Once Bitten Twice Shy: Thinking Carefully Before Adopting the EQ-5D-5L
The Euro-Qol group introduced the EQ-5D-5L descriptive system in 2009 , with the first publication describing the tool appearing in 2011 . This revised version of the EQ-5D instrument introduced five response levels, alongside changes to the wording used to describe responses in the mobility domain. The five-level version of the EQ-5D descriptive system was developed in response to perceived failings of the three response-level EQ-5D-3L, notably in its sensitivity to changes in health , but also ceiling effects  and an ‘uneven’ distribution of responses as measured by the valuation tariff .
The first UK valuation study of the 5L descriptive system was formally available in 2017 . As Brazier, Bryan and Briggs recently summarize , the 5L version of the instrument has been found to reduce ceiling effects and exhibits a more even distribution of responses. Hernandez et al.  have shown that as a consequence of the changes to the tool and the new...
The author would like to thank the Univeristy of Bristol Health Economics Journal Club for the discussion that informed this commentary. All errors or omissions are the author’s own.
No specific funding was received for the preparation of this work.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflicts of interest
The author has no conflicts of interest to declare.
- 1.EuroQol Research Foundation. EQ-5D-5L | About. https://euroqol.org/eq-5d-instruments/eq-5d-5l-about/. Accessed 13 Feb 2018.
- 7.National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Position statement on use of the EQ-5D-5L valuation set. London: NICE; 2017.Google Scholar
- 8.National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. 2013. https://www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg9/chapter/foreword. Accessed 13 Feb 2018.
- 12.Dickerson JF, et al. Evidence on the longitudinal construct validity of major generic and utility measures of health-related quality of life in teens with depression. Qual Life Res. 2017.Google Scholar
- 14.Brazier J, et al. A systematic review, psychometric analysis and qualitative assessment of generic preference-based measures of health in mental health populations and the estimation of mapping functions from widely used specific measures. Health Technol Assess. 2014;18(34):vii–viii, xiii–xxv, 1–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 18.Brazier JE, et al. First validation of the short recovering quality of life (ReQoL) measure. Qual Life Res. 2016;25:96.Google Scholar
- 21.Jurkovic D. Organisation of Early Pregnancy Units and its effects on quality of care. 2015 13th February, 2018. https://ukctg.nihr.ac.uk/trials/trial-details/trial-details?trialNumber=ISRCTN10728897. Accessed 13 Feb 2018.
- 22.National Institute for Clinical Excellence, Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal. 2004. National Institute for Clinical Excellence.Google Scholar
- 23.National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. 2008.Google Scholar
- 25.Dolan P, Layard R, Metcalfe R. Measuring Subjective Wellbeing for Public Policy: Recommendations on Measures. 2011.Google Scholar