International Trade and Health in Thailand: A Scoping Review
, Titaree Boontantrapiwat 2, Jeerapa Sosom 1, Mintar Hongtumrong 1, Anon Khunakorncharatphong 1, Churnrurtai Kanchanachitra 3 and Cha-aim Pachanee 1,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This is an interesting paper which aims to undertake a scoping review on the International trade and health in Thailand. However, despite the noted strengths, the study could benefit from an enhanced methodological rigor around the scoping review, and robust discussion and conclusions section.
Research methods: The justification for selecting the mentioned databases such as Web of Science and Scopus (amongst others) should be provided together with the rationale / justification for selecting the 'Scoping review' as opposed to other types of reviews (i.e. literature review, meta-analyses, critical review , mapping review/systematic map, scoping review, rapid review, State-of-the-art review). This is important as these serve different purposes with equally different associated methodologies. Furthermore, usage of the ‘Scoping review’ entails going beyond mere description of the preliminarily assessment of potential size and scope of available research literature’ to informing policymakers as to whether a full systematic review is needed. This bit appears not be addressed. Currently, whilst some aspects of the framework are included in the paper, the analysis associated with the scoping review should be strengthened to accommodate this aspect. Please see Grant and Booth (2009) for guidance.
Grant, M.J. & Booth, A. (2009), 'A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies', Health Information and Libraries Journal, vol. 26, pp.91–108
Conclusions- This section includes limitations of study but yet forgets to mention that these are due to the type of the review (critical) employed. For instance, Grant and Booth (2009) acknowledge that scoping reviews cannot usually be regarded as a final output in their own right, primarily because limitations in their rigor and limitations in their duration mean that they hold the potential for bias. In particular, they typically do not include a process of quality assessment. That being the case, why did the authors select such type of review and flag up such limitations when other types such “systematic literature review’ could have been employed?
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Point 1: Research methods: The justification for selecting the mentioned databases such as Web of Science and Scopus (amongst others) should be provided together with the rationale / justification for selecting the 'Scoping review' as opposed to other types of reviews (i.e. literature review, meta-analyses, critical review, mapping review/systematic map, scoping review, rapid review, State-of-the-art review). This is important as these serve different purposes with equally different associated methodologies. Furthermore, usage of the ‘Scoping review’ entails going beyond mere description of the preliminarily assessment of potential size and scope of available research literature’ to informing policymakers as to whether a full systematic review is needed. This bit appears not be addressed. Currently, whilst some aspects of the framework are included in the paper, the analysis associated with the scoping review should be strengthened to accommodate this aspect. Please see Grant and Booth (2009) for guidance.
Grant, M.J. & Booth, A. (2009), 'A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies', Health Information and Libraries Journal, vol. 26, pp.91–108
Response 1: We revised the method part in red. Additional information on using the scoping review is added in the discussion part.
Point 2: Conclusions- This section includes limitations of study but yet forgets to mention that these are due to the type of the review (critical) employed. For instance, Grant and Booth (2009) acknowledge that scoping reviews cannot usually be regarded as a final output in their own right, primarily because limitations in their rigor and limitations in their duration mean that they hold the potential for bias. In particular, they typically do not include a process of quality assessment. That being the case, why did the authors select such type of review and flag up such limitations when other types such “systematic literature review’ could have been employed?
Response 2: Revision in the conclusion is included in the text.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors
The review article aims to survey the scope and areas of studies concerning the connection between international trade and health in Thailand during 1991-2020. The scoping review has been conducted meticulously. I have the following remarks for the refinement of the paper.
Abstract: Start by shortly highlighting the complicacy of the trade-health relation and the need of research on the issue. Then, shortly describe what has been aimed, done and found in the article.
Introduction: For a start, it might be useful to write something about the health (and other) problems in developing countries caused by openness of trade. Then, it would be more justifiable to take Thailand as an exemplary case with illustration (possibly by data) of the development of international trade and public health in Thailand. You should also emphasize the ambiguity of the correlation, since the review "supports the idea that international trade is associated with both positive and negative effects on health either directly and indirectly" (rows 252-253). A brief summary of the main findings should be included, as well as a description of the structure of the paper.
Methods: Fine.
Results: The Medical Hub Policy pops out in Table 1 and in the text below. It deserves more attention - please devote a paragraph or two for its presentation and connection medical tourism (that is exports). Moreover, it should be made clearer how the MHP connects to brain drain, institutional concentration to cities, and FDI's in private health care (and why FDI's affect negatively in this case). Make also sure that all acronyms are opened and avoid too excessive use of them.
Discussion: Fine.
Conclusion: Fine.
Supplementary Materials: Check the specification of item 28.
Overall: Polish of English is needed.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Point 1: Abstract: Start by shortly highlighting the complicacy of the trade-health relation and the need of research on the issue. Then, shortly describe what has been aimed, done and found in the article.
Response 1: Abstract has been revised and included in the draft manuscript
Point 2: Introduction: For a start, it might be useful to write something about the health (and other) problems in developing countries caused by openness of trade. Then, it would be more justifiable to take Thailand as an exemplary case with illustration (possibly by data) of the development of international trade and public health in Thailand. You should also emphasize the ambiguity of the correlation, since the review "supports the idea that international trade is associated with both positive and negative effects on health either directly and indirectly" (rows 252-253). A brief summary of the main findings should be included, as well as a description of the structure of the paper.
Response 2: The revision appears in track change in the manuscript. The Authors however did not include the description of the structure of the paper in the introduction part as we believe that the introduction is completed with information on what the paper is about.
Point 3: Results: The Medical Hub Policy pops out in Table 1 and in the text below. It deserves more attention - please devote a paragraph or two for its presentation and connection medical tourism (that is exports). Moreover, it should be made clearer how the MHP connects to brain drain, institutional concentration to cities, and FDI's in private health care (and why FDI's affect negatively in this case). Make also sure that all acronyms are opened and avoid too excessive use of them.
Response 3: We thank for your comment on this issue. We made revision in the text. However, as this section summarises the findings from the scoping review, it cannot provide all information requested due to the findings of the studies found in the review.
Point 4: Supplementary Materials: Check the specification of item 28.
Response 4: Document reference item 28 has been edited.
Point 5: Overall: Polish of English is needed.
Response 5: We use the language service https://www.mdpi.com/authors/english as suggested by the Journal
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
As indicated in the first round of reviews, this is an interesting paper which aims to undertake a scoping review on the International trade and health in Thailand. The authors have done an excellent job at addressing the reviewer’s comments. It’s also pleasing to note that the reference to Grant & Booth (2009) study as recommended has been used the foundation to anchor their responses.
