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.

10 References

Biz AN, Hernández Alava M, Wailoo A (2026) Switching from EQ-5D-3L to EQ-5D-5L in England: the impact in NICE technology appraisals. Value in Health (forthcoming)

Buchholz I, Janssen MF, Kohlmann T et al. (2018) A systematic review of studies comparing the measurement properties of the three-level and five-level versions of the EQ-5D. Pharmacoeconomics 36(6): 645–61

Devlin N, Brooks R (2017) EQ-5D and the EuroQol group: past, present and future. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy 15(2): 127–37

Devlin N, Shah K, Feng Y et al. (2018a) Valuing health-related quality of life: an EQ-5D-5L value set for England. Health Economics 27(1): 7–22

Devlin N, Brazier J, Pickard AS et al. (2018b) 3L, 5L, What the L? A NICE conundrum. Pharmacoeconomics 36: 637–40

Dolan P (1997) Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Medical Care 35(11): 1095–108

EQ-5D-5L valuation study governance arrangements [online, PDF only; accessed 2 April 2026]

Hernández Alava M, Wailoo A, Pudney S (2017) Methods for mapping between the EQ-5D-5L and the 3L for technology appraisal. NICE DSU report [online, PDF only; accessed 2 April 2026]

Hernández Alava M, Pudney S, Wailoo A (2020) The EQ-5D-5L value set for England: findings of a quality assurance program. Value in Health 23(5): 642–8

Hernández Alava M, Pudney S, Wailoo A (2023) Estimating the relationship between EQ-5D-5L and EQ-5D-3L: results from a UK population study. Pharmacoeconomics 41(2): 199–207

Kanters TA, van Hezik-Wester V, Boateng A et al. (2024) Including carer health-related quality of life in NICE health technology assessments in the United Kingdom. Health Economics, Policy and Law 8: 1–13 [published online ahead of print] doi: 10.1017/S1744133124000124

Liao W, Yang Z, Luo N et al. (2026) Is there a shelf life for EQ‑5D value sets? Evidence of evolving societal preferences from Asia. Value in Health (forthcoming)

Norman R, Roudijk B, Jonker M et al. (2025) A taxonomy for assessing whether HRQoL value sets are obsolete. Pharmacoeconomics 43: 473–81

Oppe M, Devlin NJ, van Hout B et al. (2014) A program of methodological research to arrive at the new international EQ-5D-5L valuation protocol. Value in Health 17(4): 445–53

Ramos-Goñi JM, Oppe M, Slaap B et al. (2017) Quality control process for EQ-5D-5L valuation studies. Value in Health 20(3): 466–73

Roudijk B, Jonker M (2026) Revisiting health state preferences after 20 years: A new EQ‑5D‑3L value set for the Netherlands. European Journal of Health Economics (forthcoming)

Rowen D, Brazier J, Wong R et al. (2020) Measuring and valuing health-related quality of life when sufficient EQ-5D data is not available. NICE DSU Report [Online, PDF only; accessed 2 April 2026]

Rowen D, Mukuria C, McDool E (2022) A systematic review of the methodologies and modelling approaches used to generate international EQ-5D-5L value sets. Pharmacoeconomics 40(9): 863–82

Rowen D, Mukuria C, Bray N et al. (2023) UK valuation of EQ-5D-5L, a generic measure of health-related quality of life: a study protocol. Value in Health 26(11): 1625–35

Rowen D, MukuriaC, BrayN et al. (2026) A UK value set for the EQ-5D-5L. Value in Health (forthcoming)

Wailoo A, Hernández Alava M, Pudney S (2023) NICE DSU Technical Support Document 22: Mapping to estimate health state utilities(updated March 2026) [online; accessed 2 April 2026]

Wailoo A (2024) NICE DSU Technical Support Document 23: A guide to calculating severity shortfall for NICE evaluations (updated March 2026) [online; accessed 2 April 2026]

Wailoo A, Biz AN, Hernández Alava M (2026) What is the impact of EQ-5D-5L vs 3L on NICE severity weights? NICE DSU report [online; accessed 2 April 2026]