Abstract

This issue of Value in Health presents 2 papers with alternative views concerning the UK valuation study of the 5-level EuroQol 5-dimensional questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L). Recent guidance from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence has recommended that the current value set be replaced and that the 3-level EuroQol 5-dimensional questionnaire is the preferred instrument until this happens. If studies have collected the EQ-5D-5L, then a mapping should be used, in particular that of Van Hout et al.¹

The EQ-5D-5L valuation study was published in Health Economics in 2018² and has been widely cited in health economic evaluation, related studies conducted in other countries, and methodological work in the health state valuation field. A report conducted by a team at the Policy Research Unit in Economic Methods of Evaluation in Health and Social Care Interventions (EEPRU) raised a series of important issues with the conduct and interpretation of the original valuation study.³ The paper by Hernández-Alava et al in this issue distills the findings from the EEPRU research report. Then, the EQ-5D-5L valuation study team respond to the concerns raised by the EEPRU team. Many of the issues raised in the EEPRU report have been discussed extensively in recent years. We hope that publishing a condensed form of both the concerns raised in the EEPRU report and the response from the EQ-5D-5L valuation study team will elucidate and promote further engagement with issues of major relevance in this particular case. We also believe that public deliberation informed by the scientific literature provides a means of informing future work in the area using not only the EQ-5D-5L but also other instruments developing a valuation algorithm.