results of RCTs – for example, the mean difference in outcome between the intervention and control – are taken from published reports and are entered into the software package being used to calculate the pooled effect size [ 3 , 51 ].

Deciding what to abstract from the published report of a 'qualitative' study is much more difficult. Campbell et al . [ 11 ] extracted what they called the 'key concepts' from the qualitative studies they found about patients' experiences of diabetes and diabetes care. However, finding the key concepts in 'qualitative' research is not always straightforward either. As Sandelowski and Barroso [ 52 ] discovered, identifying the findings in qualitative research can be complicated by varied reporting styles or the misrepresentation of data as findings (as for example when data are used to 'let participants speak for themselves'). Sandelowski and Barroso [ 53 ] have argued that the findings of qualitative (and, indeed, all empirical) research are distinct from the data upon which they are based, the methods used to derive them, externally sourced data, and researchers' conclusions and implications.

In our example review, while it was relatively easy to identify 'data' in the studies – usually in the form of quotations from the children themselves – it was often difficult to identify key concepts or succinct summaries of findings, especially for studies that had undertaken relatively simple analyses and had not gone much further than describing and summarising what the children had said. To resolve this problem we took study findings to be all of the text labelled as 'results' or 'findings' in study reports – though we also found 'findings' in the abstracts which were not always reported in the same way in the text. Study reports ranged in size from a few pages to full final project reports. We entered all the results of the studies verbatim into QSR's NVivo software for qualitative data analysis. Where we had the documents in electronic form this process was straightforward even for large amounts of text. When electronic versions were not available, the results sections were either re-typed or scanned in using a flat-bed or pen scanner. (We have since adapted our own reviewing system, 'EPPI-Reviewer' [ 54 ], to handle this type of synthesis and the screenshots below show this software.)

Detailed methods for thematic synthesis

The synthesis took the form of three stages which overlapped to some degree: the free line-by-line coding of the findings of primary studies; the organisation of these 'free codes' into related areas to construct 'descriptive' themes; and the development of 'analytical' themes.

Stages one and two: coding text and developing descriptive themes

In our children and healthy eating review, we originally planned to extract and synthesise study findings according to our review questions regarding the barriers to, and facilitators of, healthy eating amongst children. It soon became apparent, however, that few study findings addressed these questions directly and it appeared that we were in danger of ending up with an empty synthesis. We were also concerned about imposing the a priori framework implied by our review questions onto study findings without allowing for the possibility that a different or modified framework may be a better fit. We therefore temporarily put our review questions to one side and started from the study findings themselves to conduct an thematic analysis.

There were eight relevant qualitative studies examining children's views of healthy eating. We entered the verbatim findings of these studies into our database. Three reviewers then independently coded each line of text according to its meaning and content. Figure ​ Figure1 1 illustrates this line-by-line coding using our specialist reviewing software, EPPI-Reviewer, which includes a component designed to support thematic synthesis. The text which was taken from the report of the primary study is on the left and codes were created inductively to capture the meaning and content of each sentence. Codes could be structured, either in a tree form (as shown in the figure) or as 'free' codes – without a hierarchical structure.

line-by-line coding in EPPI-Reviewer.

The use of line-by-line coding enabled us to undertake what has been described as one of the key tasks in the synthesis of qualitative research: the translation of concepts from one study to another [ 32 , 55 ]. However, this process may not be regarded as a simple one of translation. As we coded each new study we added to our 'bank' of codes and developed new ones when necessary. As well as translating concepts between studies, we had already begun the process of synthesis (For another account of this process, see Doyle [[ 39 ], p331]). Every sentence had at least one code applied, and most were categorised using several codes (e.g. 'children prefer fruit to vegetables' or 'why eat healthily?'). Before completing this stage of the synthesis, we also examined all the text which had a given code applied to check consistency of interpretation and to see whether additional levels of coding were needed. (In grounded theory this is termed 'axial' coding; see Fisher [ 55 ] for further discussion of the application of axial coding in research synthesis.) This process created a total of 36 initial codes. For example, some of the text we coded as "bad food = nice, good food = awful" from one study [ 56 ] were:

'All the things that are bad for you are nice and all the things that are good for you are awful.' (Boys, year 6) [[ 56 ], p74]

'All adverts for healthy stuff go on about healthy things. The adverts for unhealthy things tell you how nice they taste.' [[ 56 ], p75]

Some children reported throwing away foods they knew had been put in because they were 'good for you' and only ate the crisps and chocolate . [[ 56 ], p75]

Reviewers looked for similarities and differences between the codes in order to start grouping them into a hierarchical tree structure. New codes were created to capture the meaning of groups of initial codes. This process resulted in a tree structure with several layers to organize a total of 12 descriptive themes (Figure ​ (Figure2). 2 ). For example, the first layer divided the 12 themes into whether they were concerned with children's understandings of healthy eating or influences on children's food choice. The above example, about children's preferences for food, was placed in both areas, since the findings related both to children's reactions to the foods they were given, and to how they behaved when given the choice over what foods they might eat. A draft summary of the findings across the studies organized by the 12 descriptive themes was then written by one of the review authors. Two other review authors commented on this draft and a final version was agreed.

relationships between descriptive themes.

Stage three: generating analytical themes

Up until this point, we had produced a synthesis which kept very close to the original findings of the included studies. The findings of each study had been combined into a whole via a listing of themes which described children's perspectives on healthy eating. However, we did not yet have a synthesis product that addressed directly the concerns of our review – regarding how to promote healthy eating, in particular fruit and vegetable intake, amongst children. Neither had we 'gone beyond' the findings of the primary studies and generated additional concepts, understandings or hypotheses. As noted earlier, the idea or step of 'going beyond' the content of the original studies has been identified by some as the defining characteristic of synthesis [ 32 , 14 ].

This stage of a qualitative synthesis is the most difficult to describe and is, potentially, the most controversial, since it is dependent on the judgement and insights of the reviewers. The equivalent stage in meta-ethnography is the development of 'third order interpretations' which go beyond the content of original studies [ 32 , 11 ]. In our example, the step of 'going beyond' the content of the original studies was achieved by using the descriptive themes that emerged from our inductive analysis of study findings to answer the review questions we had temporarily put to one side. Reviewers inferred barriers and facilitators from the views children were expressing about healthy eating or food in general, captured by the descriptive themes, and then considered the implications of children's views for intervention development. Each reviewer first did this independently and then as a group. Through this discussion more abstract or analytical themes began to emerge. The barriers and facilitators and implications for intervention development were examined again in light of these themes and changes made as necessary. This cyclical process was repeated until the new themes were sufficiently abstract to describe and/or explain all of our initial descriptive themes, our inferred barriers and facilitators and implications for intervention development.

For example, five of the 12 descriptive themes concerned the influences on children's choice of foods (food preferences, perceptions of health benefits, knowledge behaviour gap, roles and responsibilities, non-influencing factors). From these, reviewers inferred several barriers and implications for intervention development. Children identified readily that taste was the major concern for them when selecting food and that health was either a secondary factor or, in some cases, a reason for rejecting food. Children also felt that buying healthy food was not a legitimate use of their pocket money, which they would use to buy sweets that could be enjoyed with friends. These perspectives indicated to us that branding fruit and vegetables as a 'tasty' rather than 'healthy' might be more effective in increasing consumption. As one child noted astutely, 'All adverts for healthy stuff go on about healthy things. The adverts for unhealthy things tell you how nice they taste.' [[ 56 ], p75]. We captured this line of argument in the analytical theme entitled 'Children do not see it as their role to be interested in health'. Altogether, this process resulted in the generation of six analytical themes which were associated with ten recommendations for interventions.

Six main issues emerged from the studies of children's views: (1) children do not see it as their role to be interested in health; (2) children do not see messages about future health as personally relevant or credible; (3) fruit, vegetables and confectionery have very different meanings for children; (4) children actively seek ways to exercise their own choices with regard to food; (5) children value eating as a social occasion; and (6) children see the contradiction between what is promoted in theory and what adults provide in practice. The review found that most interventions were based in school (though frequently with parental involvement) and often combined learning about the health benefits of fruit and vegetables with 'hands-on' experience in the form of food preparation and taste-testing. Interventions targeted at people with particular risk factors worked better than others, and multi-component interventions that combined the promotion of physical activity with healthy eating did not work as well as those that only concentrated on healthy eating. The studies of children's views suggested that fruit and vegetables should be treated in different ways in interventions, and that messages should not focus on health warnings. Interventions that were in line with these suggestions tended to be more effective than those which were not.

Context and rigour in thematic synthesis

The process of translation, through the development of descriptive and analytical themes, can be carried out in a rigorous way that facilitates transparency of reporting. Since we aim to produce a synthesis that both generates 'abstract and formal theories' that are nevertheless 'empirically faithful to the cases from which they were developed' [[ 53 ], p1371], we see the explicit recording of the development of themes as being central to the method. The use of software as described can facilitate this by allowing reviewers to examine the contribution made to their findings by individual studies, groups of studies, or sub-populations within studies.

Some may argue against the synthesis of qualitative research on the grounds that the findings of individual studies are de-contextualised and that concepts identified in one setting are not applicable to others [ 32 ]. However, the act of synthesis could be viewed as similar to the role of a research user when reading a piece of qualitative research and deciding how useful it is to their own situation. In the case of synthesis, reviewers translate themes and concepts from one situation to another and can always be checking that each transfer is valid and whether there are any reasons that understandings gained in one context might not be transferred to another. We attempted to preserve context by providing structured summaries of each study detailing aims, methods and methodological quality, and setting and sample. This meant that readers of our review were able to judge for themselves whether or not the contexts of the studies the review contained were similar to their own. In the synthesis we also checked whether the emerging findings really were transferable across different study contexts. For example, we tried throughout the synthesis to distinguish between participants (e.g. boys and girls) where the primary research had made an appropriate distinction. We then looked to see whether some of our synthesis findings could be attributed to a particular group of children or setting. In the event, we did not find any themes that belonged to a specific group, but another outcome of this process was a realisation that the contextual information given in the reports of studies was very restricted indeed. It was therefore difficult to make the best use of context in our synthesis.

In checking that we were not translating concepts into situations where they did not belong, we were following a principle that others have followed when using synthesis methods to build grounded formal theory: that of grounding a text in the context in which it was constructed. As Margaret Kearney has noted "the conditions under which data were collected, analysis was done, findings were found, and products were written for each contributing report should be taken into consideration in developing a more generalized and abstract model" [[ 14 ], p1353]. Britten et al . [ 32 ] suggest that it may be important to make a deliberate attempt to include studies conducted across diverse settings to achieve the higher level of abstraction that is aimed for in a meta-ethnography.

Study quality and sensitivity analyses

We assessed the 'quality' of our studies with regard to the degree to which they represented the views of their participants. In doing this, we were locating the concept of 'quality' within the context of the purpose of our review – children's views – and not necessarily the context of the primary studies themselves. Our 'hierarchy of evidence', therefore, did not prioritise the research design of studies but emphasised the ability of the studies to answer our review question. A traditional systematic review of controlled trials would contain a quality assessment stage, the purpose of which is to exclude studies that do not provide a reliable answer to the review question. However, given that there were no accepted – or empirically tested – methods for excluding qualitative studies from syntheses on the basis of their quality [ 57 , 12 , 58 ], we included all studies regardless of their quality.

Nevertheless, our studies did differ according to the quality criteria they were assessed against and it was important that we considered this in some way. In systematic reviews of trials, 'sensitivity analyses' – analyses which test the effect on the synthesis of including and excluding findings from studies of differing quality – are often carried out. Dixon-Woods et al . [ 12 ] suggest that assessing the feasibility and worth of conducting sensitivity analyses within syntheses of qualitative research should be an important focus of synthesis methods work. After our thematic synthesis was complete, we examined the relative contributions of studies to our final analytic themes and recommendations for interventions. We found that the poorer quality studies contributed comparatively little to the synthesis and did not contain many unique themes; the better studies, on the other hand, appeared to have more developed analyses and contributed most to the synthesis.

This paper has discussed the rationale for reviewing and synthesising qualitative research in a systematic way and has outlined one specific approach for doing this: thematic synthesis. While it is not the only method which might be used – and we have discussed some of the other options available – we present it here as a tested technique that has worked in the systematic reviews in which it has been employed.

We have observed that one of the key tasks in the synthesis of qualitative research is the translation of concepts between studies. While the activity of translating concepts is usually undertaken in the few syntheses of qualitative research that exist, there are few examples that specify the detail of how this translation is actually carried out. The example above shows how we achieved the translation of concepts across studies through the use of line-by-line coding, the organisation of these codes into descriptive themes, and the generation of analytical themes through the application of a higher level theoretical framework. This paper therefore also demonstrates how the methods and process of a thematic synthesis can be written up in a transparent way.

This paper goes some way to addressing concerns regarding the use of thematic analysis in research synthesis raised by Dixon-Woods and colleagues who argue that the approach can lack transparency due to a failure to distinguish between 'data-driven' or 'theory-driven' approaches. Moreover they suggest that, "if thematic analysis is limited to summarising themes reported in primary studies, it offers little by way of theoretical structure within which to develop higher order thematic categories..." [[ 35 ], p47]. Part of the problem, they observe, is that the precise methods of thematic synthesis are unclear. Our approach contains a clear separation between the 'data-driven' descriptive themes and the 'theory-driven' analytical themes and demonstrates how the review questions provided a theoretical structure within which it became possible to develop higher order thematic categories.

The theme of 'going beyond' the content of the primary studies was discussed earlier. Citing Strike and Posner [ 59 ], Campbell et al . [[ 11 ], p672] also suggest that synthesis "involves some degree of conceptual innovation, or employment of concepts not found in the characterisation of the parts and a means of creating the whole" . This was certainly true of the example given in this paper. We used a series of questions, derived from the main topic of our review, to focus an examination of our descriptive themes and we do not find our recommendations for interventions contained in the findings of the primary studies: these were new propositions generated by the reviewers in the light of the synthesis. The method also demonstrates that it is possible to synthesise without conceptual innovation. The initial synthesis, involving the translation of concepts between studies, was necessary in order for conceptual innovation to begin. One could argue that the conceptual innovation, in this case, was only necessary because the primary studies did not address our review question directly. In situations in which the primary studies are concerned directly with the review question, it may not be necessary to go beyond the contents of the original studies in order to produce a satisfactory synthesis (see, for example, Marston and King, [ 60 ]). Conceptually, our analytical themes are similar to the ultimate product of meta-ethnographies: third order interpretations [ 11 ], since both are explicit mechanisms for going beyond the content of the primary studies and presenting this in a transparent way. The main difference between them lies in their purposes. Third order interpretations bring together the implications of translating studies into one another in their own terms, whereas analytical themes are the result of interrogating a descriptive synthesis by placing it within an external theoretical framework (our review question and sub-questions). It may be, therefore, that analytical themes are more appropriate when a specific review question is being addressed (as often occurs when informing policy and practice), and third order interpretations should be used when a body of literature is being explored in and of itself, with broader, or emergent, review questions.

This paper is a contribution to the current developmental work taking place in understanding how best to bring together the findings of qualitative research to inform policy and practice. It is by no means the only method on offer but, by drawing on methods and principles from qualitative primary research, it benefits from the years of methodological development that underpins the research it seeks to synthesise.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors' contributions

Both authors contributed equally to the paper and read and approved the final manuscript.

Pre-publication history

The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2288/8/45/prepub

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Elaine Barnett-Page for her assistance in producing the draft paper, and David Gough, Ann Oakley and Sandy Oliver for their helpful comments. The review used an example in this paper was funded by the Department of Health (England). The methodological development was supported by Department of Health (England) and the ESRC through the Methods for Research Synthesis Node of the National Centre for Research Methods. In addition, Angela Harden held a senior research fellowship funded by the Department of Health (England) December 2003 – November 2007. The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and are not necessarily those of the funding bodies.

• Chalmers I. Trying to do more good than harm in policy and practice: the role of rigorous, transparent and up-to-date evaluations. Ann Am Acad Pol Soc Sci. 2003; 589 :22–40. doi: 10.1177/0002716203254762. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Oakley A. Social science and evidence-based everything: the case of education. Educ Rev. 2002; 54 :277–286. doi: 10.1080/0013191022000016329. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cooper H, Hedges L. The Handbook of Research Synthesis. New York: Russell Sage Foundation; 1994. [ Google Scholar ]
• EPPI-Centre . EPPI-Centre Methods for Conducting Systematic Reviews. London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London; 2006. http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/Default.aspx?tabid=89 [ Google Scholar ]
• Higgins J, Green S, (Eds) Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 426. 2006. http://www.cochrane.org/resources/handbook/ Updated September 2006. Accessed 24th January 2007.
• Petticrew M, Roberts H. Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A practical guide. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing; 2006. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chalmers I, Hedges L, Cooper H. A brief history of research synthesis. Eval Health Prof. 2002; 25 :12–37. doi: 10.1177/0163278702025001003. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Juni P, Altman D, Egger M. Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials. BMJ. 2001; 323 :42–46. doi: 10.1136/bmj.323.7303.42. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mulrow C. Systematic reviews: rationale for systematic reviews. BMJ. 1994; 309 :597–599. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• White H. Scientific communication and literature retrieval. In: Cooper H, Hedges L, editor. The Handbook of Research Synthesis. New York: Russell Sage Foundation; 1994. [ Google Scholar ]
• Campbell R, Pound P, Pope C, Britten N, Pill R, Morgan M, Donovan J. Evaluating meta-ethnography: a synthesis of qualitative research on lay experiences of diabetes and diabetes care. Soc Sci Med. 2003; 56 :671–684. doi: 10.1016/S0277-9536(02)00064-3. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dixon-Woods M, Bonas S, Booth A, Jones DR, Miller T, Sutton AJ, Shaw RL, Smith JA, Young B. How can systematic reviews incorporate qualitative research? A critical perspective. Qual Res. 2006; 6 :27–44. doi: 10.1177/1468794106058867. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sandelowski M, Barroso J. Handbook for Synthesising Qualitative Research. New York: Springer; 2007. [ Google Scholar ]
• Thorne S, Jensen L, Kearney MH, Noblit G, Sandelowski M. Qualitative meta-synthesis: reflections on methodological orientation and ideological agenda. Qual Health Res. 2004; 14 :1342–1365. doi: 10.1177/1049732304269888. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Harden A, Garcia J, Oliver S, Rees R, Shepherd J, Brunton G, Oakley A. Applying systematic review methods to studies of people's views: an example from public health. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2004; 58 :794–800. doi: 10.1136/jech.2003.014829. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Harden A, Brunton G, Fletcher A, Oakley A. Young People, Pregnancy and Social Exclusion: A systematic synthesis of research evidence to identify effective, appropriate and promising approaches for prevention and support. London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London; 2006. http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/Default.aspx?tabid=674 [ Google Scholar ]
• Thomas J, Sutcliffe K, Harden A, Oakley A, Oliver S, Rees R, Brunton G, Kavanagh J. Children and Healthy Eating: A systematic review of barriers and facilitators. London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London; 2003. http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/Default.aspx?tabid=246 accessed 4 th July 2008. [ Google Scholar ]
• Thomas J, Kavanagh J, Tucker H, Burchett H, Tripney J, Oakley A. Accidental Injury, Risk-Taking Behaviour and the Social Circumstances in which Young People Live: A systematic review. London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London; 2007. http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/Default.aspx?tabid=1910 [ Google Scholar ]
• Bryman A. Quantity and Quality in Social Research. London: Unwin; 1998. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hammersley M. What's Wrong with Ethnography? London: Routledge; 1992. [ Google Scholar ]
• Harden A, Thomas J. Methodological issues in combining diverse study types in systematic reviews. Int J Soc Res Meth. 2005; 8 :257–271. doi: 10.1080/13645570500155078. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Oakley A. Experiments in Knowing: Gender and methods in the social sciences. Cambridge: Polity Press; 2000. [ Google Scholar ]
• Harden A, Oakley A, Oliver S. Peer-delivered health promotion for young people: a systematic review of different study designs. Health Educ J. 2001; 60 :339–353. doi: 10.1177/001789690106000406. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Harden A, Rees R, Shepherd J, Brunton G, Oliver S, Oakley A. Young People and Mental Health: A systematic review of barriers and facilitators. London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London; 2001. http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/Default.aspx?tabid=256 [ Google Scholar ]
• Rees R, Harden A, Shepherd J, Brunton G, Oliver S, Oakley A. Young People and Physical Activity: A systematic review of barriers and facilitators. London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London; 2001. http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/Default.aspx?tabid=260 [ Google Scholar ]
• Shepherd J, Harden A, Rees R, Brunton G, Oliver S, Oakley A. Young People and Healthy Eating: A systematic review of barriers and facilitators. London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London; 2001. http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/Default.aspx?tabid=258 [ Google Scholar ]
• Thomas J, Harden A, Oakley A, Oliver S, Sutcliffe K, Rees R, Brunton G, Kavanagh J. Integrating qualitative research with trials in systematic reviews: an example from public health. BMJ. 2004; 328 :1010–1012. doi: 10.1136/bmj.328.7446.1010. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Davies P. What is evidence-based education? Br J Educ Stud. 1999; 47 :108–121. doi: 10.1111/1467-8527.00106. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Newman M, Thompson C, Roberts AP. Helping practitioners understand the contribution of qualitative research to evidence-based practice. Evid Based Nurs. 2006; 9 :4–7. doi: 10.1136/ebn.9.1.4. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Popay J. Moving Beyond Effectiveness in Evidence Synthesis. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence; 2006. [ Google Scholar ]
• Noblit GW, Hare RD. Meta-Ethnography: Synthesizing qualitative studies. Newbury Park: Sage; 1988. [ Google Scholar ]
• Britten N, Campbell R, Pope C, Donovan J, Morgan M, Pill R. Using meta-ethnography to synthesise qualitative research: a worked example. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2002; 7 :209–215. doi: 10.1258/135581902320432732. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Paterson B, Thorne S, Canam C, Jillings C. Meta-Study of Qualitative Health Research. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage; 2001. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dixon-Woods M, Cavers D, Agarwal S, Annandale E, Arthur A, Harvey J, Katbamna S, Olsen R, Smith L, Riley R, Sutton AJ. Conducting a critical interpretative synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2006; 6 :35. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-6-35. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dixon-Woods M, Agarwal S, Jones D, Young B, Sutton A. Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence: a review of possible methods. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2005; 10 :45–53. doi: 10.1258/1355819052801804. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Boyatzis RE. Transforming Qualitative Information. Sage: Cleveland; 1998. [ Google Scholar ]
• Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006; 3 :77–101. doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa. http://science.uwe.ac.uk/psychology/drvictoriaclarke_files/thematicanalysis%20.pdf [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Silverman D, Ed . Qualitative Research: Theory, method and practice. London: Sage; 1997. [ Google Scholar ]
• Doyle LH. Synthesis through meta-ethnography: paradoxes, enhancements, and possibilities. Qual Res. 2003; 3 :321–344. doi: 10.1177/1468794103033003. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Barroso J, Gollop C, Sandelowski M, Meynell J, Pearce PF, Collins LJ. The challenges of searching for and retrieving qualitative studies. Western J Nurs Res. 2003; 25 :153–178. doi: 10.1177/0193945902250034. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Walters LA, Wilczynski NL, Haynes RB, Hedges Team. Developing optimal search strategies for retrieving clinically relevant qualitative studies in EMBASE. Qual Health Res. 2006; 16 :162–8. doi: 10.1177/1049732305284027. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wong SSL, Wilczynski NL, Haynes RB. Developing optimal search strategies for detecting clinically relevant qualitative studies in Medline. Medinfo. 2004; 11 :311–314. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Murphy E, Dingwall R, Greatbatch D, Parker S, Watson P. Qualitative research methods in health technology assessment: a review of the literature. Health Technol Assess. 1998; 2 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Seale C. Quality in qualitative research. Qual Inq. 1999; 5 :465–478. [ Google Scholar ]
• Spencer L, Ritchie J, Lewis J, Dillon L. Quality in Qualitative Evaluation: A framework for assessing research evidence. London: Cabinet Office; 2003. [ Google Scholar ]
• Boulton M, Fitzpatrick R, Swinburn C. Qualitative research in healthcare II: a structured review and evaluation of studies. J Eval Clin Pract. 1996; 2 :171–179. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.1996.tb00041.x. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cobb A, Hagemaster J. Ten criteria for evaluating qualitative research proposals. J Nurs Educ. 1987; 26 :138–143. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mays N, Pope C. Rigour and qualitative research. BMJ. 1995; 311 :109–12. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Medical Sociology Group Criteria for the evaluation of qualitative research papers. Med Sociol News. 1996; 22 :68–71. [ Google Scholar ]
• Alderson P. Listening to Children. London: Barnardo's; 1995. [ Google Scholar ]
• Egger M, Davey-Smith G, Altman D. Systematic Reviews in Health Care: Meta-analysis in context. London: BMJ Publishing; 2001. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sandelowski M, Barroso J. Finding the findings in qualitative studies. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2002; 34 :213–219. doi: 10.1111/j.1547-5069.2002.00213.x. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sandelowski M. Using qualitative research. Qual Health Res. 2004; 14 :1366–1386. doi: 10.1177/1049732304269672. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Thomas J, Brunton J. EPPI-Reviewer 30: Analysis and management of data for research synthesis EPPI-Centre software. London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education; 2006. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fisher M, Qureshi H, Hardyman W, Homewood J. Using Qualitative Research in Systematic Reviews: Older people's views of hospital discharge. London: Social Care Institute for Excellence; 2006. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dixey R, Sahota P, Atwal S, Turner A. Children talking about healthy eating: data from focus groups with 300 9–11-year-olds. Nutr Bull. 2001; 26 :71–79. doi: 10.1046/j.1467-3010.2001.00078.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Daly A, Willis K, Small R, Green J, Welch N, Kealy M, Hughes E. Hierarchy of evidence for assessing qualitative health research. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007; 60 :43–49. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.03.014. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Popay J. Moving beyond floccinaucinihilipilification: enhancing the utility of systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005; 58 :1079–80. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.08.004. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Strike K, Posner G. Types of synthesis and their criteria. In: Ward S, Reed L, editor. Knowledge Structure and Use: Implications for synthesis and interpretation. Philadelphia: Temple University Press; 1983. [ Google Scholar ]
• Marston C, King E. Factors that shape young people's sexual behaviour: a systematic review. The Lancet. 2006; 368 :1581–86. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(06)69662-1. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

• Research article
• Open access
• Published: 10 July 2008

Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews

• James Thomas 1 &
• Angela Harden 1  

BMC Medical Research Methodology volume  8 , Article number:  45 ( 2008 ) Cite this article

387k Accesses

4379 Citations

105 Altmetric

Metrics details

There is a growing recognition of the value of synthesising qualitative research in the evidence base in order to facilitate effective and appropriate health care. In response to this, methods for undertaking these syntheses are currently being developed. Thematic analysis is a method that is often used to analyse data in primary qualitative research. This paper reports on the use of this type of analysis in systematic reviews to bring together and integrate the findings of multiple qualitative studies.

We describe thematic synthesis, outline several steps for its conduct and illustrate the process and outcome of this approach using a completed review of health promotion research. Thematic synthesis has three stages: the coding of text 'line-by-line'; the development of 'descriptive themes'; and the generation of 'analytical themes'. While the development of descriptive themes remains 'close' to the primary studies, the analytical themes represent a stage of interpretation whereby the reviewers 'go beyond' the primary studies and generate new interpretive constructs, explanations or hypotheses. The use of computer software can facilitate this method of synthesis; detailed guidance is given on how this can be achieved.

We used thematic synthesis to combine the studies of children's views and identified key themes to explore in the intervention studies. Most interventions were based in school and often combined learning about health benefits with 'hands-on' experience. The studies of children's views suggested that fruit and vegetables should be treated in different ways, and that messages should not focus on health warnings. Interventions that were in line with these suggestions tended to be more effective. Thematic synthesis enabled us to stay 'close' to the results of the primary studies, synthesising them in a transparent way, and facilitating the explicit production of new concepts and hypotheses.

We compare thematic synthesis to other methods for the synthesis of qualitative research, discussing issues of context and rigour. Thematic synthesis is presented as a tried and tested method that preserves an explicit and transparent link between conclusions and the text of primary studies; as such it preserves principles that have traditionally been important to systematic reviewing.

Peer Review reports

The systematic review is an important technology for the evidence-informed policy and practice movement, which aims to bring research closer to decision-making [ 1 , 2 ]. This type of review uses rigorous and explicit methods to bring together the results of primary research in order to provide reliable answers to particular questions [ 3 – 6 ]. The picture that is presented aims to be distorted neither by biases in the review process nor by biases in the primary research which the review contains [ 7 – 10 ]. Systematic review methods are well-developed for certain types of research, such as randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Methods for reviewing qualitative research in a systematic way are still emerging, and there is much ongoing development and debate [ 11 – 14 ].

In this paper we present one approach to the synthesis of findings of qualitative research, which we have called 'thematic synthesis'. We have developed and applied these methods within several systematic reviews that address questions about people's perspectives and experiences [ 15 – 18 ]. The context for this methodological development is a programme of work in health promotion and public health (HP & PH), mostly funded by the English Department of Health, at the EPPI-Centre, in the Social Science Research Unit at the Institute of Education, University of London in the UK. Early systematic reviews at the EPPI-Centre addressed the question 'what works?' and contained research testing the effects of interventions. However, policy makers and other review users also posed questions about intervention need, appropriateness and acceptability, and factors influencing intervention implementation. To address these questions, our reviews began to include a wider range of research, including research often described as 'qualitative'. We began to focus, in particular, on research that aimed to understand the health issue in question from the experiences and point of view of the groups of people targeted by HP&PH interventions (We use the term 'qualitative' research cautiously because it encompasses a multitude of research methods at the same time as an assumed range of epistemological positions. In practice it is often difficult to classify research as being either 'qualitative' or 'quantitative' as much research contains aspects of both [ 19 – 22 ]. Because the term is in common use, however, we will employ it in this paper).

When we started the work for our first series of reviews which included qualitative research in 1999 [ 23 – 26 ], there was very little published material that described methods for synthesising this type of research. We therefore experimented with a variety of techniques borrowed from standard systematic review methods and methods for analysing primary qualitative research [ 15 ]. In later reviews, we were able to refine these methods and began to apply thematic analysis in a more explicit way. The methods for thematic synthesis described in this paper have so far been used explicitly in three systematic reviews [ 16 – 18 ].

The review used as an example in this paper

To illustrate the steps involved in a thematic synthesis we draw on a review of the barriers to, and facilitators of, healthy eating amongst children aged four to 10 years old [ 17 ]. The review was commissioned by the Department of Health, England to inform policy about how to encourage children to eat healthily in the light of recent surveys highlighting that British children are eating less than half the recommended five portions of fruit and vegetables per day. While we focus on the aspects of the review that relate to qualitative studies, the review was broader than this and combined answering traditional questions of effectiveness, through reviewing controlled trials, with questions relating to children's views of healthy eating, which were answered using qualitative studies. The qualitative studies were synthesised using 'thematic synthesis' – the subject of this paper. We compared the effectiveness of interventions which appeared to be in line with recommendations from the thematic synthesis with those that did not. This enabled us to see whether the understandings we had gained from the children's views helped us to explain differences in the effectiveness of different interventions: the thematic synthesis had enabled us to generate hypotheses which could be tested against the findings of the quantitative studies – hypotheses that we could not have generated without the thematic synthesis. The methods of this part of the review are published in Thomas et al . [ 27 ] and are discussed further in Harden and Thomas [ 21 ].

Qualitative research and systematic reviews

The act of seeking to synthesise qualitative research means stepping into more complex and contested territory than is the case when only RCTs are included in a review. First, methods are much less developed in this area, with fewer completed reviews available from which to learn, and second, the whole enterprise of synthesising qualitative research is itself hotly debated. Qualitative research, it is often proposed, is not generalisable and is specific to a particular context, time and group of participants. Thus, in bringing such research together, reviewers are open to the charge that they de-contextualise findings and wrongly assume that these are commensurable [ 11 , 13 ]. These are serious concerns which it is not the purpose of this paper to contest. We note, however, that a strong case has been made for qualitative research to be valued for the potential it has to inform policy and practice [ 11 , 28 – 30 ]. In our experience, users of reviews are interested in the answers that only qualitative research can provide, but are not able to handle the deluge of data that would result if they tried to locate, read and interpret all the relevant research themselves. Thus, if we acknowledge the unique importance of qualitative research, we need also to recognise that methods are required to bring its findings together for a wide audience – at the same time as preserving and respecting its essential context and complexity.

The earliest published work that we know of that deals with methods for synthesising qualitative research was written in 1988 by Noblit and Hare [ 31 ]. This book describes the way that ethnographic research might be synthesised, but the method has been shown to be applicable to qualitative research beyond ethnography [ 32 , 11 ]. As well as meta-ethnography, other methods have been developed more recently, including 'meta-study' [ 33 ], 'critical interpretive synthesis' [ 34 ] and 'metasynthesis' [ 13 ].

Many of the newer methods being developed have much in common with meta-ethnography, as originally described by Noblit and Hare, and often state explicitly that they are drawing on this work. In essence, this method involves identifying key concepts from studies and translating them into one another. The term 'translating' in this context refers to the process of taking concepts from one study and recognising the same concepts in another study, though they may not be expressed using identical words. Explanations or theories associated with these concepts are also extracted and a 'line of argument' may be developed, pulling corroborating concepts together and, crucially, going beyond the content of the original studies (though 'refutational' concepts might not be amenable to this process). Some have claimed that this notion of 'going beyond' the primary studies is a critical component of synthesis, and is what distinguishes it from the types of summaries of findings that typify traditional literature reviews [e.g. [ 32 ], p209]. In the words of Margarete Sandelowski, "metasyntheses are integrations that are more than the sum of parts, in that they offer novel interpretations of findings. These interpretations will not be found in any one research report but, rather, are inferences derived from taking all of the reports in a sample as a whole" [[ 14 ], p1358].

Thematic analysis has been identified as one of a range of potential methods for research synthesis alongside meta-ethnography and 'metasynthesis', though precisely what the method involves is unclear, and there are few examples of it being used for synthesising research [ 35 ]. We have adopted the term 'thematic synthesis', as we translated methods for the analysis of primary research – often termed 'thematic' – for use in systematic reviews [ 36 – 38 ]. As Boyatzis [[ 36 ], p4] has observed, thematic analysis is "not another qualitative method but a process that can be used with most, if not all, qualitative methods..." . Our approach concurs with this conceptualisation of thematic analysis, since the method we employed draws on other established methods but uses techniques commonly described as 'thematic analysis' in order to formalise the identification and development of themes.

We now move to a description of the methods we used in our example systematic review. While this paper has the traditional structure for reporting the results of a research project, the detailed methods (e.g. precise terms we used for searching) and results are available online. This paper identifies the particular issues that relate especially to reviewing qualitative research systematically and then to describing the activity of thematic synthesis in detail.

When searching for studies for inclusion in a 'traditional' statistical meta-analysis, the aim of searching is to locate all relevant studies. Failing to do this can undermine the statistical models that underpin the analysis and bias the results. However, Doyle [[ 39 ], p326] states that, "like meta-analysis, meta-ethnography utilizes multiple empirical studies but, unlike meta-analysis, the sample is purposive rather than exhaustive because the purpose is interpretive explanation and not prediction" . This suggests that it may not be necessary to locate every available study because, for example, the results of a conceptual synthesis will not change if ten rather than five studies contain the same concept, but will depend on the range of concepts found in the studies, their context, and whether they are in agreement or not. Thus, principles such as aiming for 'conceptual saturation' might be more appropriate when planning a search strategy for qualitative research, although it is not yet clear how these principles can be applied in practice. Similarly, other principles from primary qualitative research methods may also be 'borrowed' such as deliberately seeking studies which might act as negative cases, aiming for maximum variability and, in essence, designing the resulting set of studies to be heterogeneous, in some ways, instead of achieving the homogeneity that is often the aim in statistical meta-analyses.

However you look, qualitative research is difficult to find [ 40 – 42 ]. In our review, it was not possible to rely on simple electronic searches of databases. We needed to search extensively in 'grey' literature, ask authors of relevant papers if they knew of more studies, and look especially for book chapters, and we spent a lot of effort screening titles and abstracts by hand and looking through journals manually. In this sense, while we were not driven by the statistical imperative of locating every relevant study, when it actually came down to searching, we found that there was very little difference in the methods we had to use to find qualitative studies compared to the methods we use when searching for studies for inclusion in a meta-analysis.

Quality assessment

Assessing the quality of qualitative research has attracted much debate and there is little consensus regarding how quality should be assessed, who should assess quality, and, indeed, whether quality can or should be assessed in relation to 'qualitative' research at all [ 43 , 22 , 44 , 45 ]. We take the view that the quality of qualitative research should be assessed to avoid drawing unreliable conclusions. However, since there is little empirical evidence on which to base decisions for excluding studies based on quality assessment, we took the approach in this review to use 'sensitivity analyses' (described below) to assess the possible impact of study quality on the review's findings.

In our example review we assessed our studies according to 12 criteria, which were derived from existing sets of criteria proposed for assessing the quality of qualitative research [ 46 – 49 ], principles of good practice for conducting social research with children [ 50 ], and whether studies employed appropriate methods for addressing our review questions. The 12 criteria covered three main quality issues. Five related to the quality of the reporting of a study's aims, context, rationale, methods and findings (e.g. was there an adequate description of the sample used and the methods for how the sample was selected and recruited?). A further four criteria related to the sufficiency of the strategies employed to establish the reliability and validity of data collection tools and methods of analysis, and hence the validity of the findings. The final three criteria related to the assessment of the appropriateness of the study methods for ensuring that findings about the barriers to, and facilitators of, healthy eating were rooted in children's own perspectives (e.g. were data collection methods appropriate for helping children to express their views?).

Extracting data from studies

One issue which is difficult to deal with when synthesising 'qualitative' studies is 'what counts as data' or 'findings'? This problem is easily addressed when a statistical meta-analysis is being conducted: the numeric results of RCTs – for example, the mean difference in outcome between the intervention and control – are taken from published reports and are entered into the software package being used to calculate the pooled effect size [ 3 , 51 ].

Deciding what to abstract from the published report of a 'qualitative' study is much more difficult. Campbell et al . [ 11 ] extracted what they called the 'key concepts' from the qualitative studies they found about patients' experiences of diabetes and diabetes care. However, finding the key concepts in 'qualitative' research is not always straightforward either. As Sandelowski and Barroso [ 52 ] discovered, identifying the findings in qualitative research can be complicated by varied reporting styles or the misrepresentation of data as findings (as for example when data are used to 'let participants speak for themselves'). Sandelowski and Barroso [ 53 ] have argued that the findings of qualitative (and, indeed, all empirical) research are distinct from the data upon which they are based, the methods used to derive them, externally sourced data, and researchers' conclusions and implications.

In our example review, while it was relatively easy to identify 'data' in the studies – usually in the form of quotations from the children themselves – it was often difficult to identify key concepts or succinct summaries of findings, especially for studies that had undertaken relatively simple analyses and had not gone much further than describing and summarising what the children had said. To resolve this problem we took study findings to be all of the text labelled as 'results' or 'findings' in study reports – though we also found 'findings' in the abstracts which were not always reported in the same way in the text. Study reports ranged in size from a few pages to full final project reports. We entered all the results of the studies verbatim into QSR's NVivo software for qualitative data analysis. Where we had the documents in electronic form this process was straightforward even for large amounts of text. When electronic versions were not available, the results sections were either re-typed or scanned in using a flat-bed or pen scanner. (We have since adapted our own reviewing system, 'EPPI-Reviewer' [ 54 ], to handle this type of synthesis and the screenshots below show this software.)

Detailed methods for thematic synthesis

The synthesis took the form of three stages which overlapped to some degree: the free line-by-line coding of the findings of primary studies; the organisation of these 'free codes' into related areas to construct 'descriptive' themes; and the development of 'analytical' themes.

Stages one and two: coding text and developing descriptive themes

In our children and healthy eating review, we originally planned to extract and synthesise study findings according to our review questions regarding the barriers to, and facilitators of, healthy eating amongst children. It soon became apparent, however, that few study findings addressed these questions directly and it appeared that we were in danger of ending up with an empty synthesis. We were also concerned about imposing the a priori framework implied by our review questions onto study findings without allowing for the possibility that a different or modified framework may be a better fit. We therefore temporarily put our review questions to one side and started from the study findings themselves to conduct an thematic analysis.

There were eight relevant qualitative studies examining children's views of healthy eating. We entered the verbatim findings of these studies into our database. Three reviewers then independently coded each line of text according to its meaning and content. Figure 1 illustrates this line-by-line coding using our specialist reviewing software, EPPI-Reviewer, which includes a component designed to support thematic synthesis. The text which was taken from the report of the primary study is on the left and codes were created inductively to capture the meaning and content of each sentence. Codes could be structured, either in a tree form (as shown in the figure) or as 'free' codes – without a hierarchical structure.

line-by-line coding in EPPI-Reviewer.

The use of line-by-line coding enabled us to undertake what has been described as one of the key tasks in the synthesis of qualitative research: the translation of concepts from one study to another [ 32 , 55 ]. However, this process may not be regarded as a simple one of translation. As we coded each new study we added to our 'bank' of codes and developed new ones when necessary. As well as translating concepts between studies, we had already begun the process of synthesis (For another account of this process, see Doyle [[ 39 ], p331]). Every sentence had at least one code applied, and most were categorised using several codes (e.g. 'children prefer fruit to vegetables' or 'why eat healthily?'). Before completing this stage of the synthesis, we also examined all the text which had a given code applied to check consistency of interpretation and to see whether additional levels of coding were needed. (In grounded theory this is termed 'axial' coding; see Fisher [ 55 ] for further discussion of the application of axial coding in research synthesis.) This process created a total of 36 initial codes. For example, some of the text we coded as "bad food = nice, good food = awful" from one study [ 56 ] were:

'All the things that are bad for you are nice and all the things that are good for you are awful.' (Boys, year 6) [[ 56 ], p74]

'All adverts for healthy stuff go on about healthy things. The adverts for unhealthy things tell you how nice they taste.' [[ 56 ], p75]

Some children reported throwing away foods they knew had been put in because they were 'good for you' and only ate the crisps and chocolate . [[ 56 ], p75]

Reviewers looked for similarities and differences between the codes in order to start grouping them into a hierarchical tree structure. New codes were created to capture the meaning of groups of initial codes. This process resulted in a tree structure with several layers to organize a total of 12 descriptive themes (Figure 2 ). For example, the first layer divided the 12 themes into whether they were concerned with children's understandings of healthy eating or influences on children's food choice. The above example, about children's preferences for food, was placed in both areas, since the findings related both to children's reactions to the foods they were given, and to how they behaved when given the choice over what foods they might eat. A draft summary of the findings across the studies organized by the 12 descriptive themes was then written by one of the review authors. Two other review authors commented on this draft and a final version was agreed.

relationships between descriptive themes.

Stage three: generating analytical themes

Up until this point, we had produced a synthesis which kept very close to the original findings of the included studies. The findings of each study had been combined into a whole via a listing of themes which described children's perspectives on healthy eating. However, we did not yet have a synthesis product that addressed directly the concerns of our review – regarding how to promote healthy eating, in particular fruit and vegetable intake, amongst children. Neither had we 'gone beyond' the findings of the primary studies and generated additional concepts, understandings or hypotheses. As noted earlier, the idea or step of 'going beyond' the content of the original studies has been identified by some as the defining characteristic of synthesis [ 32 , 14 ].

This stage of a qualitative synthesis is the most difficult to describe and is, potentially, the most controversial, since it is dependent on the judgement and insights of the reviewers. The equivalent stage in meta-ethnography is the development of 'third order interpretations' which go beyond the content of original studies [ 32 , 11 ]. In our example, the step of 'going beyond' the content of the original studies was achieved by using the descriptive themes that emerged from our inductive analysis of study findings to answer the review questions we had temporarily put to one side. Reviewers inferred barriers and facilitators from the views children were expressing about healthy eating or food in general, captured by the descriptive themes, and then considered the implications of children's views for intervention development. Each reviewer first did this independently and then as a group. Through this discussion more abstract or analytical themes began to emerge. The barriers and facilitators and implications for intervention development were examined again in light of these themes and changes made as necessary. This cyclical process was repeated until the new themes were sufficiently abstract to describe and/or explain all of our initial descriptive themes, our inferred barriers and facilitators and implications for intervention development.

For example, five of the 12 descriptive themes concerned the influences on children's choice of foods (food preferences, perceptions of health benefits, knowledge behaviour gap, roles and responsibilities, non-influencing factors). From these, reviewers inferred several barriers and implications for intervention development. Children identified readily that taste was the major concern for them when selecting food and that health was either a secondary factor or, in some cases, a reason for rejecting food. Children also felt that buying healthy food was not a legitimate use of their pocket money, which they would use to buy sweets that could be enjoyed with friends. These perspectives indicated to us that branding fruit and vegetables as a 'tasty' rather than 'healthy' might be more effective in increasing consumption. As one child noted astutely, 'All adverts for healthy stuff go on about healthy things. The adverts for unhealthy things tell you how nice they taste.' [[ 56 ], p75]. We captured this line of argument in the analytical theme entitled 'Children do not see it as their role to be interested in health'. Altogether, this process resulted in the generation of six analytical themes which were associated with ten recommendations for interventions.

Six main issues emerged from the studies of children's views: (1) children do not see it as their role to be interested in health; (2) children do not see messages about future health as personally relevant or credible; (3) fruit, vegetables and confectionery have very different meanings for children; (4) children actively seek ways to exercise their own choices with regard to food; (5) children value eating as a social occasion; and (6) children see the contradiction between what is promoted in theory and what adults provide in practice. The review found that most interventions were based in school (though frequently with parental involvement) and often combined learning about the health benefits of fruit and vegetables with 'hands-on' experience in the form of food preparation and taste-testing. Interventions targeted at people with particular risk factors worked better than others, and multi-component interventions that combined the promotion of physical activity with healthy eating did not work as well as those that only concentrated on healthy eating. The studies of children's views suggested that fruit and vegetables should be treated in different ways in interventions, and that messages should not focus on health warnings. Interventions that were in line with these suggestions tended to be more effective than those which were not.

Context and rigour in thematic synthesis

The process of translation, through the development of descriptive and analytical themes, can be carried out in a rigorous way that facilitates transparency of reporting. Since we aim to produce a synthesis that both generates 'abstract and formal theories' that are nevertheless 'empirically faithful to the cases from which they were developed' [[ 53 ], p1371], we see the explicit recording of the development of themes as being central to the method. The use of software as described can facilitate this by allowing reviewers to examine the contribution made to their findings by individual studies, groups of studies, or sub-populations within studies.

Some may argue against the synthesis of qualitative research on the grounds that the findings of individual studies are de-contextualised and that concepts identified in one setting are not applicable to others [ 32 ]. However, the act of synthesis could be viewed as similar to the role of a research user when reading a piece of qualitative research and deciding how useful it is to their own situation. In the case of synthesis, reviewers translate themes and concepts from one situation to another and can always be checking that each transfer is valid and whether there are any reasons that understandings gained in one context might not be transferred to another. We attempted to preserve context by providing structured summaries of each study detailing aims, methods and methodological quality, and setting and sample. This meant that readers of our review were able to judge for themselves whether or not the contexts of the studies the review contained were similar to their own. In the synthesis we also checked whether the emerging findings really were transferable across different study contexts. For example, we tried throughout the synthesis to distinguish between participants (e.g. boys and girls) where the primary research had made an appropriate distinction. We then looked to see whether some of our synthesis findings could be attributed to a particular group of children or setting. In the event, we did not find any themes that belonged to a specific group, but another outcome of this process was a realisation that the contextual information given in the reports of studies was very restricted indeed. It was therefore difficult to make the best use of context in our synthesis.

In checking that we were not translating concepts into situations where they did not belong, we were following a principle that others have followed when using synthesis methods to build grounded formal theory: that of grounding a text in the context in which it was constructed. As Margaret Kearney has noted "the conditions under which data were collected, analysis was done, findings were found, and products were written for each contributing report should be taken into consideration in developing a more generalized and abstract model" [[ 14 ], p1353]. Britten et al . [ 32 ] suggest that it may be important to make a deliberate attempt to include studies conducted across diverse settings to achieve the higher level of abstraction that is aimed for in a meta-ethnography.

Study quality and sensitivity analyses

We assessed the 'quality' of our studies with regard to the degree to which they represented the views of their participants. In doing this, we were locating the concept of 'quality' within the context of the purpose of our review – children's views – and not necessarily the context of the primary studies themselves. Our 'hierarchy of evidence', therefore, did not prioritise the research design of studies but emphasised the ability of the studies to answer our review question. A traditional systematic review of controlled trials would contain a quality assessment stage, the purpose of which is to exclude studies that do not provide a reliable answer to the review question. However, given that there were no accepted – or empirically tested – methods for excluding qualitative studies from syntheses on the basis of their quality [ 57 , 12 , 58 ], we included all studies regardless of their quality.

Nevertheless, our studies did differ according to the quality criteria they were assessed against and it was important that we considered this in some way. In systematic reviews of trials, 'sensitivity analyses' – analyses which test the effect on the synthesis of including and excluding findings from studies of differing quality – are often carried out. Dixon-Woods et al . [ 12 ] suggest that assessing the feasibility and worth of conducting sensitivity analyses within syntheses of qualitative research should be an important focus of synthesis methods work. After our thematic synthesis was complete, we examined the relative contributions of studies to our final analytic themes and recommendations for interventions. We found that the poorer quality studies contributed comparatively little to the synthesis and did not contain many unique themes; the better studies, on the other hand, appeared to have more developed analyses and contributed most to the synthesis.

This paper has discussed the rationale for reviewing and synthesising qualitative research in a systematic way and has outlined one specific approach for doing this: thematic synthesis. While it is not the only method which might be used – and we have discussed some of the other options available – we present it here as a tested technique that has worked in the systematic reviews in which it has been employed.

We have observed that one of the key tasks in the synthesis of qualitative research is the translation of concepts between studies. While the activity of translating concepts is usually undertaken in the few syntheses of qualitative research that exist, there are few examples that specify the detail of how this translation is actually carried out. The example above shows how we achieved the translation of concepts across studies through the use of line-by-line coding, the organisation of these codes into descriptive themes, and the generation of analytical themes through the application of a higher level theoretical framework. This paper therefore also demonstrates how the methods and process of a thematic synthesis can be written up in a transparent way.

This paper goes some way to addressing concerns regarding the use of thematic analysis in research synthesis raised by Dixon-Woods and colleagues who argue that the approach can lack transparency due to a failure to distinguish between 'data-driven' or 'theory-driven' approaches. Moreover they suggest that, "if thematic analysis is limited to summarising themes reported in primary studies, it offers little by way of theoretical structure within which to develop higher order thematic categories..." [[ 35 ], p47]. Part of the problem, they observe, is that the precise methods of thematic synthesis are unclear. Our approach contains a clear separation between the 'data-driven' descriptive themes and the 'theory-driven' analytical themes and demonstrates how the review questions provided a theoretical structure within which it became possible to develop higher order thematic categories.

The theme of 'going beyond' the content of the primary studies was discussed earlier. Citing Strike and Posner [ 59 ], Campbell et al . [[ 11 ], p672] also suggest that synthesis "involves some degree of conceptual innovation, or employment of concepts not found in the characterisation of the parts and a means of creating the whole" . This was certainly true of the example given in this paper. We used a series of questions, derived from the main topic of our review, to focus an examination of our descriptive themes and we do not find our recommendations for interventions contained in the findings of the primary studies: these were new propositions generated by the reviewers in the light of the synthesis. The method also demonstrates that it is possible to synthesise without conceptual innovation. The initial synthesis, involving the translation of concepts between studies, was necessary in order for conceptual innovation to begin. One could argue that the conceptual innovation, in this case, was only necessary because the primary studies did not address our review question directly. In situations in which the primary studies are concerned directly with the review question, it may not be necessary to go beyond the contents of the original studies in order to produce a satisfactory synthesis (see, for example, Marston and King, [ 60 ]). Conceptually, our analytical themes are similar to the ultimate product of meta-ethnographies: third order interpretations [ 11 ], since both are explicit mechanisms for going beyond the content of the primary studies and presenting this in a transparent way. The main difference between them lies in their purposes. Third order interpretations bring together the implications of translating studies into one another in their own terms, whereas analytical themes are the result of interrogating a descriptive synthesis by placing it within an external theoretical framework (our review question and sub-questions). It may be, therefore, that analytical themes are more appropriate when a specific review question is being addressed (as often occurs when informing policy and practice), and third order interpretations should be used when a body of literature is being explored in and of itself, with broader, or emergent, review questions.

This paper is a contribution to the current developmental work taking place in understanding how best to bring together the findings of qualitative research to inform policy and practice. It is by no means the only method on offer but, by drawing on methods and principles from qualitative primary research, it benefits from the years of methodological development that underpins the research it seeks to synthesise.

Chalmers I: Trying to do more good than harm in policy and practice: the role of rigorous, transparent and up-to-date evaluations. Ann Am Acad Pol Soc Sci. 2003, 589: 22-40. 10.1177/0002716203254762.

Article   Google Scholar  

Oakley A: Social science and evidence-based everything: the case of education. Educ Rev. 2002, 54: 277-286. 10.1080/0013191022000016329.

Cooper H, Hedges L: The Handbook of Research Synthesis. 1994, New York: Russell Sage Foundation

Google Scholar  

EPPI-Centre: EPPI-Centre Methods for Conducting Systematic Reviews. 2006, London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London, [ http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/Default.aspx?tabid=89 ]

Higgins J, Green S, (Eds): Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 4.2.6. 2006, Updated September 2006. Accessed 24th January 2007, [ http://www.cochrane.org/resources/handbook/ ]

Petticrew M, Roberts H: Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A practical guide. 2006, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing

Book   Google Scholar  

Chalmers I, Hedges L, Cooper H: A brief history of research synthesis. Eval Health Prof. 2002, 25: 12-37. 10.1177/0163278702025001003.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Juni P, Altman D, Egger M: Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials. BMJ. 2001, 323: 42-46. 10.1136/bmj.323.7303.42.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Mulrow C: Systematic reviews: rationale for systematic reviews. BMJ. 1994, 309: 597-599.

White H: Scientific communication and literature retrieval. The Handbook of Research Synthesis. Edited by: Cooper H, Hedges L. 1994, New York: Russell Sage Foundation

Campbell R, Pound P, Pope C, Britten N, Pill R, Morgan M, Donovan J: Evaluating meta-ethnography: a synthesis of qualitative research on lay experiences of diabetes and diabetes care. Soc Sci Med. 2003, 56: 671-684. 10.1016/S0277-9536(02)00064-3.

Dixon-Woods M, Bonas S, Booth A, Jones DR, Miller T, Sutton AJ, Shaw RL, Smith JA, Young B: How can systematic reviews incorporate qualitative research? A critical perspective. Qual Res. 2006, 6: 27-44. 10.1177/1468794106058867.

Sandelowski M, Barroso J: Handbook for Synthesising Qualitative Research. 2007, New York: Springer

Thorne S, Jensen L, Kearney MH, Noblit G, Sandelowski M: Qualitative meta-synthesis: reflections on methodological orientation and ideological agenda. Qual Health Res. 2004, 14: 1342-1365. 10.1177/1049732304269888.

Harden A, Garcia J, Oliver S, Rees R, Shepherd J, Brunton G, Oakley A: Applying systematic review methods to studies of people's views: an example from public health. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2004, 58: 794-800. 10.1136/jech.2003.014829.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Harden A, Brunton G, Fletcher A, Oakley A: Young People, Pregnancy and Social Exclusion: A systematic synthesis of research evidence to identify effective, appropriate and promising approaches for prevention and support. 2006, London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London, [ http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/Default.aspx?tabid=674 ]

Thomas J, Sutcliffe K, Harden A, Oakley A, Oliver S, Rees R, Brunton G, Kavanagh J: Children and Healthy Eating: A systematic review of barriers and facilitators. 2003, London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London, accessed 4 th July 2008, [ http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/Default.aspx?tabid=246 ]

Thomas J, Kavanagh J, Tucker H, Burchett H, Tripney J, Oakley A: Accidental Injury, Risk-Taking Behaviour and the Social Circumstances in which Young People Live: A systematic review. 2007, London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London, [ http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/Default.aspx?tabid=1910 ]

Bryman A: Quantity and Quality in Social Research. 1998, London: Unwin

Hammersley M: What's Wrong with Ethnography?. 1992, London: Routledge

Harden A, Thomas J: Methodological issues in combining diverse study types in systematic reviews. Int J Soc Res Meth. 2005, 8: 257-271. 10.1080/13645570500155078.

Oakley A: Experiments in Knowing: Gender and methods in the social sciences. 2000, Cambridge: Polity Press

Harden A, Oakley A, Oliver S: Peer-delivered health promotion for young people: a systematic review of different study designs. Health Educ J. 2001, 60: 339-353. 10.1177/001789690106000406.

Harden A, Rees R, Shepherd J, Brunton G, Oliver S, Oakley A: Young People and Mental Health: A systematic review of barriers and facilitators. 2001, London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London, [ http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/Default.aspx?tabid=256 ]

Rees R, Harden A, Shepherd J, Brunton G, Oliver S, Oakley A: Young People and Physical Activity: A systematic review of barriers and facilitators. 2001, London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London, [ http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/Default.aspx?tabid=260 ]

Shepherd J, Harden A, Rees R, Brunton G, Oliver S, Oakley A: Young People and Healthy Eating: A systematic review of barriers and facilitators. 2001, London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London, [ http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/Default.aspx?tabid=258 ]

Thomas J, Harden A, Oakley A, Oliver S, Sutcliffe K, Rees R, Brunton G, Kavanagh J: Integrating qualitative research with trials in systematic reviews: an example from public health. BMJ. 2004, 328: 1010-1012. 10.1136/bmj.328.7446.1010.

Davies P: What is evidence-based education?. Br J Educ Stud. 1999, 47: 108-121. 10.1111/1467-8527.00106.

Newman M, Thompson C, Roberts AP: Helping practitioners understand the contribution of qualitative research to evidence-based practice. Evid Based Nurs. 2006, 9: 4-7. 10.1136/ebn.9.1.4.

Popay J: Moving Beyond Effectiveness in Evidence Synthesis. 2006, London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence

Noblit GW, Hare RD: Meta-Ethnography: Synthesizing qualitative studies. 1988, Newbury Park: Sage

Britten N, Campbell R, Pope C, Donovan J, Morgan M, Pill R: Using meta-ethnography to synthesise qualitative research: a worked example. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2002, 7: 209-215. 10.1258/135581902320432732.

Paterson B, Thorne S, Canam C, Jillings C: Meta-Study of Qualitative Health Research. 2001, Thousand Oaks, California: Sage

Dixon-Woods M, Cavers D, Agarwal S, Annandale E, Arthur A, Harvey J, Katbamna S, Olsen R, Smith L, Riley R, Sutton AJ: Conducting a critical interpretative synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2006, 6: 35-10.1186/1471-2288-6-35.

Dixon-Woods M, Agarwal S, Jones D, Young B, Sutton A: Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence: a review of possible methods. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2005, 10: 45-53. 10.1258/1355819052801804.

Boyatzis RE: Transforming Qualitative Information. 1998, Sage: Cleveland

Braun V, Clarke V: Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006, 3: 77-101. 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa. [ http://science.uwe.ac.uk/psychology/drvictoriaclarke_files/thematicanalysis%20.pdf ]

Silverman D, Ed: Qualitative Research: Theory, method and practice. 1997, London: Sage

Doyle LH: Synthesis through meta-ethnography: paradoxes, enhancements, and possibilities. Qual Res. 2003, 3: 321-344. 10.1177/1468794103033003.

Barroso J, Gollop C, Sandelowski M, Meynell J, Pearce PF, Collins LJ: The challenges of searching for and retrieving qualitative studies. Western J Nurs Res. 2003, 25: 153-178. 10.1177/0193945902250034.

Walters LA, Wilczynski NL, Haynes RB, Hedges Team: Developing optimal search strategies for retrieving clinically relevant qualitative studies in EMBASE. Qual Health Res. 2006, 16: 162-8. 10.1177/1049732305284027.

Wong SSL, Wilczynski NL, Haynes RB: Developing optimal search strategies for detecting clinically relevant qualitative studies in Medline. Medinfo. 2004, 11: 311-314.

Murphy E, Dingwall R, Greatbatch D, Parker S, Watson P: Qualitative research methods in health technology assessment: a review of the literature. Health Technol Assess. 1998, 2 (16):

Seale C: Quality in qualitative research. Qual Inq. 1999, 5: 465-478.

Spencer L, Ritchie J, Lewis J, Dillon L: Quality in Qualitative Evaluation: A framework for assessing research evidence. 2003, London: Cabinet Office

Boulton M, Fitzpatrick R, Swinburn C: Qualitative research in healthcare II: a structured review and evaluation of studies. J Eval Clin Pract. 1996, 2: 171-179. 10.1111/j.1365-2753.1996.tb00041.x.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Cobb A, Hagemaster J: Ten criteria for evaluating qualitative research proposals. J Nurs Educ. 1987, 26: 138-143.

CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Mays N, Pope C: Rigour and qualitative research. BMJ. 1995, 311: 109-12.

Medical Sociology Group: Criteria for the evaluation of qualitative research papers. Med Sociol News. 1996, 22: 68-71.

Alderson P: Listening to Children. 1995, London: Barnardo's

Egger M, Davey-Smith G, Altman D: Systematic Reviews in Health Care: Meta-analysis in context. 2001, London: BMJ Publishing

Sandelowski M, Barroso J: Finding the findings in qualitative studies. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2002, 34: 213-219. 10.1111/j.1547-5069.2002.00213.x.

Sandelowski M: Using qualitative research. Qual Health Res. 2004, 14: 1366-1386. 10.1177/1049732304269672.

Thomas J, Brunton J: EPPI-Reviewer 3.0: Analysis and management of data for research synthesis. EPPI-Centre software. 2006, London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education

Fisher M, Qureshi H, Hardyman W, Homewood J: Using Qualitative Research in Systematic Reviews: Older people's views of hospital discharge. 2006, London: Social Care Institute for Excellence

Dixey R, Sahota P, Atwal S, Turner A: Children talking about healthy eating: data from focus groups with 300 9–11-year-olds. Nutr Bull. 2001, 26: 71-79. 10.1046/j.1467-3010.2001.00078.x.

Daly A, Willis K, Small R, Green J, Welch N, Kealy M, Hughes E: Hierarchy of evidence for assessing qualitative health research. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007, 60: 43-49. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.03.014.

Popay J: Moving beyond floccinaucinihilipilification: enhancing the utility of systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005, 58: 1079-80. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.08.004.

Strike K, Posner G: Types of synthesis and their criteria. Knowledge Structure and Use: Implications for synthesis and interpretation. Edited by: Ward S, Reed L. 1983, Philadelphia: Temple University Press

Marston C, King E: Factors that shape young people's sexual behaviour: a systematic review. The Lancet. 2006, 368: 1581-86. 10.1016/S0140-6736(06)69662-1.

Pre-publication history

The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2288/8/45/prepub

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Elaine Barnett-Page for her assistance in producing the draft paper, and David Gough, Ann Oakley and Sandy Oliver for their helpful comments. The review used an example in this paper was funded by the Department of Health (England). The methodological development was supported by Department of Health (England) and the ESRC through the Methods for Research Synthesis Node of the National Centre for Research Methods. In addition, Angela Harden held a senior research fellowship funded by the Department of Health (England) December 2003 – November 2007. The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and are not necessarily those of the funding bodies.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London, UK

James Thomas & Angela Harden

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to James Thomas .

Additional information

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors' contributions

Both authors contributed equally to the paper and read and approved the final manuscript.

James Thomas and Angela Harden contributed equally to this work.

Authors’ original submitted files for images

Below are the links to the authors’ original submitted files for images.

Authors’ original file for figure 1

Authors’ original file for figure 2, rights and permissions.

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Thomas, J., Harden, A. Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 8 , 45 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-8-45

Download citation

Received : 17 April 2008

Accepted : 10 July 2008

Published : 10 July 2008

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-8-45

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Qualitative Research
• Primary Study
• Analytical Theme
• Healthy Eating
• Review Question

BMC Medical Research Methodology

ISSN: 1471-2288

• General enquiries: [email protected]

Reference management. Clean and simple.

How to do a thematic analysis

What is a thematic analysis?

When is thematic analysis used, braun and clarke’s reflexive thematic analysis, the six steps of thematic analysis, 1. familiarizing, 2. generating initial codes, 3. generating themes, 4. reviewing themes, 5. defining and naming themes, 6. creating the report, the advantages and disadvantages of thematic analysis, disadvantages, frequently asked questions about thematic analysis, related articles.

Thematic analysis is a broad term that describes an approach to analyzing qualitative data . This approach can encompass diverse methods and is usually applied to a collection of texts, such as survey responses and transcriptions of interviews or focus group discussions. Learn more about different research methods.

A researcher performing a thematic analysis will study a set of data to pinpoint repeating patterns, or themes, in the topics and ideas that are expressed in the texts.

In analyzing qualitative data, thematic analysis focuses on concepts, opinions, and experiences, as opposed to pure statistics. This requires an approach to data that is complex and exploratory and can be anchored by different philosophical and conceptual foundations.

A six-step system was developed to help establish clarity and rigor around this process, and it is this system that is most commonly used when conducting a thematic analysis. The six steps are:

• Familiarization
• Generating codes
• Generating themes
• Reviewing themes
• Defining and naming themes
• Creating the report

It is important to note that even though the six steps are listed in sequence, thematic analysis is not necessarily a linear process that advances forward in a one-way, predictable fashion from step one through step six. Rather, it involves a more fluid shifting back and forth between the phases, adjusting to accommodate new insights when they arise.

And arriving at insight is a key goal of this approach. A good thematic analysis doesn’t just seek to present or summarize data. It interprets and makes a statement about it; it extracts meaning from the data.

Since thematic analysis is used to study qualitative data, it works best in cases where you’re looking to gather information about people’s views, values, opinions, experiences, and knowledge.

Some examples of research questions that thematic analysis can be used to answer are:

• What are senior citizens’ experiences of long-term care homes?
• How do women view social media sites as a tool for professional networking?
• How do non-religious people perceive the role of the church in a society?
• What are financial analysts’ ideas and opinions about cryptocurrency?

To begin answering these questions, you would need to gather data from participants who can provide relevant responses. Once you have the data, you would then analyze and interpret it.

Because you’re dealing with personal views and opinions, there is a lot of room for flexibility in terms of how you interpret the data. In this way, thematic analysis is systematic but not purely scientific.

A landmark 2006 paper by Victoria Braun and Victoria Clarke (“ Using thematic analysis in psychology ”) established parameters around thematic analysis—what it is and how to go about it in a systematic way—which had until then been widely used but poorly defined.

Since then, their work has been updated, with the name being revised, notably, to “reflexive thematic analysis.”

One common misconception that Braun and Clarke have taken pains to clarify about their work is that they do not believe that themes “emerge” from the data. To think otherwise is problematic since this suggests that meaning is somehow inherent to the data and that a researcher is merely an objective medium who identifies that meaning.

Conversely, Braun and Clarke view analysis as an interactive process in which the researcher is an active participant in constructing meaning, rather than simply identifying it.

The six stages they presented in their paper are still the benchmark for conducting a thematic analysis. They are presented below.

This step is where you take a broad, high-level view of your data, looking at it as a whole and taking note of your first impressions.

This typically involves reading through written survey responses and other texts, transcribing audio, and recording any patterns that you notice. It’s important to read through and revisit the data in its entirety several times during this stage so that you develop a thorough grasp of all your data.

After familiarizing yourself with your data, the next step is coding notable features of the data in a methodical way. This often means highlighting portions of the text and applying labels, aka codes, to them that describe the nature of their content.

In our example scenario, we’re researching the experiences of women over the age of 50 on professional networking social media sites. Interviews were conducted to gather data, with the following excerpt from one interview.

In the example interview snippet, portions have been highlighted and coded. The codes describe the idea or perception described in the text.

It pays to be exhaustive and thorough at this stage. Good practice involves scrutinizing the data several times, since new information and insight may become apparent upon further review that didn’t jump out at first glance. Multiple rounds of analysis also allow for the generation of more new codes.

Once the text is thoroughly reviewed, it’s time to collate the data into groups according to their code.

Now that we’ve created our codes, we can examine them, identify patterns within them, and begin generating themes.

Keep in mind that themes are more encompassing than codes. In general, you’ll be bundling multiple codes into a single theme.

To draw on the example we used above about women and networking through social media, codes could be combined into themes in the following way:

You’ll also be curating your codes and may elect to discard some on the basis that they are too broad or not directly relevant. You may also choose to redefine some of your codes as themes and integrate other codes into them. It all depends on the purpose and goal of your research.

This is the stage where we check that the themes we’ve generated accurately and relevantly represent the data they are based on. Once again, it’s beneficial to take a thorough, back-and-forth approach that includes review, assessment, comparison, and inquiry. The following questions can support the review:

• Has anything been overlooked?
• Are the themes definitively supported by the data?
• Is there any room for improvement?

With your final list of themes in hand, the next step is to name and define them.

In defining them, we want to nail down the meaning of each theme and, importantly, how it allows us to make sense of the data.

Once you have your themes defined, you’ll need to apply a concise and straightforward name to each one.

In our example, our “perceived lack of skills” may be adjusted to reflect that the texts expressed uncertainty about skills rather than the definitive absence of them. In this case, a more apt name for the theme might be “questions about competence.”

To finish the process, we put our findings down in writing. As with all scholarly writing, a thematic analysis should open with an introduction section that explains the research question and approach.

This is followed by a statement about the methodology that includes how data was collected and how the thematic analysis was performed.

Each theme is addressed in detail in the results section, with attention paid to the frequency and presence of the themes in the data, as well as what they mean, and with examples from the data included as supporting evidence.

The conclusion section describes how the analysis answers the research question and summarizes the key points.

In our example, the conclusion may assert that it is common for women over the age of 50 to have negative experiences on professional networking sites, and that these are often tied to interactions with other users and a sense that using these sites requires specialized skills.

Thematic analysis is useful for analyzing large data sets, and it allows a lot of flexibility in terms of designing theoretical and research frameworks. Moreover, it supports the generation and interpretation of themes that are backed by data.

There are times when thematic analysis is not the best approach to take because it can be highly subjective, and, in seeking to identify broad patterns, it can overlook nuance in the data.

What’s more, researchers must be judicious about reflecting on how their own position and perspective bears on their interpretations of the data and if they are imposing meaning that is not there or failing to pick up on meaning that is.

Thematic analysis offers a flexible and recursive way to approach qualitative data that has the potential to yield valuable insights about people’s opinions, views, and lived experience. It must be applied, however, in a conscientious fashion so as not to allow subjectivity to taint or obscure the results.

The purpose of thematic analysis is to find repeating patterns, or themes, in qualitative data. Thematic analysis can encompass diverse methods and is usually applied to a collection of texts, such as survey responses and transcriptions of interviews or focus group discussions. In analyzing qualitative data, thematic analysis focuses on concepts, opinions, and experiences, as opposed to pure statistics.

A big advantage of thematic analysis is that it allows a lot of flexibility in terms of designing theoretical and research frameworks. It also supports the generation and interpretation of themes that are backed by data.

A disadvantage of thematic analysis is that it can be highly subjective and can overlook nuance in the data. Also, researchers must be aware of how their own position and perspective influences their interpretations of the data and if they are imposing meaning that is not there or failing to pick up on meaning that is.

How many themes make sense in your thematic analysis of course depends on your topic and the material you are working with. In general, it makes sense to have no more than 6-10 broader themes, instead of having many really detailed ones. You can then identify further nuances and differences under each theme when you are diving deeper into the topic.

Since thematic analysis is used to study qualitative data, it works best in cases where you’re looking to gather information about people’s views, values, opinions, experiences, and knowledge. Therefore, it makes sense to use thematic analysis for interviews.

After familiarizing yourself with your data, the first step of a thematic analysis is coding notable features of the data in a methodical way. This often means highlighting portions of the text and applying labels, aka codes, to them that describe the nature of their content.

PY2106: Human Development Across the Lifespan Guide: Writing a Thematic Analysis

• Subject Basics
• Finding Resources
• Writing a Thematic Analysis
• Formatting & Referencing
• Psychology Guide
• Literature review guide This link opens in a new window

What is a thematic analysis?

A thematic analysis is used in qualitative research to focus on examining themes within a topic by identifying, analysing and reporting patterns (themes) within the research topic. It is similar to a literature review, which is a critical survey and assessment of the existing research on your particular topic.

The following links provide more information about the thematic analysis process.

• About Thematic Analysis
• Using thematic analysis in psychology

Thematic Analysis Process

Writing a literature review

You may also find these resources on writing literature reviews useful to help you write your analysis.

• Writing a Literature Review
• Literature Reviews - Synthesise

Writing a literature review (part 1)

Literature review books

Doing a literature review in health and social care: A practical guide

The Literature Review

The Literature Review is a concise step-by-step guide to conducting a literature search and writing up the literature review chapter in graduate dissertations and in professional doctorate theses. 

Succeeding with Your Literature Review

This step-by-step handbook provides comprehensive and practical guidance on the process of researching a range of relevant literature on a subject, as well as planning and writing a literature review.

An interactive approach to writing essays and research reports in psychology

This writing guide offers students an engaging, accessible introduction to the conventions of writing in the psychology discipline.

• << Previous: Finding Resources
• Next: Formatting & Referencing >>
• Last Updated: Apr 26, 2024 9:33 AM
• URL: https://libguides.jcu.edu.au/py2106

What (Exactly) Is Thematic Analysis?

Plain-Language Explanation & Definition (With Examples)

By: Jenna Crosley (PhD). Expert Reviewed By: Dr Eunice Rautenbach | April 2021

Thematic analysis is one of the most popular qualitative analysis techniques we see students opting for at Grad Coach – and for good reason. Despite its relative simplicity, thematic analysis can be a very powerful analysis technique when used correctly. In this post, we’ll unpack thematic analysis using plain language (and loads of examples) so that you can conquer your analysis with confidence.

Thematic Analysis 101

• Basic terminology relating to thematic analysis
• What is thematic analysis
• When to use thematic analysis
• The main approaches to thematic analysis
• The three types of thematic analysis
• How to “do” thematic analysis (the process)
• Tips and suggestions

First, the lingo…

Before we begin, let’s first lay down some terminology. When undertaking thematic analysis, you’ll make use of codes . A code is a label assigned to a piece of text, and the aim of using a code is to identify and summarise important concepts within a set of data, such as an interview transcript.

For example, if you had the sentence, “My rabbit ate my shoes”, you could use the codes “rabbit” or “shoes” to highlight these two concepts. The process of assigning codes is called qualitative coding . If this is a new concept to you, be sure to check out our detailed post about qualitative coding .

Codes are vital as they lay a foundation for themes . But what exactly is a theme? Simply put, a theme is a pattern that can be identified within a data set. In other words, it’s a topic or concept that pops up repeatedly throughout your data. Grouping your codes into themes serves as a way of summarising sections of your data in a useful way that helps you answer your research question(s) and achieve your research aim(s).

Alright – with that out of the way, let’s jump into the wonderful world of thematic analysis…

What is thematic analysis?

Thematic analysis is the study of patterns to uncover meaning . In other words, it’s about analysing the patterns and themes within your data set to identify the underlying meaning. Importantly, this process is driven by your research aims and questions , so it’s not necessary to identify every possible theme in the data, but rather to focus on the key aspects that relate to your research questions .

Although the research questions are a driving force in thematic analysis (and pretty much all analysis methods), it’s important to remember that these questions are not necessarily fixed . As thematic analysis tends to be a bit of an exploratory process, research questions can evolve as you progress with your coding and theme identification.

When should you use thematic analysis?

There are many potential qualitative analysis methods that you can use to analyse a dataset. For example, content analysis , discourse analysis , and narrative analysis are popular choices. So why use thematic analysis?

Thematic analysis is highly beneficial when working with large bodies of data ,  as it allows you to divide and categorise large amounts of data in a way that makes it easier to digest. Thematic analysis is particularly useful when looking for subjective information , such as a participant’s experiences, views, and opinions. For this reason, thematic analysis is often conducted on data derived from interviews , conversations, open-ended survey responses , and social media posts.

Your research questions can also give you an idea of whether you should use thematic analysis or not. For example, if your research questions were to be along the lines of:

• How do dog walkers perceive rules and regulations on dog-friendly beaches?
• What are students’ experiences with the shift to online learning?
• What opinions do health professionals hold about the Hippocratic code?
• How is gender constructed in a high school classroom setting?

These examples are all research questions centering on the subjective experiences of participants and aim to assess experiences, views, and opinions. Therefore, thematic analysis presents a possible approach.

In short, thematic analysis is a good choice when you are wanting to categorise large bodies of data (although the data doesn’t necessarily have to be large), particularly when you are interested in subjective experiences .

What are the main approaches?

Broadly speaking, there are two overarching approaches to thematic analysis: inductive and deductive . The approach you take will depend on what is most suitable in light of your research aims and questions. Let’s have a look at the options.

The inductive approach

The inductive approach involves deriving meaning and creating themes from data without any preconceptions . In other words, you’d dive into your analysis without any idea of what codes and themes will emerge, and thus allow these to emerge from the data.

For example, if you’re investigating typical lunchtime conversational topics in a university faculty, you’d enter the research without any preconceived codes, themes or expected outcomes. Of course, you may have thoughts about what might be discussed (e.g., academic matters because it’s an academic setting), but the objective is to not let these preconceptions inform your analysis.

The inductive approach is best suited to research aims and questions that are exploratory in nature , and cases where there is little existing research on the topic of interest.

The deductive approach

In contrast to the inductive approach, a deductive approach involves jumping into your analysis with a pre-determined set of codes . Usually, this approach is informed by prior knowledge and/or existing theory or empirical research (which you’d cover in your literature review ).

For example, a researcher examining the impact of a specific psychological intervention on mental health outcomes may draw on an existing theoretical framework that includes concepts such as coping strategies, social support, and self-efficacy, using these as a basis for a set of pre-determined codes.

The deductive approach is best suited to research aims and questions that are confirmatory in nature , and cases where there is a lot of existing research on the topic of interest.

Regardless of whether you take the inductive or deductive approach, you’ll also need to decide what level of content your analysis will focus on – specifically, the semantic level or the latent level.

A semantic-level focus ignores the underlying meaning of data , and identifies themes based only on what is explicitly or overtly stated or written – in other words, things are taken at face value.

In contrast, a latent-level focus concentrates on the underlying meanings and looks at the reasons for semantic content. Furthermore, in contrast to the semantic approach, a latent approach involves an element of interpretation , where data is not just taken at face value, but meanings are also theorised.

“But how do I know when to use what approach?”, I hear you ask.

Well, this all depends on the type of data you’re analysing and what you’re trying to achieve with your analysis. For example, if you’re aiming to analyse explicit opinions expressed in interviews and you know what you’re looking for ahead of time (based on a collection of prior studies), you may choose to take a deductive approach with a semantic-level focus.

On the other hand, if you’re looking to explore the underlying meaning expressed by participants in a focus group, and you don’t have any preconceptions about what to expect, you’ll likely opt for an inductive approach with a latent-level focus.

Simply put, the nature and focus of your research, especially your research aims , objectives and questions will  inform the approach you take to thematic analysis.

What are the types of thematic analysis?

Now that you’ve got an understanding of the overarching approaches to thematic analysis, it’s time to have a look at the different types of thematic analysis you can conduct. Broadly speaking, there are three “types” of thematic analysis:

• Reflexive thematic analysis
• Codebook thematic analysis
• Coding reliability thematic analysis

Let’s have a look at each of these:

Reflexive thematic analysis takes an inductive approach, letting the codes and themes emerge from that data. This type of thematic analysis is very flexible, as it allows researchers to change, remove, and add codes as they work through the data. As the name suggests, reflexive thematic analysis emphasizes the active engagement of the researcher in critically reflecting on their assumptions, biases, and interpretations, and how these may shape the analysis.

Reflexive thematic analysis typically involves iterative and reflexive cycles of coding, interpreting, and reflecting on data, with the aim of producing nuanced and contextually sensitive insights into the research topic, while at the same time recognising and addressing the subjective nature of the research process.

Codebook thematic analysis , on the other hand, lays on the opposite end of the spectrum. Taking a deductive approach, this type of thematic analysis makes use of structured codebooks containing clearly defined, predetermined codes. These codes are typically drawn from a combination of existing theoretical theories, empirical studies and prior knowledge of the situation.

Codebook thematic analysis aims to produce reliable and consistent findings. Therefore, it’s often used in studies where a clear and predefined coding framework is desired to ensure rigour and consistency in data analysis.

Coding reliability thematic analysis necessitates the work of multiple coders, and the design is specifically intended for research teams. With this type of analysis, codebooks are typically fixed and are rarely altered.

The benefit of this form of analysis is that it brings an element of intercoder reliability where coders need to agree upon the codes used, which means that the outcome is more rigorous as the element of subjectivity is reduced. In other words, multiple coders discuss which codes should be used and which shouldn’t, and this consensus reduces the bias of having one individual coder decide upon themes.

Quick Recap: Thematic analysis approaches and types

To recap, the two main approaches to thematic analysis are inductive , and deductive . Then we have the three types of thematic analysis: reflexive, codebook and coding reliability . Which type of thematic analysis you opt for will need to be informed by factors such as:

• The approach you are taking. For example, if you opt for an inductive approach, you’ll likely utilise reflexive thematic analysis.
• Whether you’re working alone or in a group . It’s likely that, if you’re doing research as part of your postgraduate studies, you’ll be working alone. This means that you’ll need to choose between reflexive and codebook thematic analysis.

Now that we’ve covered the “what” in terms of thematic analysis approaches and types, it’s time to look at the “how” of thematic analysis.

Need a helping hand?

How to “do” thematic analysis

At this point, you’re ready to get going with your analysis, so let’s dive right into the thematic analysis process. Keep in mind that what we’ll cover here is a generic process, and the relevant steps will vary depending on the approach and type of thematic analysis you opt for.

Step 1: Get familiar with the data

The first step in your thematic analysis involves getting a feel for your data and seeing what general themes pop up. If you’re working with audio data, this is where you’ll do the transcription , converting audio to text.

At this stage, you’ll want to come up with preliminary thoughts about what you’ll code , what codes you’ll use for them, and what codes will accurately describe your content. It’s a good idea to revisit your research topic , and your aims and objectives at this stage. For example, if you’re looking at what people feel about different types of dogs, you can code according to when different breeds are mentioned (e.g., border collie, Labrador, corgi) and when certain feelings/emotions are brought up.

As a general tip, it’s a good idea to keep a reflexivity journal . This is where you’ll write down how you coded your data, why you coded your data in that particular way, and what the outcomes of this data coding are. Using a reflexive journal from the start will benefit you greatly in the final stages of your analysis because you can reflect on the coding process and assess whether you have coded in a manner that is reliable and whether your codes and themes support your findings.

As you can imagine, a reflexivity journal helps to increase reliability as it allows you to analyse your data systematically and consistently. If you choose to make use of a reflexivity journal, this is the stage where you’ll want to take notes about your initial codes and list them in your journal so that you’ll have an idea of what exactly is being reflected in your data. At a later stage in the analysis, this data can be more thoroughly coded, or the identified codes can be divided into more specific ones.

Step 2: Search for patterns or themes in the codes

Step 2! You’re going strong. In this step, you’ll want to look out for patterns or themes in your codes. Moving from codes to themes is not necessarily a smooth or linear process. As you become more and more familiar with the data, you may find that you need to assign different codes or themes according to new elements you find. For example, if you were analysing a text talking about wildlife, you may come across the codes, “pigeon”, “canary” and “budgerigar” which can fall under the theme of birds.

As you work through the data, you may start to identify subthemes , which are subdivisions of themes that focus specifically on an aspect within the theme that is significant or relevant to your research question. For example, if your theme is a university, your subthemes could be faculties or departments at that university.

In this stage of the analysis, your reflexivity journal entries need to reflect how codes were interpreted and combined to form themes.

Step 3: Review themes

By now you’ll have a good idea of your codes, themes, and potentially subthemes. Now it’s time to review all the themes you’ve identified . In this step, you’ll want to check that everything you’ve categorised as a theme actually fits the data, whether the themes do indeed exist in the data, whether there are any themes missing , and whether you can move on to the next step knowing that you’ve coded all your themes accurately and comprehensively . If you find that your themes have become too broad and there is far too much information under one theme, it may be useful to split this into more themes so that you’re able to be more specific with your analysis.

In your reflexivity journal, you’ll want to write about how you understood the themes and how they are supported by evidence, as well as how the themes fit in with your codes. At this point, you’ll also want to revisit your research questions and make sure that the data and themes you’ve identified are directly relevant to these questions .

Step 4: Finalise Themes

By this point, your analysis will really start to take shape. In the previous step, you reviewed and refined your themes, and now it’s time to label and finalise them . It’s important to note here that, just because you’ve moved onto the next step, it doesn’t mean that you can’t go back and revise or rework your themes. In contrast to the previous step, finalising your themes means spelling out what exactly the themes consist of, and describe them in detail . If you struggle with this, you may want to return to your data to make sure that your data and coding do represent the themes, and if you need to divide your themes into more themes (i.e., return to step 3).

When you name your themes, make sure that you select labels that accurately encapsulate the properties of the theme . For example, a theme name such as “enthusiasm in professionals” leaves the question of “who are the professionals?”, so you’d want to be more specific and label the theme as something along the lines of “enthusiasm in healthcare professionals”.

It is very important at this stage that you make sure that your themes align with your research aims and questions . When you’re finalising your themes, you’re also nearing the end of your analysis and need to keep in mind that your final report (discussed in the next step) will need to fit in with the aims and objectives of your research.

In your reflexivity journal, you’ll want to write down a few sentences describing your themes and how you decided on these. Here, you’ll also want to mention how the theme will contribute to the outcomes of your research, and also what it means in relation to your research questions and focus of your research.

By the end of this stage, you’ll be done with your themes – meaning it’s time to write up your findings and produce a report.

Step 5: Produce your report

You’re nearly done! Now that you’ve analysed your data, it’s time to report on your findings. A typical thematic analysis report consists of:

• An introduction
• A methodology section
• Your results and findings
• A conclusion

When writing your report, make sure that you provide enough information for a reader to be able to evaluate the rigour of your analysis. In other words, the reader needs to know the exact process you followed when analysing your data and why. The questions of “what”, “how”, “why”, “who”, and “when” may be useful in this section.

So, what did you investigate? How did you investigate it? Why did you choose this particular method? Who does your research focus on, and who are your participants? When did you conduct your research, when did you collect your data, and when was the data produced? Your reflexivity journal will come in handy here as within it you’ve already labelled, described, and supported your themes.

If you’re undertaking a thematic analysis as part of a dissertation or thesis, this discussion will be split across your methodology, results and discussion chapters . For more information about those chapters, check out our detailed post about dissertation structure .

It’s absolutely vital that, when writing up your results, you back up every single one of your findings with quotations . The reader needs to be able to see that what you’re reporting actually exists within the results. Also make sure that, when reporting your findings, you tie them back to your research questions . You don’t want your reader to be looking through your findings and asking, “So what?”, so make sure that every finding you represent is relevant to your research topic and questions.

Quick Recap: How to “do” thematic analysis

Getting familiar with your data: Here you’ll read through your data and get a general overview of what you’re working with. At this stage, you may identify a few general codes and themes that you’ll make use of in the next step.

Search for patterns or themes in your codes : Here you’ll dive into your data and pick out the themes and codes relevant to your research question(s).

Review themes : In this step, you’ll revisit your codes and themes to make sure that they are all truly representative of the data, and that you can use them in your final report.

Finalise themes : Here’s where you “solidify” your analysis and make it report-ready by describing and defining your themes.

Produce your report : This is the final step of your thematic analysis process, where you put everything you’ve found together and report on your findings.

Tips & Suggestions

In the video below, we share 6 time-saving tips and tricks to help you approach your thematic analysis as effectively and efficiently as possible.

Wrapping Up

In this article, we’ve covered the basics of thematic analysis – what it is, when to use it, the different approaches and types of thematic analysis, and how to perform a thematic analysis.

If you have any questions about thematic analysis, drop a comment below and we’ll do our best to assist. If you’d like 1-on-1 support with your thematic analysis, be sure to check out our research coaching services here .

Psst... there’s more!

This post was based on one of our popular Research Bootcamps . If you're working on a research project, you'll definitely want to check this out ...

You Might Also Like:

21 Comments

I really appreciate the help

Hello Sir, how many levels of coding can be done in thematic analysis? We generate codes from the transcripts, then subthemes from the codes and themes from subthemes, isn’t it? Should these themes be again grouped together? how many themes can be derived?can you please share an example of coding through thematic analysis in a tabular format?

I’ve found the article very educative and useful

Excellent. Very helpful and easy to understand.

This article so far has been most helpful in understanding how to write an analysis chapter. Thank you.

My research topic is the challenges face by the school principal on the process of procurement . Thematic analysis is it sutable fir data analysis ?

It is a great help. Thanks.

Best advice. Worth reading. Thank you.

Where can I find an example of a template analysis table ?

Finally I got the best article . I wish they also have every psychology topics.

Hello, Sir/Maam

I am actually finding difficulty in doing qualitative analysis of my data and how to triangulate this with quantitative data. I encountered your web by accident in the process of searching for a much simplified way of explaining about thematic analysis such as coding, thematic analysis, write up. When your query if I need help popped up, I was hesitant to answer. Because I think this is for fee and I cannot afford. So May I just ask permission to copy for me to read and guide me to study so I can apply it myself for my gathered qualitative data for my graduate study.

Thank you very much! this is very helpful to me in my Graduate research qualitative data analysis.

Thank you very much. I find your guidance here helpful. Kindly let help me understand how to write findings and discussions.

i am having troubles with the concept of framework analysis which i did not find here and i have been an assignment on framework analysis

I was discouraged and felt insecure because after more than a year of writing my thesis, my work seemed lost its direction after being checked. But, I am truly grateful because through the comments, corrections, and guidance of the wisdom of my director, I can already see the bright light because of thematic analysis. I am working with Biblical Texts. And thematic analysis will be my method. Thank you.

lovely and helpful. thanks

very informative information.

thank you very much!, this is very helpful in my report, God bless……..

Thank you for the insight. I am really relieved as you have provided a super guide for my thesis.

Thanks a lot, really enlightening

excellent! very helpful thank a lot for your great efforts

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Print Friendly

• En español – ExME
• Em português – EME

Thematic analysis part 1: introduction to the topic and an explanation of ‘themes’

Posted on 21st February 2020 by Dolly Sud

This is the first of a three-part blog which will provide an introduction to Thematic analysis and discussion of what a theme is (part 1), a description of the three schools of TA and some study design recommendations (part 2), and an outline of the six phases of reflexive TA (part 3). A list of key reference sources is also provided.

Introduction

There is an array of methods available to researchers that can be used to identify patterned meaning across a dataset. Thematic analysis (TA) is one of these and is a widely embraced method for analysing qualitative data to inform many different research questions across a wide range of disciplines. It can be used for a variety of types of datasets and applied in a variety of different ways, thus, demonstrating its flexibility. Importantly, it is a very accessible method for novice researchers.

TA is an umbrella term that describes approaches which are aimed at identifying patterns (“themes”) across qualitative datasets [1,2]. It should not be considered to be a single qualitative analytic approach [1] and neither should it be considered a methodology – it is a method .

Victoria Clarke and Virginia Braun are authors of the most widely cited resources on TA – the content of this blog is based on information available on their website and published papers [1,2,3].

Take-home messages:

• thematic analysis is a method not a methodology
• thematic analysis should not be considered to be a single qualitative analytic approach

What is a theme?

There are two conceptualizations of themes which are articulated in the literature [2]:

1. Shared meaning based patterns

Shared meaning based patterns are organised around a central organising concept (core concept). In one of the online lectures [4] available for TA this is likened to a dandelion spherical seed head containing many single-seeded fruits. The seed head being the central organising concept, and the fruits being the themes.

Themes are built from smaller units known as codes.

Shared meaning based patterns [2]:

• capture the essence and spread of meaning;
• unite data that might otherwise appear disparate, or meaning that occurs in multiple and varied contexts;
• they (often) explain large portions of a dataset;
• are often abstract entities or ideas, capturing implicit ideas “beneath the surface” of the data, but can also capture more explicit and concrete meaning.

Braun & Clarke view themes as being shared meaning based patterns.

A good way of understanding the idea of themes is to look at published [2] examples of good TA (a full reference list is available on the website [5]).

Examples of themes as shared meaning based patterns taken from a paper which sought to explore anorexia nervosa clients’ perceptions of their therapists’ body [6]:

• “Wearing eating disorder glasses,”
• “You’re making all sorts of assumptions as a client,”
• “Appearance matters.”

2. Domain summary [2]

This conceptualisation is in contrast to that of a theme as shared meaning based patterns. It summarizes what participants said in relation to a topic or issue, typically at the semantic or surface level of meaning, and usually reports multiple or even contradictory meaning content. The issues are often based around data collection tools, such as responses to a particular interview question.

Example of themes as domain summary from a paper on Muslim views on mental health and psychotherapy [7], the seven themes were outlined as follows:

• “problem management,”
• “relevance of services,”
• “barriers,”
• “service delivery,”
• “therapy content,”
• “therapist characteristics”

You can see that domain summaries don’t appear to consider shared meaning or differences.

A useful pointer here is to consider domain summaries as collecting data under headings which are often composed of single words. Whereas shared meaning based patterns seek to unite data.

Take-home message:

• domain summaries and shared meaning-based patterns, although both articulated as being themes in published literature, are not the same thing.

References (pdf)

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

No Comments on Thematic analysis part 1: introduction to the topic and an explanation of ‘themes’

Hi Keith, I think you would need to cite the website using the method dictated by whichever citation method you have chosen to use. I hope that helps!

Hi, I’m drafting a paper on story completion using some of your stuff, but don’t know how to reference you. Keith

Subscribe to our newsletter

You will receive our monthly newsletter and free access to Trip Premium.

Related Articles

Is there a justification for using intraosseous vascular access first-line in pre-hospital adult medical cardiac arrests? A literature review

This blog presents the abstract of a literature review and critical appraisal on the topic of intraosseous vascular access in cardiac arrest.

Paramedic management of pre-hospital birth specifically in relation to premature neonates: A literature review

This blog presents the abstract of a literature review and critical appraisal on the topic ‘paramedic management of pre-hospital birth in relation to premature neonates’.

Thematic analysis part 3: six phases of reflexive thematic analysis

In the last of a series of three blogs about Thematic analysis (TA), Dolly Sud describes the six phases of TA and provides further reading and conclusions.

An official website of the United States government

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.

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.

• Publications
• Account settings
• My Bibliography
• Collections
• Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

• Create a new collection
• Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

• Search in PubMed
• Search in NLM Catalog
• Add to Search

Thematic analysis of qualitative research data: Is it as easy as it sounds?

Affiliations.

• 1 University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, College of Pharmacy, 4301 West Markham Street, Slot 522-4, Little Rock, AR 72205, United States. Electronic address: [email protected].
• 2 University of Arkansas at Little Rock, School of Education, 2801 S. University, Little Rock, AR 72204, United States. Electronic address: [email protected].
• PMID: 30025784
• DOI: 10.1016/j.cptl.2018.03.019

Issue: We are seeing the use of qualitative research methods more regularly in health professions education as well as pharmacy education. Often, the term "thematic analysis" is used in research studies and subsequently labeled as qualitative research, but saying that one did this type of analysis does not necessarily equate with a rigorous qualitative study. This methodology review will outline how to perform rigorous thematic analyses on qualitative data to draw interpretations from the data.

Methodological literature review: Despite not having an analysis guidebook that fits every research situation, there are general steps that you can take to make sure that your thematic analysis is systematic and thorough. A model of qualitative data analysis can be outlined in five steps: compiling, disassembling, reassembling, interpreting, and concluding.

My recommendations and their applications: Nine practical recommendations are provided to help researchers implement rigorous thematic analyses.

Potential impact: As researchers become comfortable in properly using qualitative research methods, the standards for publication will be elevated. By using these rigorous standards for thematic analysis and making them explicitly known in your data process, your findings will be more valuable.

Keywords: Qualitative; Thematic analysis.

Published by Elsevier Inc.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

• Twelve tips for using Pattern Matching in data analysis for qualitative medical education research. Attard Cortis P, Muir F. Attard Cortis P, et al. Med Teach. 2022 Nov;44(11):1209-1213. doi: 10.1080/0142159X.2021.1937587. Epub 2021 Jun 16. Med Teach. 2022. PMID: 34130598
• Thematic analysis of qualitative data: AMEE Guide No. 131. Kiger ME, Varpio L. Kiger ME, et al. Med Teach. 2020 Aug;42(8):846-854. doi: 10.1080/0142159X.2020.1755030. Epub 2020 May 1. Med Teach. 2020. PMID: 32356468
• Conducting and presenting qualitative research in pharmacy education. Bush AA, Amechi MH. Bush AA, et al. Curr Pharm Teach Learn. 2019 Jun;11(6):638-650. doi: 10.1016/j.cptl.2019.02.030. Epub 2019 Mar 27. Curr Pharm Teach Learn. 2019. PMID: 31213322 Review.
• Ensuring rigour and trustworthiness of qualitative research in clinical pharmacy. Hadi MA, José Closs S. Hadi MA, et al. Int J Clin Pharm. 2016 Jun;38(3):641-6. doi: 10.1007/s11096-015-0237-6. Epub 2015 Dec 14. Int J Clin Pharm. 2016. PMID: 26666909 Review.
• Student and educator experiences of maternal-child simulation-based learning: a systematic review of qualitative evidence protocol. MacKinnon K, Marcellus L, Rivers J, Gordon C, Ryan M, Butcher D. MacKinnon K, et al. JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2015 Jan;13(1):14-26. doi: 10.11124/jbisrir-2015-1694. JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2015. PMID: 26447004
• Navigating agricultural nonpoint source pollution governance: A social network analysis of best management practices in central Pennsylvania. Dingkuhn EL, O'Sullivan L, Schulte RPO, Grady CA. Dingkuhn EL, et al. PLoS One. 2024 May 23;19(5):e0303745. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0303745. eCollection 2024. PLoS One. 2024. PMID: 38781173 Free PMC article.
• Nurses' self-regulation after engaging in end-of-life conversations with advanced cancer patients: a qualitative study. Du J, An Z, Wang C, Yu L. Du J, et al. BMC Nurs. 2024 May 22;23(1):344. doi: 10.1186/s12912-024-02016-6. BMC Nurs. 2024. PMID: 38778334 Free PMC article.
• Insights, beliefs, and myths surrounding tuberculosis among pulmonary patients with delayed healthcare access in a high-burden TB state in Nigeria - a qualitative inquiry. Adeoye BD, Michael TO, Agbana RD. Adeoye BD, et al. Front Sociol. 2024 Apr 17;9:1378586. doi: 10.3389/fsoc.2024.1378586. eCollection 2024. Front Sociol. 2024. PMID: 38765220 Free PMC article.
• Clinical Implications of HIV Treatment and Prevention for Polygamous Families in Kenya and Uganda: "My Co-Wife Is the One Who Used to Encourage Me". Johnson-Peretz J, Onyango A, Gutin SA, Balzer L, Akatukwasa C, Owino L, Arunga TMO, Atwine F, Petersen M, Kamya M, Ayieko J, Ruel T, Havlir D, Camlin CS. Johnson-Peretz J, et al. J Int Assoc Provid AIDS Care. 2024 Jan-Dec;23:23259582241255171. doi: 10.1177/23259582241255171. J Int Assoc Provid AIDS Care. 2024. PMID: 38751360 Free PMC article.
• "We might not have been in hospital, but we were frontline workers in the community": a qualitative study exploring unmet need and local community-based responses for marginalised groups in Greater Manchester during the COVID-19 pandemic. Gillibrand S, Watkinson R, Surgey M, Issa B, Sanders C. Gillibrand S, et al. BMC Health Serv Res. 2024 May 13;24(1):621. doi: 10.1186/s12913-024-10921-4. BMC Health Serv Res. 2024. PMID: 38741127 Free PMC article.
• Search in MeSH

Related information

• Cited in Books

LinkOut - more resources

Full text sources.

• Elsevier Science

Other Literature Sources

• scite Smart Citations

Research Materials

• NCI CPTC Antibody Characterization Program
• Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, automatically generate references for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Methodology
• How to Do Thematic Analysis | Guide & Examples

How to Do Thematic Analysis | Guide & Examples

Published on 5 May 2022 by Jack Caulfield . Revised on 7 June 2024.

Thematic analysis is a method of analysing qualitative data . It is usually applied to a set of texts, such as an interview or transcripts . The researcher closely examines the data to identify common themes, topics, ideas and patterns of meaning that come up repeatedly.

There are various approaches to conducting thematic analysis, but the most common form follows a six-step process:

• Familiarisation
• Generating themes
• Reviewing themes
• Defining and naming themes

This process was originally developed for psychology research by Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke . However, thematic analysis is a flexible method that can be adapted to many different kinds of research.

Table of contents

When to use thematic analysis, different approaches to thematic analysis, step 1: familiarisation, step 2: coding, step 3: generating themes, step 4: reviewing themes, step 5: defining and naming themes, step 6: writing up.

Thematic analysis is a good approach to research where you’re trying to find out something about people’s views, opinions, knowledge, experiences, or values from a set of qualitative data – for example, interview transcripts , social media profiles, or survey responses .

Some types of research questions you might use thematic analysis to answer:

• How do patients perceive doctors in a hospital setting?
• What are young women’s experiences on dating sites?
• What are non-experts’ ideas and opinions about climate change?
• How is gender constructed in secondary school history teaching?

To answer any of these questions, you would collect data from a group of relevant participants and then analyse it. Thematic analysis allows you a lot of flexibility in interpreting the data, and allows you to approach large datasets more easily by sorting them into broad themes.

However, it also involves the risk of missing nuances in the data. Thematic analysis is often quite subjective and relies on the researcher’s judgement, so you have to reflect carefully on your own choices and interpretations.

Pay close attention to the data to ensure that you’re not picking up on things that are not there – or obscuring things that are.

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

Once you’ve decided to use thematic analysis, there are different approaches to consider.

There’s the distinction between inductive and deductive approaches:

• An inductive approach involves allowing the data to determine your themes.
• A deductive approach involves coming to the data with some preconceived themes you expect to find reflected there, based on theory or existing knowledge.

There’s also the distinction between a semantic and a latent approach:

• A semantic approach involves analysing the explicit content of the data.
• A latent approach involves reading into the subtext and assumptions underlying the data.

After you’ve decided thematic analysis is the right method for analysing your data, and you’ve thought about the approach you’re going to take, you can follow the six steps developed by Braun and Clarke .

The first step is to get to know our data. It’s important to get a thorough overview of all the data we collected before we start analysing individual items.

This might involve transcribing audio , reading through the text and taking initial notes, and generally looking through the data to get familiar with it.

Next up, we need to code the data. Coding means highlighting sections of our text – usually phrases or sentences – and coming up with shorthand labels or ‘codes’ to describe their content.

Let’s take a short example text. Say we’re researching perceptions of climate change among conservative voters aged 50 and up, and we have collected data through a series of interviews. An extract from one interview looks like this:

In this extract, we’ve highlighted various phrases in different colours corresponding to different codes. Each code describes the idea or feeling expressed in that part of the text.

At this stage, we want to be thorough: we go through the transcript of every interview and highlight everything that jumps out as relevant or potentially interesting. As well as highlighting all the phrases and sentences that match these codes, we can keep adding new codes as we go through the text.

After we’ve been through the text, we collate together all the data into groups identified by code. These codes allow us to gain a condensed overview of the main points and common meanings that recur throughout the data.

Next, we look over the codes we’ve created, identify patterns among them, and start coming up with themes.

Themes are generally broader than codes. Most of the time, you’ll combine several codes into a single theme. In our example, we might start combining codes into themes like this:

At this stage, we might decide that some of our codes are too vague or not relevant enough (for example, because they don’t appear very often in the data), so they can be discarded.

Other codes might become themes in their own right. In our example, we decided that the code ‘uncertainty’ made sense as a theme, with some other codes incorporated into it.

Again, what we decide will vary according to what we’re trying to find out. We want to create potential themes that tell us something helpful about the data for our purposes.

Now we have to make sure that our themes are useful and accurate representations of the data. Here, we return to the dataset and compare our themes against it. Are we missing anything? Are these themes really present in the data? What can we change to make our themes work better?

If we encounter problems with our themes, we might split them up, combine them, discard them, or create new ones: whatever makes them more useful and accurate.

For example, we might decide upon looking through the data that ‘changing terminology’ fits better under the ‘uncertainty’ theme than under ‘distrust of experts’, since the data labelled with this code involves confusion, not necessarily distrust.

Now that you have a final list of themes, it’s time to name and define each of them.

Defining themes involves formulating exactly what we mean by each theme and figuring out how it helps us understand the data.

Naming themes involves coming up with a succinct and easily understandable name for each theme.

For example, we might look at ‘distrust of experts’ and determine exactly who we mean by ‘experts’ in this theme. We might decide that a better name for the theme is ‘distrust of authority’ or ‘conspiracy thinking’.

Finally, we’ll write up our analysis of the data. Like all academic texts, writing up a thematic analysis requires an introduction to establish our research question, aims, and approach.

We should also include a methodology section, describing how we collected the data (e.g., through semi-structured interviews or open-ended survey questions ) and explaining how we conducted the thematic analysis itself.

The results or findings section usually addresses each theme in turn. We describe how often the themes come up and what they mean, including examples from the data as evidence. Finally, our conclusion explains the main takeaways and shows how the analysis has answered our research question.

In our example, we might argue that conspiracy thinking about climate change is widespread among older conservative voters, point out the uncertainty with which many voters view the issue, and discuss the role of misinformation in respondents’ perceptions.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the ‘Cite this Scribbr article’ button to automatically add the citation to our free Reference Generator.

Caulfield, J. (2024, June 07). How to Do Thematic Analysis | Guide & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 24 June 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/research-methods/thematic-analysis-explained/

Is this article helpful?

Jack Caulfield

Other students also liked, qualitative vs quantitative research | examples & methods, inductive reasoning | types, examples, explanation, what is deductive reasoning | explanation & examples.

• How it works

Thematic Analysis – A Guide with Examples

Published by Alvin Nicolas at August 16th, 2021 , Revised On August 29, 2023

Thematic analysis is one of the most important types of analysis used for qualitative data . When researchers have to analyse audio or video transcripts, they give preference to thematic analysis. A researcher needs to look keenly at the content to identify the context and the message conveyed by the speaker.

Moreover, with the help of this analysis, data can be simplified.  

Importance of Thematic Analysis

Thematic analysis has so many unique and dynamic features, some of which are given below:

Thematic analysis is used because:

• It is flexible.
• It is best for complex data sets.
• It is applied to qualitative data sets.
• It takes less complexity compared to other theories of analysis.

Intellectuals and researchers give preference to thematic analysis due to its effectiveness in the research.

How to Conduct a Thematic Analysis?

While doing any research , if your data and procedure are clear, it will be easier for your reader to understand how you concluded the results . This will add much clarity to your research.

Understand the Data

This is the first step of your thematic analysis. At this stage, you have to understand the data set. You need to read the entire data instead of reading the small portion. If you do not have the data in the textual form, you have to transcribe it.

Example: If you are visiting an adult dating website, you have to make a data corpus. You should read and re-read the data and consider several profiles. It will give you an idea of how adults represent themselves on dating sites. You may get the following results:

I am a tall, single(widowed), easy-going, honest, good listener with a good sense of humor. Being a handyperson, I keep busy working around the house, and I also like to follow my favourite hockey team on TV or spoil my two granddaughters when I get the chance!! Enjoy most music except Rap! I keep fit by jogging, walking, and bicycling (at least three times a week). I have travelled to many places and RVD the South-West U.S., but I would now like to find that special travel partner to do more travel to warm and interesting countries. I now feel it’s time to meet a nice, kind, honest woman who has some of the same interests as I do; to share the happy times, quiet times, and adventures together

I enjoy photography, lapidary & seeking collectibles in the form of classic movies & 33 1/3, 45 & 78 RPM recordings from the 1920s, ’30s & ’40s. I am retired & looking forward to travelling to Canada, the USA, the UK & Europe, China. I am unique since I do not judge a book by its cover. I accept people for who they are. I will not demand or request perfection from anyone until I am perfect, so I guess that means everyone is safe. My musical tastes range from Classical, big band era, early jazz, classic ’50s & 60’s rock & roll & country since its inception.

Development of Initial Coding:

At this stage, you have to do coding. It’s the essential step of your research . Here you have two options for coding. Either you can do the coding manually or take the help of any tool. A software named the NOVIC is considered the best tool for doing automatic coding.

For manual coding, you can follow the steps given below:

• Please write down the data in a proper format so that it can be easier to proceed.
• Use a highlighter to highlight all the essential points from data.
• Make as many points as possible.
• Take notes very carefully at this stage.
• Apply themes as much possible.
• Now check out the themes of the same pattern or concept.
• Turn all the same themes into the single one.

Example: For better understanding, the previously explained example of Step 1 is continued here. You can observe the coded profiles below:

Make Themes

At this stage, you have to make the themes. These themes should be categorised based on the codes. All the codes which have previously been generated should be turned into themes. Moreover, with the help of the codes, some themes and sub-themes can also be created. This process is usually done with the help of visuals so that a reader can take an in-depth look at first glance itself.

Extracted Data Review

Now you have to take an in-depth look at all the awarded themes again. You have to check whether all the given themes are organised properly or not. It would help if you were careful and focused because you have to note down the symmetry here. If you find that all the themes are not coherent, you can revise them. You can also reshape the data so that there will be symmetry between the themes and dataset here.

For better understanding, a mind-mapping example is given here:

Reviewing all the Themes Again

You need to review the themes after coding them. At this stage, you are allowed to play with your themes in a more detailed manner. You have to convert the bigger themes into smaller themes here. If you want to combine some similar themes into a single theme, then you can do it. This step involves two steps for better fragmentation. 

You need to observe the coded data separately so that you can have a precise view. If you find that the themes which are given are following the dataset, it’s okay. Otherwise, you may have to rearrange the data again to coherence in the coded data.

Corpus Data

Here you have to take into consideration all the corpus data again. It would help if you found how themes are arranged here. It would help if you used the visuals to check out the relationship between them. Suppose all the things are not done accordingly, so you should check out the previous steps for a refined process. Otherwise, you can move to the next step. However, make sure that all the themes are satisfactory and you are not confused.

When all the two steps are completed, you need to make a more précised mind map. An example following the previous cases has been given below:

Define all the Themes here

Now you have to define all the themes which you have given to your data set. You can recheck them carefully if you feel that some of them can fit into one concept, you can keep them, and eliminate the other irrelevant themes. Because it should be precise and clear, there should not be any ambiguity. Now you have to think about the main idea and check out that all the given themes are parallel to your main idea or not. This can change the concept for you.

The given names should be so that it can give any reader a clear idea about your findings. However, it should not oppose your thematic analysis; rather, everything should be organised accurately.

Does your Research Methodology Have the Following?

• Great Research/Sources
• Perfect Language
• Accurate Sources

If not, we can help. Our panel of experts makes sure to keep the 3 pillars of Research Methodology strong.

Also, read about discourse analysis , content analysis and survey conducting . we have provided comprehensive guides.

Make a Report

You need to make the final report of all the findings you have done at this stage. You should include the dataset, findings, and every aspect of your analysis in it.

While making the final report , do not forget to consider your audience. For instance, you are writing for the Newsletter, Journal, Public awareness, etc., your report should be according to your audience. It should be concise and have some logic; it should not be repetitive. You can use the references of other relevant sources as evidence to support your discussion.  

Frequently Asked Questions

What is meant by thematic analysis.

Thematic Analysis is a qualitative research method that involves identifying, analyzing, and interpreting recurring themes or patterns in data. It aims to uncover underlying meanings, ideas, and concepts within the dataset, providing insights into participants’ perspectives and experiences.

You May Also Like

Action research for my dissertation?, A brief overview of action research as a responsive, action-oriented, participative and reflective research technique.

This article provides the key advantages of primary research over secondary research so you can make an informed decision.

In correlational research, a researcher measures the relationship between two or more variables or sets of scores without having control over the variables.

USEFUL LINKS

LEARNING RESOURCES

COMPANY DETAILS

• How It Works

The Aspiring Professionals Hub

Skills training for successful professionals

Thematic Analysis: A Helpful Method for Literary Research

Posted on October 13, 2018 August 11, 2019 Leave a comment

This is a humble attempt to provide a brief, yet a concise, guideline to the researchers engaged in literacy research. Although there are several research methods borrowed from the fields of Social Sciences and Humanities which are utilized and applied in the study of literary texts and narratives, because of their scientific bearing and religious systematicity, they fail to satisfy the philosophical and comparatively stronger analytical and critical approach characteristic of a piece of literature. In this article, I aim to facilitate the students doing their research in literature, in particular literatures written in English, to get their way through the complexities and demands of research degrees requiring the submission of thesis or dissertation. For this particular piece, I have focused on thematic analysis because of its relevance to and viability for most of the literature-based researches.

In contrast to the traditions of the past, it has become all the more important today for literature and language researchers to sound theoretically, epistemologically, and methodologically sound apart from being philosophically and conceptually thorough. The theory part fares well since there exists a plethora of critical models, concepts and isms such as feminism, ecocriticism, postcolonialism, etc., which inspire the researchers to formulate their own direction and perspective in their research. However when it comes to the method, most of the students would adopt their individual style of analysis that is often vague, haphazard and mostly an account of their personal ideas about the researched material.

Attride-Stirling (2001) emphasizes the need for qualitative psychologists to focus on ‘what’ and ‘why’ of a research but more so on ‘how’ they conducted their analysis. This observation is equally applicable to the researchers of literary texts.  Adding on to their problem, there exists a peculiar mind-set that takes its root from the biases and prejudices nurtured by the theorists and researchers belonging to countries with colonial background, where to reject the research methods originating from the West are claimed as a strategy of resistance.  This practice, does not only hinder the researchers of these countries to bring rigour into their research but also creates a conflict between their aspirations and training. What is important, then, is to make the research by literary researchers, on a par with their peers in other disciples in the Social Sciences and Humanities in terms of how they organize and present their research, but of course, ensuring that they do not jeopardize the individuality and the requirements of their field.

Those readers who are familiar with some of the popular research methods such as content analysis, discourse analysis, textual analysis etc., may have an idea, even though a faint one, that thematic analysis has not gained much attention even within the Social Sciences. This may be, as discussed by many methodologists, because of the method’s loosely demarcated boundaries and flexibility. It is somewhat surprising that even though qualitative in nature, it is hardly ever conceptualized within the parameters of language or literary research. Interestingly, and much to the benefit of literary researchers, both the field and the method under discussion are characterized by open-ended answers to the questions raised and flexible interpretative process of the data set. What becomes a limitation in the Social Sciences, may be used to the advantage of literary researchers. There is also a debate about whether thematic analysis is a method in its own right or a strategy that prevails across all methods. This point of view, however, has been widely discussed and negated in the face of growing research in the Social Sciences and Humanities which extensively draws from the method to analyse the data.

In Thematic Analysis, the data refers to the particular part of the whole corpus (which can be the whole novel, collection of poems, short story etc.) that needs to be analysed. More specifically, the data set (or text set, narrative set) may generate out of a particular interest in a topic as postulated by Braun and Clarke (2006). The themes are extracted out of the coded chunks/excerpts which are then analysed. The selection of themes/patterns is mostly dependent on the research question which underscores the interest of the researcher. Thematic Analysis is thus a method which helps identify and analyse repeated patterns or themes within the data (text) for which codes have to be classified first.

However, it should be understood, no matter what kind of walls are created around the method to systematize it, the themes reside in the researchers’ mind and always demonstrate their subjective inclination or interest (Ely et al 1997). What is termed as ‘theme’ is an important factor justifying researchers’ selection. This factor is assessed by looking into the aspect of ‘prevalence’ which ensures the viability of a theme in terms of the space and presence it holds in the data set. The most important point to remember is to remain ‘consistent’ in assessing the prevalence, since even to check it may involve different methods. Unlike most quantitative methods, in thematic analysis, a researcher has the freedom to reflect on the prevalence by remaining non-specific (such as by using ‘a number of’, ‘many’ etc.) in the presentation of the data.

Thematic Analysis, according to Braun and Clarke (2006), can be conducted inductively or theoretically. Inductive analysis codifies the data without taking into account the researcher’s preconceptions. In this kind of analysis, the review of prior literature may restrict the researcher’s engagement with the data, so it is advised to first browse through the data carefully. In theoretical analysis, on the other hand, the codification process is theory-driven, hence good understanding of available and accessible literature is more helpful in this case.

One of the strengths of Thematic Analysis is that it can draw themes both from motivation, experiences and simple meanings (that reside in the data) which refer to the essentialist point of view and socio-cultural contexts which may refer to the constructionist approach. There can, however, be an amalgamation of both that may be suitable for a more rigorous analysis. The trajectory that may be taken to conduct thematic analysis is charted out below:

First, a thorough reading of the text twice, initially for general understanding, and then to pay close attention to detect the patterns/themes is required. It is important at this stage to note that in the assessment of ‘prevalence’ of themes, a prior perspective must be developed and this can only be possible if the text has already been read by the researcher. Starting with a theme/theory and forcing it on the text, which most of the researcher do, may result in a failure to produce a quality research. At this stage it is advised that the researcher gleans the preliminary findings, which may be tentative, and write them down.

The second step involves the codification of the text. The codes are the refined forms of a researcher’s preliminary findings/ideas which may materialize as specific elements/entities. However, since in Thematic Analysis, the analysis is done recursively, the codes may change as the research progresses. Whether the codes are semantically driven or latent, these little entities (data items) help organize the researched material and eventually cluster together in groups to form themes. While coding the data, it is necessary to collate each code with the excerpt / material it belongs to.

At the third stage, the extracted codes are separated and classified in terms of their similarities and then these clusters are titled as themes which are later named. There can, however, be small or large clusters and some of them may not appear to formulate a major theme. In this case sub themes can also be created out of the smaller clusters, whereas, bigger clusters may attain the status of main themes. A close look at the derived themes may be required in order to check their suitability, diversity and compatibility with the research question/s. In case of overlaps in themes, they should be carefully merged in order to make the set of themes more coherent and compact. It is necessary that the themes exhibit a pattern, if that is not the case, revision of coding process and thematization is required. In other words, a story should emerge out of the themes as discussed by Braun & Clarke.

The fourth and final stage requires the researcher to do the analysis based on the themes – their description, context, function, interpretation (apparent and latent meanings), implication – delineating their relationship with the research questions. This process is supplemented with examples from the text. The analysis part needs to be more than a re-writing of the material selected and a researcher should aim to rigorously engage with it from all aspects mentioned in the beginning of this paragraph. A good thematic analysis should provide a genuine proof of the contention raised or thesis proposed.

Although, it is difficult to provide a fixed rubric to any analytical method, even more so with reference to literary studies, methods can be adopted from other fields, they can be appropriated and adjusted to the requirements of the researched topic, and most importantly new methods can be designed and disseminated for the benefit of fledgling researchers, struggling to cope up with the challenges of ever growing academic requirements. The points shared in this article may prove helpful for such researchers and may pave way for better ideas.

Share this:

• Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
• Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
• Click to print (Opens in new window)

Leave a comment Cancel reply

• Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
• Subscribe Subscribed
• Copy shortlink
• Report this content
• View post in Reader
• Manage subscriptions
• Collapse this bar

• DOI: 10.1108/jgr-06-2023-0096
• Corpus ID: 270807013

Sustainability in banking literature: review and synthesis of thematic structure

• Shubhangi Rajawat , Ritika Mahajan
• Published in Journal of Global… 1 July 2024
• Business, Environmental Science

120 References

A roadmap for triggering the convergence of global esg disclosure standards: lessons from the ifrs foundation and stakeholder engagement, firm's biodiversity initiatives disclosure and board gender diversity: a multi‐country analysis of corporations operating in europe, sustainability reporting scholarly research: a bibliometric review and a future research agenda, corporate social responsibility as the pathway to sustainable banking: a systematic literature review, green banking and sustainability – a review, bibliometric and scientometric analysis on csr practices in the banking sector, board gender diversity and environmental disclosure: evidence from the banking sector, mandatory non-financial reporting in the banking industry: assessing reporting quality and determinants, a bibliometric analysis of esg performance in the banking industry: from the current status to future directions, board gender diversity and responsible banking during the covid-19 pandemic, related papers.

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers

Agro-Industrial Sustainability through Business Model: A Systematic Literature Review

• Ermawati, Tuti
• Yoga Edi, Ragil

The agro-industrial sector makes a significant contribution to economic growth. However, availability, quality, processing and marketing of agro-industrial products remain a challenge. Research on agro-industrial business models has been widely conducted, but those discussing through a systematic literature review (SLR) approach are still limited. This paper aims to analyze the current business models in the agro-industrial sector and evaluate their sustainability, specifically business models that are currently popular in the agro-industry sector and demonstrate the highest level of sustainability. This study applies SLR by reviewing 33 Scopus documents obtained through VOSviewer version 1.6.20. Bibliometric analysis was used to make thematic observations. The results demonstrates that there is a robust correlation between documents pertaining to agro-industry and business models indicated by 13 co-citation articles. In addition, co-occurrence analysis shows there has been four major business models in agro-industrial sectors, namely agro-industry as part of sustainable development; agro-industrial linked to the agriculture sector; digital-based business models; and the agro-industrial complex. Finally, this paper provides recommendations for further research into the business model of the agro-industrial complex.

• Agro-Industrial;
• Sustainability;
• Business Model;
• Systematic Literature Review (SLR)