Table 1.

Content of questionnaire addressing rotavirus vaccine decision-taking process in Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Denmark.

Category	Topics	Specified items
(1) Rotavirus epidemiology and disease burden	Annual rotavirus-associated hospitalizations and deaths Is rotavirus notifiable Is a surveillance system capturing rotavirus disease in place (national/regional level)
(2) General vaccine related	Procedure for introducing new vaccines into the national program	Constellation of a national vaccine advising committee and/or relevant national authorities
(3) Rotavirus vaccine specific	When and how did rotavirus vaccines enter the health policy agenda in the country Which evidence was sought to support the policy process Was new evidence produced (e.g., disease burden study, economic evaluation, HTA) prior to the decision Which policy options were under consideration and the expected outcomes	(a)to introduce rotavirus vaccine in NIP free of charge, (b)to introduce the vaccine with payment/co-payment by recipients, (c)not to introduce in the general program but recommend/encourage parents to get their children vaccinated, (d)not to introduce in the general program and not recommend its use
(4) Society and acceptance	The public understanding and acceptance of the policy-making process and of the final decision

The questionnaire consisted mainly of open-ended questions (without ranking), divided into four categories addressing the following elements: (1) National estimates of rotavirus disease burden (specifically hospitalizations and deaths) and surveillance system in place for rotavirus infections, (2) general vaccine-related questions, including the procedure for introducing new vaccines into the national program including the potential constellation of a national vaccine advising committee and/or relevant national authorities, and (3) rotavirus vaccine-specific questions about when and how rotavirus vaccines have entered the health policy agenda in the country, which evidence was sought to support the policy process, if new evidence was produced [e.g., disease burden study, economic evaluation, health technology assessment (HTA)] prior to the decision, and which policy options were under consideration and the expected outcomes: (a) to introduce rotavirus vaccine in national immunization program (NIP) free of charge, (b) to introduce the vaccine with payment/co-payment by recipients, (c) not to introduce in the general program but recommend/encourage parents to get their children vaccinated, (d) not to introduce in the general program, and not recommend its use. Which criteria were employed to decide on the desirability of each outcome, how economic analyses have been incorporated, whether a health sector or a broader perspective was used, description of ethical concerns addressed in the policy process, brief discussion of main issues raised and main discussion points, and (4) how the public understanding and acceptance of the policy-making process and of the decision taken has been.