How are you taking part in this consultation?

You will not be able to change how you comment later.

You must be signed in to answer questions

  • Question on Document

    Please indicate which stakeholder group listed most closely represents you:
    1. Industry (manufacturer of medicines, health technologies or equipment)
    2. Trade body / association
    3. Consultancy
    4. University / academic
    5. Government department
    6. Other public sector organisation
    7. Voluntary and community sector organisation
    8. Health or social care practitioner
    9. Member of the public
    10. Other (provide detail)

  • Question on Document

    Have we considered all the relevant evidence in preparation for adopting the EQ-5D-5L value set? Is our interpretation of the evidence appropriate?

  • Question on Document

    Are the changes to the NICE technology appraisal and highly specialised technologies guidance manual (PMG36) appropriate?

  • Question on Document

    Are the changes to the developing NICE guidelines manual (PMG20) appropriate?

  • Question on Document

    Is it clear when alternative methods for capturing health-related quality of life may be accepted, and what the preferred hierarchy is for selecting from the available alternatives?

  • Question on Document

    Beyond what is described in the equality and health inequality impact assessment, are there any aspects of the proposed changes that need particular consideration to ensure they do not result in unlawful discrimination against any group of people on the grounds of age, disability, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex or sexual orientation?

  • Question on Document

    If you have any further comments in relation to the proposed changes set out in this consultation, please include them here.

Modular update to NICE manuals EQ-5D-5L value set: Evidence review document

Open for comments Open until   Request commenting lead permission

We have updated this service so that members of the same organisation can now collaborate on a joint online response.

Read our blog to learn more.

9 Authors

Project leads

Sophie Cooper, Thomas Jarratt and Koonal Shah
Science, Evidence and Analytics

Project team

Jacoline Bouvy
Medicines Evaluation

Michelle Green
Medicines Evaluation

Juliet Kenny
Science, Evidence and Analytics

Ifigeneia Mavranezouli
Science, Evidence and Analytics

Lizzie Walker
Medicines Evaluation

Thomas Walker
HealthTech

RASCI assessment

Responsible

Sophie Cooper and Thomas Jarratt (Science, Evidence and Analytics)

Accountable

Nick Crabb and Koonal Shah (Science, Evidence and Analytics)

Supporting

Jacoline Bouvy (Medicines Evaluation), Michelle Green (Medicines Evaluation), Juliet Kenny (Science, Evidence and Analytics), Ifigeneia Mavranezouli (Science, Evidence and Analytics), Lizzie Walker (Medicines Evaluation) and Thomas Walker (HealthTech)

Consulted

Expert equalities group, guidance executive, methods leadership group, NICE board, people and communities involvement and engagement, publishing, Steven Barnes (Centre for Guidelines), Ivan Maslyankov (HealthTech), Bhash Naidoo (Science, Evidence and Analytics) and Ian Watson (Medicines Evaluation)

Informed

Clinical directorate; Communications; and Strategy, Policy and International