Systematized review: a content analysis of reflexivity reporting in pharmacy practice research

Abstract Objectives Reflexivity, the consideration of how researchers’ perspectives and interactions may influence a study, enhances transparency and trustworthiness in research, yet it is often briefly reported. This systematised review and content analysis evaluated how reflexivity is described and reported in qualitative pharmacy practice studies, using Walsh’s four-domain typology (personal, interpersonal, methodological, and contextual) as an analytic framework. Methods A systematised review of 11 open-access pharmacy practice journals was conducted. Qualitative studies were included if they reported reflexivity. Two reviewers independently screened 2379 articles; 97 met inclusion criteria. Data were extracted on reflexivity type, methods, and reflexivity within reporting checklists. A content analysis of included articles was undertaken to synthesise how reflexivity was applied and reported. Key findings Reflexivity was sufficiently described in 88 of 97 studies (87%). Most addressed only one reflexivity domain (n = 52). Personal reflexivity was most frequently reported (n = 67), while interpersonal (n = 27), methodological (n = 18), and contextual (n = 1) domains were less common. Reflexive strategies (e.g. diaries, bracketing) were mentioned in 18 studies but were often briefly described without application or impact. Although 86 studies were published after the introduction of COREQ/SRQR, only 34 included a checklist, and just 18 offered detailed reflexivity reporting. Conclusions Reflexivity reporting in qualitative pharmacy practice research remains inconsistent and under-reported. Reflexivity was commonly limited to descriptions of researchers’ roles and credentials, with minimal reflection on how their perspectives shaped the study. Stronger engagement across all reflexivity domains and more detailed use of reporting frameworks are needed to enhance transparency and trustworthiness.