Quality of Life Research

, Volume 21, Issue 6, pp 1005–1012

Comparison of hypothetical and experienced EQ-5D valuations: relative weights of the five dimensions

  • Kim Rand-Hendriksen
  • Liv Ariane Augestad
  • Ivar Sønbø Kristiansen
  • Knut Stavem

DOI: 10.1007/s11136-011-0016-3

Cite this article as:
Rand-Hendriksen, K., Augestad, L.A., Kristiansen, I.S. et al. Qual Life Res (2012) 21: 1005. doi:10.1007/s11136-011-0016-3



EQ-5D tariffs are typically based on general population valuations studies, but whether valuations of experienced health (EH) or hypothetical health (HH) are more appropriate is disputed. Previous comparisons of valuations of EH and HH have focused on absolute differences in dimension-specific regression coefficients. We examined differences in the relative importance attributed to the EQ-5D dimensions between EH and HH valuations of EQ-5D states in the United States.


We used the regression model from the US EQ-5D valuation study on EH ratings from the 2000–2003 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey and on HH ratings from the US EQ-5D valuation study conducted in 2001. We then compared patterns in the relative magnitudes of coefficients that corresponded to the five dimensions.


In the HH model, self-care and pain/discomfort were the most important dimensions, while usual activities were the least important. In the EH model, usual activities were the most important dimension, while self-care was one of the least important.


The findings reveal considerable differences between stated preferences for HH and ratings of EH, particularly for self-care and usual activities. The findings accentuate the importance of the debate about which groups’ values should be used in medical priority setting.


EQ-5D QALY Experienced health Hypothetical health Health state valuation Valuation Tariff 

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kim Rand-Hendriksen
    • 1
  • Liv Ariane Augestad
    • 1
  • Ivar Sønbø Kristiansen
    • 2
    • 3
  • Knut Stavem
    • 1
    • 4
    • 5
  1. 1.Health Services Research CentreAkershus University HospitalNordbyhagenNorway
  2. 2.Institute of Health Management and Health Economics, Faculty of MedicineUniversity of OsloBlindernNorway
  3. 3.Institute of Public Health, The Research Unit of General PracticeUniversity of Southern DenmarkOdenseDenmark
  4. 4.Department of Pulmonary Medicine, Medical DivisionAkershus University HospitalLørenskogNorway
  5. 5.Faculty of MedicineUniversity of OsloOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations