The information collected in this review revealed many differences between countries’ NITAGs. Although they have the same purpose, the methods of functioning, membership, decision making processes, and the transparency of the processes vary among groups. The reported modes of functioning of each NITAG are consistent with their purpose but vary according to the context each country. Of note is that there were no reports of a country that had an NITAG and subsequently dissolved it. Countries wishing to form a NITAG should consider their specific needs and resources and may want to use models developed in other countries
to ensure credibility, transparency, accountability, stability, and independence. No data on process or outcome evaluation of immunization policy making were available in the learn more literature reviewed. This is an important gap in the literature and such an assessment may need AZD2281 research buy to be done in order to convince
some governments of the credibility and usefulness of these groups. This review is a concise presentation of the information retrieved from public sources on immunization policy development processes around the world. Given the effect of vaccines on population health and the vast sums of money needed and spent on vaccines, more attention on the immunization policy development processes is needed in order to document best practices which may benefit all countries. In itself, the scarcity of information raises the question of policy effectiveness and reinforces the need for increased publication to remedy the information gap on immunization policy making processes across the Dichloromethane dehalogenase globe. The authors state that they have no conflict of interest. We would like to thank Dr. Noni MacDonald for her edits. We would also like to thank Connie Barrowclough for her help developing the search strategy. Financial support was provided by the Bill and Melinda Gates
Foundation. Funding: Funding was provided by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. “
“Immunization Technical Advisory Groups (ITAGs) are expert advisory committees that provide recommendations to guide a country’s national immunization programs and policies [1]. They consist of independent experts with the technical capacity to evaluate new and existing immunization interventions. The premise of these groups is to facilitate a systematic, transparent process for developing immunization policies by making evidence-based technical recommendations to the national government [1]. Their role is primarily technical and advisory and is intended to bring increased scientific rigour and credibility to the complex process of making immunization policies, free of political or personal interests. Many countries have national ITAGs; however, published information on the form and function of these groups is limited.