Despite the persistent dominance of a 'scientific psychology' paradigm in health psychology, the use of qualitative research continues to grow. Qualitative approaches are often based on fundamentally different values from (post)positivistempiricism, raising important considerations for quality, and whether qualitative work adheres to, and is judged by, appropriate publication standards. Thematic analysis (TA) has become a particularly popular method in qualitative health psychology, but poor practice is widespread. To support high quality, methodologically coherent TA practice and reporting, we critically reviewed 100 systematically selected papers reporting TA, published in five prominent health psychology journals. Our review assessed reported practice, and considered this in relation to methodological and quality recommendations. We identified 10 common areas of problematic practice in the reviewed papers, the majority citing reflexive TA. Considering the role of three 'arbiters of quality' in a peer review publication system - authors, reviewers, and editors - we developed 20 recommendations for authors, to support them in conducting and reporting high quality TA research, with associated questions for reviewers and editors to consider when evaluating TA manuscripts for publication. We end with considerations for facilitating better qualitative research, and enriching the understandings and knowledge base from which health psychology is practiced.
Keywords: coding; qualitative research; quality criteria; reflexivity; reporting standards; theme.