It is unknown why these publications were not obtained through the search strategy. The websites of five of the countries provided information on national immunization policy development: Australia [33], Canada [34], New Zealand [35], the United Kingdom (UK) [36], and the United States of America (USA) [37]. Therefore, this review is based

on the content of 29 publications and 5 websites. The 29 publications and 5 websites from which information was abstracted contained information to varying degrees on immunization policy decision making processes in 33 of the 193 WHO member states: Argentina [19], Australia [10], [13], [23] and [33], Austria [20] and [32], Belgium [20], Brazil [5], Bulgaria [20], Cambodia [8], Canada [10], [14], [31], [34] and [38], China [27], Denmark [15] and [20], Finland [20], France [17], [20] and [32], see more Germany [20] and [32], Greece [20], Iceland [20], Ireland [17] and [32], Italy [20] and [32], Luxembourg [20], Mali [9], New Zealand [6], [30] and [35], Norway [12] and [20], Papua New Guinea [28], Poland [20], Portugal [10] and [20], Slovakia [20], Slovenia [20], Spain [17], [20] and [32], Sweden [17], [20] and [32], Switzerland [10], [17] and [32], Thailand [7], The Netherlands [10], [11], [14],

[20] and [32], the UK [17], [20], [24], [26], [32] and [36], and learn more the USA [16], [18], [21], already [22], [25], [26], [29] and [37]. The most detailed information was found in publications concerning immunization policy making processes in the UK [24] and the USA [25] as well as on the websites of Australia [33], Canada [34], the UK [36], and the USA [37]. Two publications focused primarily on the process of immunization policy making within a country (the UK and the USA) and discussed a NITAG in detail [24] and [25]. Fourteen of the publications mentioned NITAGs in the context of discussing a specific issue such as a specific vaccine but did not offer much information on the NITAG [5], [6], [10], [13], [14], [18], [19], [21], [22], [23], [26], [29], [30] and [31]. The five websites provided extensive

information on the NITAGs in Australia [33], Canada [34], New Zealand [35], the UK [36], and the USA [37]. All authors stated affiliations which were consistent with vaccine policy stakeholders. These included members of the Ministry of Health or local universities and often both. Only two of the publications in this review were sponsored by pharmaceutical companies [6] and [12]. A publication from New Zealand was a collaboration between the national government, Chiron Vaccines, and the University of Auckland but provided only the fact that a NITAG exists [6]. A study from Norway was sponsored by Wyeth Lederle [12], but focused on a cost effectiveness analysis of the 7-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine.