Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2018 Jan;27(1):7-22.
doi: 10.1002/hec.3564. Epub 2017 Aug 22.

Valuing health-related quality of life: An EQ-5D-5L value set for England

Nancy J Devlin  1   2 , Koonal K Shah  1 , Yan Feng  1 , Brendan Mulhern  2   3 , Ben van Hout  2
Affiliations

Valuing health-related quality of life: An EQ-5D-5L value set for England

Nancy J Devlin et al. Health Econ. 2018 Jan.

Abstract

A new version of the EQ-5D, the EQ-5D-5L, is available. The aim of this study is to produce a value set to support use of EQ-5D-5L data in decision-making. The study design followed an international research protocol. Randomly selected members of the English general public completed 10 time trade-off and 7 discrete choice experiment tasks in face-to-face interviews. A 20-parameter hybrid model was used to combine time trade-off and discrete choice experiment data to generate values for the 3,125 EQ-5D-5L health states. Valuation data are available for 996 respondents. Face validity of the data has been demonstrated, with more severe health states generally given lower values. Problems with pain/discomfort and anxiety/depression received the greatest weight. Compared to the existing EQ-5D-3L value set, there are considerably fewer "worse than dead" states (5.1%, compared with over one third), and the minimum value is higher. Values range from -0.285 (extreme problems on all dimensions) to 0.950 (for health states 11211 and 21111). Results have important implications for users of the EQ-5D-5L both in England and internationally. Quality-adjusted life year gains from interventions seeking to improve very poor health may be smaller using this value set and may previously have been overestimated.

Keywords: EQ-5D-5L; NICE; PROMs; quality of life; stated preferences.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

NJD, KKS and YF are employees of the Office of Health Economics, a registered charity which received funding from a variety of sources, including the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry. All authors are members of the EuroQol Group.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
The EQ‐5D‐5L descriptive system
Figure 2
Figure 2
(a) Example of time trade‐off valuation of health states better than dead (i.e., values ≥ 0). (b) Example of time trade‐off valuation of health states worse than dead (i.e., values ≤ 0) [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
Figure 3
Figure 3
Example discrete choice experiment task [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
Figure 4
Figure 4
Distribution of observed time trade‐off values [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
Figure 5
Figure 5
Frequency of values in the EQ‐5D (left) and EQ‐5D‐5L (right) value sets [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Augustovski, F. , Rey‐Ares, L. , Irazola, V. , Garay, O. U. , Gianneo, O. , Fernández, G. , … Ramos‐Goñi, J. M. (2016). An EQ‐5D‐5L value set based on Uruguayan population preferences. Quality of Life Research, 25, 323–333. - PubMed
    1. Bansback, N. , Brazier, J. , Tsuchiya, A. , & Anis, A. (2012). Using a discrete choice experiment to estimate health state utility values. Journal of Health Economics, 31, 306–318. - PubMed
    1. Brazier, J. , Ratcliffe, J. , Salomon, J. A. , & Tsuchiya, A. (2017). Measuring and valuing health benefits for economic evaluation. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
    1. Brazier, J. , Roberts, J. , & Deverill, M. (2002). The estimation of a preference‐based measure of health from the SF‐36. Journal of Health Economics, 21, 271–292. - PubMed
    1. CADTH [Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health] (2006). Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies: Canada [3rd edition]. Ottawa: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health.

Publication types