Abstract

Objectives

To respond to the ‘quality assurance’ of the EQ-5D-5L value set for England study.

Methods

We provide a point-by-point response to the issues raised by the authors of the quality assurance paper, drawing on theoretical arguments, empirical analyses and practical considerations.

Results

We provide evidence to show that many of the points made by the authors of the quality assurance are misleading, suggest misunderstandings, or are irrelevant.

Conclusions

The modeling approaches which were used appropriately address the characteristics of the data and provide a reasonable representation of the average stated preferences of general public in England. We provide reflections on the conduct of stated preference studies, and suggestions for the way forward.