Since 1985, the international healthcare community has recommended the ideal rate of caesarean section (CS) to be 10%–15% at the national level. The literature has reported that overused CS without necessary medical indications can be harmful to both maternal and child health. To generate evidence to support policy on CS, this study evaluated the trend over time of CS in Thailand during January 2016 to October 2021 (which included the COVID-19 pandemic period) and explored predictors of CS use.

This study was a retrospective secondary data analysis of de-identified hospitalisation data under the Universal Coverage Scheme (UCS) from the National Health Security Office’s e-Claims database. Descriptive analyses were conducted to explore the number and rate of CS over time and across different characteristics (ie, age, hospital type, COVID-19 status and delivery day) including a multivariable logistic analysis to explore predictors of CS. Interrupted time series analysis was adopted to investigate the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on CS rate.

569 321 CS cases under UCS from 2016 to 2021.

The results showed an increasing trend of CS rate, from 30% in January 2016 to 35% in October 2021. Both clinical (eg, medical indication and age) and non-clinical (eg, region and day of delivery) factors were significantly associated with CS. Furthermore, the COVID-19 pandemic had no significant effect on CS rate (level: –0.0016, 95% CI –0.0085 to 0.0053, p=0.66).

This study highlighted an increasing trend of CS in Thailand and could present supportive evidence that Thailand might have been facing an overuse of CS. More awareness and actions are warranted to ensure the movement towards reduction of unnecessary CS in Thailand.

Scoping reviews, mapping reviews and evidence and gap maps (collectively known as ‘big picture reviews’) in health continue to gain popularity within the evidence ecosystem. These big-picture reviews are beneficial for policy-makers, guideline developers and researchers within the field of health for understanding the available evidence, characteristics, concepts and research gaps, which are often needed to support the development of policies, guidelines and practice. However, these reviews often face criticism related to poor and inconsistent methodological conduct and reporting. There is a need to understand which areas of these reviews require further methodological clarification and exploration. The aim of this project is to develop a research agenda for scoping reviews, mapping reviews and evidence and gap maps in health by identifying and prioritising specific research questions related to methodological uncertainties.

A modified e-Delphi process will be adopted. Participants (anticipated N=100) will include patients, clinicians, the public, researchers and others invested in creating a strategic research agenda for these reviews. This Delphi will be completed in four consecutive stages, including a survey collecting the methodological uncertainties for each of the big picture reviews, the development of research questions based on that survey and two further surveys and four workshops to prioritise the research questions.

This study was approved by the University of Adelaide Human Research Ethics Committee (H-2024-188). The results will be communicated through open-access peer-reviewed publications and conferences. Videos and infographics will be developed and placed on the JBI (previously Joanna Briggs Institute) Scoping Review Network webpage.