Signature
U = 1 - (0.058 * (min(l_MO - 1, 1) - min(max(l_MO - 2, 0), 1)) + 0.076 * (min(max(l_MO - 2, 0), 1) - min(max(l_MO - 3, 0), 1)) + 0.207 * (min(max(l_MO - 3, 0), 1) - max(l_MO - 4, 0)) + 0.274 * max(l_MO - 4, 0)) - (0.050 * (min(l_SC - 1, 1) - min(max(l_SC - 2, 0), 1)) + 0.080 * (min(max(l_SC - 2, 0), 1) - min(max(l_SC - 3, 0), 1)) + 0.164 * (min(max(l_SC - 3, 0), 1) - max(l_SC - 4, 0)) + 0.203 * max(l_SC - 4, 0)) - (0.050 * (min(l_UA - 1, 1) - min(max(l_UA - 2, 0), 1)) + 0.063 * (min(max(l_UA - 2, 0), 1) - min(max(l_UA - 3, 0), 1)) + 0.162 * (min(max(l_UA - 3, 0), 1) - max(l_UA - 4, 0)) + 0.184 * max(l_UA - 4, 0)) - (0.063 * (min(l_PD - 1, 1) - min(max(l_PD - 2, 0), 1)) + 0.084 * (min(max(l_PD - 2, 0), 1) - min(max(l_PD - 3, 0), 1)) + 0.276 * (min(max(l_PD - 3, 0), 1) - max(l_PD - 4, 0)) + 0.335 * max(l_PD - 4, 0)) - (0.078 * (min(l_AD - 1, 1) - min(max(l_AD - 2, 0), 1)) + 0.104 * (min(max(l_AD - 2, 0), 1) - min(max(l_AD - 3, 0), 1)) + 0.285 * (min(max(l_AD - 3, 0), 1) - max(l_AD - 4, 0)) + 0.289 * max(l_AD - 4, 0))
| Inputs | Definition | Unit |
|---|---|---|
l_MO | Reported mobility level, 1 no problems, 2 slight, 3 moderate, 4 severe, 5 unable | level, whole number 1 to 5 |
l_SC | Reported self-care level, 1 no problems, 2 slight, 3 moderate, 4 severe, 5 unable | level, whole number 1 to 5 |
l_UA | Reported usual activities level, 1 no problems, 2 slight, 3 moderate, 4 severe, 5 unable | level, whole number 1 to 5 |
l_PD | Reported pain or discomfort level, 1 none, 2 slight, 3 moderate, 4 severe, 5 extreme | level, whole number 1 to 5 |
l_AD | Reported anxiety or depression level, 1 none, 2 slight, 3 moderate, 4 severe, 5 extreme | level, whole number 1 to 5 |
U | Utility of the state under the England value set, reported to three decimals, with full health at 1 and dead at 0 | utility, no unit |
|---|
Function
EQ-5D-5L value set scoring function
Maps an EQ-5D-5L profile, the level 1 to 5 reported on each of mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain or discomfort and anxiety or depression, to a single utility under the coefficients of a chosen five-level value set. The five-level instrument describes 3,125 states, and a main-effects value set gives each dimension its own decrement at each of levels 2 to 5, 20 decrements in all, plus a constant where the set reports one. Once the decrement for the reported level of each dimension has been looked up (HE-FM-EQ5L-001), the profile score is the main-effects form of HE-FM-EQ3L-001 with the N3 decrement set to zero, and the three-level tariff itself is HE-FM-EQ3L-002; the 15D counterpart is HE-FM-15D-001. The utilities it returns weight time in QALYs (HE-FM-QALY-001), and a QALY difference between two scored states is HE-FM-EQ3L-003, which applies only when both states are scored with the same set. Scoring one profile under the value sets of two countries belongs to the Country-Specific Value Set page. Notation follows the EQ-5D-5L Value Set article.
Try this function
Implementations
Excel
England EQ-5D-5L value set from five named level cells with CHOOSE
With the five levels in cells named LevelMob, LevelSelf, LevelUsual, LevelPain and LevelAnx, each CHOOSE picks the England decrement for the level reported, 0 for level 1. The result goes in a cell named EnglandUtility, and rounding it to 3 decimals with ROUND matches the published values.
=1-CHOOSE(LevelMob,0,0.058,0.076,0.207,0.274)-CHOOSE(LevelSelf,0,0.050,0.080,0.164,0.203)-CHOOSE(LevelUsual,0,0.050,0.063,0.162,0.184)-CHOOSE(LevelPain,0,0.063,0.084,0.276,0.335)-CHOOSE(LevelAnx,0,0.078,0.104,0.285,0.289)
Assumptions
England EQ-5D-5L coefficients as printed in Table 2 of Devlin and colleagues
The decrements are the central estimates in Table 2, the mean coefficients of Bayesian regressions of a hybrid model of time trade-off and discrete choice data with three latent groups, reported after the latent class adjustment. Mobility 0.058, 0.076, 0.207 and 0.274, self-care 0.050, 0.080, 0.164 and 0.203, usual activities 0.050, 0.063, 0.162 and 0.184, pain or discomfort 0.063, 0.084, 0.276 and 0.335 and anxiety or depression 0.078, 0.104, 0.285 and 0.289, for levels 2 to 5. The table's constant row is 1.000, the value from which the decrements are subtracted.
Whole-number levels in the order of the EQ-5D-5L profile for the England set
The levels are entered as whole numbers 1 to 5 in the profile order mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain or discomfort and anxiety or depression, so state 23245 has slight mobility problems and extreme anxiety or depression. The min and max indicators are exact only for those values.
England EQ-5D-5L set outside the NICE reference case
Section 4.3.16 of PMG36 still states that NICE does not recommend the Devlin value set and asks for five-level responses to be mapped onto the three-level value set in reference-case analyses. NICE's interim methods statement PMG51 of 27 August 2026, which the manual's notice says takes precedence until the manual is updated, makes the EQ-5D-5L and the UK value set of Rowen and colleagues 2026 NICE's preferred approach for adults and says that its position statement on the England set no longer applies. The UK coefficients are not formalised here, so this formula serves studies that report the England set and not a NICE reference case.
Values for the England EQ-5D-5L set mostly predicted by the model
Every value comes from the fitted model, including the 86 states that respondents valued by time trade-off, about 2.8% of the 3,125 (HE-FM-EQ5L-003). The quality assurance by Hernández Alava and colleagues 2020 reported significant limitations in the valuation data and the statistical analysis behind the set, which the authors of the set disputed in a reply (van Hout and colleagues 2020), so results scored with it are best reported with the set named.
Worked examples
England EQ-5D-5L value of full health 11111
With every level at 1 no indicator is set and no decrement applies, so the England set gives 1, the limiting case at the top of the scale.
l_MO = 1; l_SC = 1; l_UA = 1; l_PD = 1; l_AD = 1; U = 1
England EQ-5D-5L value of state 23245 as worked in Table 2
The table's own example subtracts the mobility slight decrement 0.058, the self-care moderate decrement 0.080, the usual activities slight decrement 0.050, the pain or discomfort severe decrement 0.276 and the anxiety or depression extreme decrement 0.289 from 1, giving 0.247.
l_MO = 2; l_SC = 3; l_UA = 2; l_PD = 4; l_AD = 5; U = 0.247
England EQ-5D-5L value of the mild state 21111
Slight problems in walking about and nothing else cost the mobility level 2 decrement 0.058, giving 0.942, the value listed for 21111 in Table 3 of Devlin and colleagues.
l_MO = 2; l_SC = 1; l_UA = 1; l_PD = 1; l_AD = 1; U = 0.942
England EQ-5D-5L value of the mild state 12111
Slight problems washing or dressing alone cost the self-care level 2 decrement 0.050, giving 0.950, the highest value below full health, which state 11211 shares.
l_MO = 1; l_SC = 2; l_UA = 1; l_PD = 1; l_AD = 1; U = 0.950
England EQ-5D-5L value of the worst state 55555
Level 5 on every dimension costs 0.274, 0.203, 0.184, 0.335 and 0.289, 1.285 in all, giving minus 0.285, the minimum of the England set and a state valued as worse than dead.
l_MO = 5; l_SC = 5; l_UA = 5; l_PD = 5; l_AD = 5; U = -0.285
Common errors
Taking 0.950 as the England EQ-5D-5L value of state 21111
The abstract of Devlin and colleagues gives 0.950 for states 11211 and 21111, but Table 3 of the same paper lists 0.942 for 21111, which follows from the Table 2 decrement of 0.058 for slight mobility problems, and 0.950 for 11211 and 12111. Using 0.950 for 21111 overstates it by 0.008, and the other single slight-problem states are lower still, 0.937 for 11121 and 0.922 for 11112.
Treating crosswalk values as the England EQ-5D-5L value set
The crosswalk of van Hout and colleagues 2012 maps five-level responses onto three-level values and is not a value set elicited for five-level states. Table 3 of Devlin and colleagues shows it giving 0.877 for 21111 against 0.942 in the England set, and 833 of the 3,125 states, 26.7%, below zero against 159, 5.1%, so mixing the two within one analysis changes utilities by far more than rounding.
Reading an EQ-5D-5L profile in reverse dimension order
The five digits run mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain or discomfort and anxiety or depression. Reading 23245 backwards scores 54232, 0.350 under the England set instead of 0.247, because the dimensions carry different decrements.
Sources
England EQ-5D-5L value set Table 2 and its summary values
Devlin NJ, Shah KK, Feng Y, Mulhern B, van Hout B. Valuing health-related quality of life: an EQ-5D-5L value set for England. Health Economics. 2018;27(1):7-22. Table 2, an EQ-5D-5L value set for England, which prints the constant 1.000 and the decrements for slight, moderate, severe and unable or extreme problems on each dimension and works the value of state 23245 as 1 minus (0.058 + 0.080 + 0.050 + 0.276 + 0.289), 0.247; section 3.4, which states that the minimum value is minus 0.285 for 55555 and that 5.1% of the 3,125 states are valued as worse than dead. Open access.
Comparison of England EQ-5D-5L, crosswalk and EQ-5D-3L values
Devlin NJ, Shah KK, Feng Y, Mulhern B, van Hout B. Valuing health-related quality of life: an EQ-5D-5L value set for England. Health Economics. 2018;27(1):7-22. Section 3.5 and Table 3, which list 159 of 3,125 states worse than dead in the five-level set against 833 of 3,125 under the crosswalk and 84 of 243 under the three-level set, and the values 0.922 for 11112, 0.937 for 11121, 0.950 for 11211, 0.950 for 12111 and 0.942 for 21111 in the five-level set, with 0.877 for 21111 under the crosswalk.
Crosswalk mapping of EQ-5D-5L responses onto EQ-5D-3L value sets
van Hout B, Janssen MF, Feng YS, Kohlmann T, Busschbach J, Golicki D, Lloyd A, Scalone L, Kind P, Pickard AS. Interim scoring for the EQ-5D-5L: mapping the EQ-5D-5L to EQ-5D-3L value sets. Value in Health. 2012;15(5):708-715. Abstract, which reports that five-level value sets based on directly elicited preferences were not yet available, that values for the five-level version were generated by a mapping (crosswalk) approach from data on 3,691 respondents who completed both versions, with a nonparametric model preferred, and that the range of crosswalk values is restricted to the range of the three-level value set used.
NICE manual section on the England EQ-5D-5L value set
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. NICE technology appraisal and highly specialised technologies guidance: the manual (PMG36). Published 31 January 2022, last updated 13 October 2026. Section 4.3.16, which states that NICE does not recommend using the EQ-5D-5L value set for England published by Devlin et al. (2018), that the 3L value set should be used for reference-case analyses with 5L descriptive data mapped onto it, and that the Decision Support Unit mapping function of Hernández Alava et al. 2017 should be used. The manual's overview page carries a notice that the interim methods statement takes precedence until the manual is updated and lists section 4.3.16 among those to be revised.
NICE interim methods statement on the UK EQ-5D-5L value set
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Interim methods statement: implementing the EQ-5D-5L value set (PMG51). Published 27 August 2026. Sections 1.6 and 1.7, which state that five-level data previously had to be mapped to 3L values because no suitable UK 5L value set was available, that a UK 5L value set has been published (Rowen et al. 2026), and that the UK 5L value set should be used to derive all utility values for adults in reference-case analyses; section 1.13, that 3L-based utility values should not be included in sensitivity or scenario analyses; section 1.16, that the position statement on the England value set no longer applies.
Reply of the England EQ-5D-5L value set authors to the quality assurance
van Hout B, Mulhern B, Feng Y, Shah K, Devlin N. The EQ-5D-5L value set for England: response to the "quality assurance". Value in Health. 2020;23(5):649-655. Abstract, which describes a point-by-point response to the issues raised by the authors of the quality assurance paper, states that many of those points are misleading, suggest misunderstandings or are irrelevant, and concludes that the modelling approaches used address the characteristics of the data and give a reasonable representation of the average stated preferences of the general public in England. Abstract only.
Canonical Identity
Stable URI · Machine-readable · Resolvable · CC BY 4.0