Table 2.
Rotavirus vaccine included in the national childhood vaccination program | NITAG established | National decision process on vaccine introduction |
|||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Formal framework exists | Has cost-effectiveness (CE) analysis been applied | Results CE analysis, Societal perspective | Conclusion CE assessment health sector perspective | Main drivers for/against introduction | |||
Denmark | + | + | Cost-effective when indirect costs included | Not cost-effective | Severity (mortality) criteria | ||
Finland | + | + | + | + | “Reasonably” cost-effective | Not cost-effective | High morbidity burden, safe vaccines |
Norway | + | + | + | + | Cost-effective when indirect costs included | Unlikely cost-effective | High morbidity burden |
Sweden | + | + | + | Cost-effective and cost-saving when indirect costs included | Cost-effective but not cost-saving | High morbidity burden |
NITAG, National Immunization Technical Advisory Groups.