Table 2. Summary of the policy documents included in the review.

	Topics in template					Background information
Country (jurisdiction)	Screening beneficiary	Definition of criteria	Condition assessment	Level of evidence required	Recommendation for screening	Year of publication or revision	Currently applied to NBS program	Program structure
Australia	1. Child 2. Family	On the basis of W&J, with specific amendments and additions relevant to DBS	Consensus-based processa	Rate evidenceb	Categoriesc	2008 [ref. 3] 2011 [ref. 48]	No	State-basedd
Canada (Ontario)	Child only	On the basis of W&J, with specific amendments and additions relevant to DBS	Consensus-based processa	HTA modele	Dichotomousf	2011 [ref. 61] 2015 [ref. 51]	No	State-basedd
Canada (Quebec)	1. Child 2. Family	On the basis of W&J, with specific amendments and additions relevant to DBS	Consensus-based processa	HTA modele	Categoriesc	2007 [ref. 53] 2008 [ref. 60]	No	State-basedd
Denmark	1. Child 2. Family	On the basis of W&J, summarized to six criteria relevant to DBS	Quantitative scoring matrix	HTA modele	Dichotomousf	2007 [ref. 57] 2012 [ref. 50]	Yes	National
Germany	Child only	On the basis of W&J, with specific amendments and additions relevant to DBS	Consensus-based processa	RCT levelg	Dichotomousf	2007 [ref. 54] 2011 [refs 55, 64] 2014 [ref. 63] 2015 [ref. 62]	Yes	State-basedd
Netherlands	1. Child 2. Family	On the basis of W&J, with specific amendments and additions relevant to DBS	Consensus-based processa	HTA modele	Categoriesc	2005 [ref. 56] 2008 [ref. 4] 2015 [ref. 52]	Yes	National
New Zealand	1. Child 2. Family	On the basis of W&J, with specific amendments and additions relevant to DBS	Consensus-based processa	Rate evidenceb	Categoriesc	2011 [ref. 49]	Yes	National
United Kingdom	Child only	On the basis of W&J, with specific amendments and additions relevant to DBS	Consensus-based processa	RCT levelg	Categoriesc	2015 [refs 58, 59]	Yes	National
United States of America	1. Child 2. Family	On the basis of W&J, with specific amendments and additions relevant to DBS	Quantitative scoring matrix	Rate evidenceb	Categoriesc	2006 [ref. 46] 2014 [ref. 41 ] 2015 [ref. 47]	Yes	State-basedd

This table provides an overview of the relevant countries’ policy documents, against the topic areas identified in the scientific review. It also provides relevant background information, relating to the policies and the programs’ structures.

^aReview of evidence against each criterion deliberated within an expert panel.

^bRate high to low, for example 1. systematic review/RCTs, 2. high quality case-control/cohort, 3. well conducted case-control, 4. case reports/expert opinion, 5. No evidence.

^cCategories ranging from recommended to not recommended, such as 1. suitable, 2. pilot study, 3. not suitable.

^dIncludes provincial programs.

^eHealth technology assessment taking different types of evidence into consideration, but no scoring method reported in reviewed policy documents.

^fEither for or against screening.

^gRCTs considered gold standard and other evidence generally as insufficient.