Qualitative thematic analysis is a commonly used and widely applicable form of qualitative analysis, though it can be challenging to implement. Due to its use across research questions, qualitative traditions, and fields, thematic analysis is also prevalent in mixed methods studies. Despite its widespread use, the term “thematic analysis” is often confused and not always well described in empirical studies. In addition, there is limited guidance on how to use thematic analysis within the context of mixed methods research to ensure rigorous study design and mixed methods integration. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to describe the definitions, use, and variations of thematic analysis and explore how integration and mixed methods validity may be impacted in mixed methods studies.
BergholtzS. E.KurnotS. R.DeJonckheereM.HawleyS. T.OwensS. R.LapedisC. J. (2023). A mixed-methods study of clinicians’ attitudes toward pathology explanation clinics. American Journal of Clinical Pathology, 159(5), 437–447. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcp/aqac175
2.
BradleyE. H.CurryL. A.DeversK. J. (2007). Qualitative data analysis for health services research: Developing taxonomy, themes, and theory. Health Services Research, 42(4), 1758–1772. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6773.2006.00684.x
BraunV.ClarkeV. (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 11(4), 589–597. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806
5.
BraunV.ClarkeV. (2022). Thematic analysis: A practical guide. Sage.
6.
CampbellK. A.OrrE.DureposP.NguyenL.LiL.WhitmoreC.GehrkeP.GrahamL.JackS. M. (2021). Reflexive thematic analysis for applied qualitative health research. Qualitative Report, 26(6), 2011–2028. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2021.5010
7.
CharmazK. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Sage.
8.
CreswellJ. W.Plano ClarkV. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Sage.
9.
DeJonckheereM.JoinerK. L.AshG. I.SavoyeM.AdamsM.WeinzimerS. A.SadlerL. S.GreyM. (2021). Youth and parent perspectives on the acceptability of a group physical activity and coping intervention for adolescents with type 1 diabetes. The Science of Diabetes Self-Management and Care, 47(5), 367–381. https://doi.org/10.1177/26350106211040429
10.
FeredayJ.Muir-CochraneE. (2006). Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 80–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690600500107
11.
FettersM. D. (2020). The mixed methods research workbook: Activities for designing implementing, and publishing projects (7). Sage.
12.
FettersM. D.CurryL. A.CreswellJ. W. (2013). Achieving integration in mixed methods designs—principles and practices. Health Services Research, 48(6pt2), 2134–2156. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.12117
13.
GlaserB. G.StraussA. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Aldine.
14.
GuettermanT. C.FettersM. D.CreswellJ. W. (2015). Integrating quantitative and qualitative results in health science mixed methods research through joint displays. The Annals of Family Medicine, 13(6), 554–561. https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.1865
15.
InayatS.YounasA.FàbreguesS.AliP. (2024). Premature closure of analysis in qualitative research: Identifying features and mitigation strategies. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 23, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406924123418
16.
JamesT. G.SullivanM. K.McKeeM. M.RotoliJ.MarucaD.StachowiakR.CheongJ.VarnesJ. R. (2023). Emergency department patient‐centred care perspectives from deaf and hard-of-hearing patients. Health Expectations, 26(6), 2374–2386. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.13842
17.
JohnsonE.DeJonckheereM.OliverioA. L.BrownK. S.Van SparrentakM.WuJ. P. (2021). A theoretical model of contraceptive decision‐making and behaviour in diabetes: A qualitative application of the health belief model. Diabetic Medicine, 38(6), Article e14434. https://doi.org/10.1111/dme.14434
18.
KingN.BrooksJ. M. (2017). Template analysis for business and management students. Sage.
19.
KrippendorffK. (2018). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Sage.
20.
LoveH. R.CorrC. (2022). Integrating without quantitizing: Two examples of deductive analysis strategies within qualitatively driven mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 16(1), 64–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689821989833
21.
MaxwellJ. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Sage.
22.
MilesM. B.HubermanA. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Sage.
23.
NowellL. S.NorrisJ. M.WhiteD. E.MoulesN. J. (2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917733847
24.
OnwuegbuzieA. J.JohnsonR. B.CollinsK. M. (2011). Assessing legitimation in mixed research: A new framework. Quality and Quantity, 45(6), 1253–1271. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-009-9289-9
25.
PerezA.Howell SmithM. C.BabchukW. A.Lynch-O’BrienL. I. (2023). Advancing quality standards in mixed methods research: Extending the legitimation typology. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 17(1), 29–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/15586898221093872
26.
ProudfootK. (2023). Inductive/Deductive hybrid thematic analysis in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 17(3), 308–326. https://doi.org/10.1177/15586898221126
27.
SaldañaJ. (2015). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage.
28.
SekhonM.CartwrightM.FrancisJ. J. (2018). Acceptability of health care interventions: A theoretical framework and proposed research agenda. British Journal of Health Psychology, 23(3), 519–531. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjhp.12295
