Measuring and Valuing Health Using EuroQol Instruments: New Developments 2025 and Beyond
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The health-related quality of life (HRQoL) instruments developed by EuroQol, an international not-for-profit organisation, have earned a unique position in health economics and outcomes research. The original instrument, EQ-5D-3L, aimed to provide a concise, generic way of measuring and valuing HRQoL in adults that would enable broad comparability of HRQoL across populations and facilitate estimation of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). These goals remain central to efforts to develop new instruments; to strengthen methods and evidence in measuring and valuing HRQoL; and to expand the use of HRQoL evidence to improve decision making. These initiatives are facilitated by the EuroQol Research Foundation's funding of research and provision of support for instrument users; the commitment of an international community of researchers; and the support of a professional staff team. This paper provides an overview of EuroQol's current suite of instruments: EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L (for adults) and EQ-5D-Y-3L and EQ-5D-Y-5L (for children) and key elements of its current research agenda. We summarise research underway to expand measurement to very young children (EQ-TIPS), and to expand what is measured (the EuroQol Health and Wellbeing instrument EQ-HWB; and the EQ-5D Bolt-on Toolbox). Research is also generating new valuation methods-such as the development of discrete choice experiment methods that incorporate duration and account for time preference-and strengthening the application of instruments, e.g., to monitor population health and health inequalities (EQ-DAPHNIE). We conclude by highlighting ongoing challenges and their implications for the future of measurement and valuation of HRQoL.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.086 | 0.063 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.004 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".