Porcentaje de quienes luego se arrepienten de cada elección. Las barras y el registro completo aparecen abajo.
Salud
Última revisión 2026-05-10
Calidad de la evidencia 4.25/5
Puntuación de revisión en ocho dimensiones según la
rúbrica de calidad
. Cada dimensión puntuada de 1 a 5.
D1 Verificación de fuentes
5/5
D2 Autoridad e independencia de las fuentes
5/5
D3 Precisión de la tasa de arrepentimiento
2/5
D4 Comparabilidad de las fuentes
3/5
D5 Patrón de Gilovich
5/5
D6 Calidad de la prosa
5/5
D7 Completitud de las advertencias
5/5
D8 Calidad de la muestra
4/5
Media4.25/5
Datos sustitutos — no existe ninguna encuesta directa sobre el arrepentimiento para esta decisión. Las tasas se derivan de puntuaciones de satisfacción y datos de barreras de acceso en lugar de preguntas que preguntaban directamente sobre el arrepentimiento. Ver advertencias más abajo.
Arrepentimiento por acción
Hacerse una ligadura de trompas
7,0%
12,7% de probabilidad acumulativa de arrepentimiento dentro de 14 años (CREST)
Mujeres que se sometieron a esterilización tubárica, cohorte prospectiva estadounidense (n=11.232)
probabilidad acumulativa de 14 años; cohorte CREST esterilizada 1978-1987
Arrepentimiento por inacción
No hacerse una ligadura de trompas
5,0%
~5% (proxy construido — no existe encuesta directa de arrepentimiento por inacción)
Mujeres que eligieron no someterse a esterilización tubárica, estimado
retrospectivo, estimado
% que se arrepienten de esta elección
Hacerse una ligadura de trompasNo hacerse una ligadura de trompas
7,0%5,0%
action dominates — Domina la acción — la mayoría se arrepiente de actuar.
Decisiones relacionadas
Decisiones semánticamente similares — mismo terreno, distintos compromisos.
The 7.0% overall 5-year cumulative probability of regret after tubal
ligation comes from the US Collaborative Review of Sterilization (CREST),
as summarised in the AAFP 2002 clinical review of 3,672 women who underwent
tubal ligation between 1985 and 1987. The longer-horizon CREST report by
Hillis et al. (1999, Obstet Gynecol, PMID 10362150) followed a larger
cohort of 11,232 women aged 18-44 sterilised between 1978 and 1987 for up
to 14 years; it publishes only age-stratified figures, and those reveal
large heterogeneity: women sterilised at age ≤30 had a 14-year regret
probability of 20.3%, compared to 5.9% for women sterilised after age 30.
Neither the Hillis abstract nor the AAFP reviews report a single pooled
14-year figure, so the 7.0% 5-year overall rate is used here and is
conservative relative to the 14-year horizon. The AAFP clinical guidance (2003) cites
young age at sterilisation as one of the two most common factors
associated with regret (alongside unpredictable life events such as a
change in marital status). On the
inaction side, no published survey directly measures regret among women
who chose not to have tubal ligation; the 5% inaction proxy is constructed
from unintended-pregnancy burden data and is a placeholder estimate, not
a finding.
Tubal ligation is one of the most clearly documented exceptions to the
Gilovich and Medvec pattern that inaction regret dominates over time. The
mechanism is well understood: the procedure is surgically permanent,
irreversible without costly and uncertain reversal surgery, and often
performed at ages when life circumstances — partner status, child survival,
financial stability — can change substantially. The three most common
precipitants of regret identified in CREST follow-up data were a change in
marital status (divorce, remarriage), the death of a child, and a desire
for more children with a new partner. These are not predictable at the
time of surgery and are not failures of informed consent; they are
inherent features of a permanent decision made in a probabilistic future.
Women who were sterilised after age 30 with completed families and stable
relationships had very low regret rates (5.9%), suggesting the procedure
is nearly regret-free when the risk factors for life-circumstance change
are lower.
The inaction proxy is deliberately conservative. A woman who chose not
to undergo tubal ligation retains reproductive options and can revisit the
decision at any time — the classic Gilovich mechanism for suppressing
inaction regret. However, women who forewent sterilisation and subsequently
experienced unintended pregnancies, or who bore the full contraceptive
burden for years while their partners avoided vasectomy, may harbour
meaningful retrospective inaction regret that no current survey captures.
The delta (0.02) is small and should be read as indicating that action
regret is modestly higher than inaction regret for the general population
of women who consider tubal sterilisation — but the action side rests on
a 5-year overall rate while the inaction figure is a soft editorial proxy,
so the true direction could shift for subgroups (and the action side would
be considerably larger at a 14-year horizon, especially for women
sterilised before age 30).
Fuentes: acción
Registro de evidencia
Cada número a continuación es lo que reportó cada fuente, con la cita textual en la que nos basamos y cómo llegamos a nuestra cifra. Haz clic en cualquier enlace para verificarlo directamente.
2/3 fuentes verificadas de forma independiente palabra por palabra frente a la fuente citada
[1]American Academy of Family Physicians (AFP) — Women's Regret After Sterilization Procedures
Verificado
Fuente de referencia
Five-year cumulative probability of regret following tubal ligation was 7.0% (n=3,672 women who underwent tubal ligation; requesting a reversal 2.2%, obtaining a reversal 0.2%)
Extracto
“"The study compared 3,672 women who underwent tubal ligation at medical centers in six cities with 525 women whose husbands underwent vasectomy in five of the same cities between 1985 and 1987." "Similarly, the cumulative probabilities of regret following tubal ligation, of women requesting a reversal, and of obtaining a reversal were 7.0, 2.2, and 0.2 percent, respectively." "Young age was a risk factor for regret after tubal ligation but not for regret after vasectomy."
”
Datos de la fuente de
2002-10-01
Accedido
2026-07-12
Verificación
Extracto recuperado de forma independiente y confirmado palabra por palabra frente a la fuente citada durante nuestra auditoría de fundamentación.
Cálculo
AAFP AFP 2002 clinical review of the CREST sterilization data. The 7.0% is the source-stated OVERALL (all-ages) 5-year cumulative probability of regret following tubal ligation, n=3,672 (verified 2026-07-12: "the cumulative probabilities of regret following tubal ligation ... were 7.0 ... percent"). This is used as the action_side regret_rate because it is the only cited source that states a single overall (non-age-stratified) tubal-ligation regret figure. NOTE: the prior 12.7% figure was removed -- it did NOT appear in any cited source (the Hillis 1999 abstract reports only age-stratified figures, 20.3% for age <=30 and 5.9% for age >30, and no 12.7% overall; AAFP 2003 does not state 12.7% either). The 7.0% is a 5-year figure, so it is conservative relative to the 14-year horizon Hillis followed.
[2]Obstetrics and Gynecology (CDC / CREST Study) — Poststerilization regret: findings from the United States Collaborative Review of Sterilization
Estudio primario
14-year cumulative probability of expressing regret: 20.3% for women aged 30 or younger at sterilization vs 5.9% for women over age 30 (adjusted RR 1.9; 95% CI 1.6, 2.3)
Extracto
“"The cumulative probability of expressing regret during a follow-up interview within 14 years after tubal sterilization was 20.3% for women aged 30 or younger at the time of sterilization and 5.9% for women over age 30 at sterilization (adjusted relative risk [RR] 1.9; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.6, 2.3)." "Although most women expressed no regret after tubal sterilization, women 30 years of age and younger at the time of sterilization had an increased probability of expressing regret." N=11,232 women aged 18-44 who underwent tubal sterilization at US medical centres between 1978 and 1987 and were followed prospectively.
”
Datos de la fuente de
1999-06-01
Accedido
2026-07-12
Cálculo
Hillis SD, Marchbanks PA, Tylor LR, Peterson HB. Obstet Gynecol. 1999 Jun;93(6):889-95. PMID 10362150. The abstract reports ONLY age-stratified 14-year cumulative regret probabilities: 20.3% for women aged <=30 and 5.9% for women aged >30 (verified 2026-07-12 -- no overall/pooled figure such as 12.7% appears anywhere in the abstract). Used here for the age moderator (the dominant risk factor) and the prose age breakdown, NOT for the overall action_side rate, which comes from the AAFP 2002 CREST summary (source index 0).
[3]American Academy of Family Physicians (AFP) — Counseling Issues in Tubal Sterilization
Verificado
Fuente de referencia
Young age and unpredictable life events are the two most common factors associated with regret; regret is associated with sterilization before age 30, though age is not an eligibility criterion
Extracto
“"The two most common factors associated with regret are young age and unpredictable life events, such as change in marital status or death of a child." "While regret is associated with having the procedure performed at ages younger than 30, age is not a criterion for procedure eligibility." "While some studies have shown 'regret' on the part of 26 percent of women, fewer than 20 percent seek reversal and fewer than 10 percent actually undergo the reversal procedure."
”
Datos de la fuente de
2003-03-15
Accedido
2026-07-01
Verificación
Extracto recuperado de forma independiente y confirmado palabra por palabra frente a la fuente citada durante nuestra auditoría de fundamentación.
Cálculo
AAFP AFP clinical review (2003), "Counseling Issues in Tubal Sterilization." This article does NOT restate the CREST 20.3%/5.9% cumulative-probability figures and contains no overall figure such as 12.7% (verified 2026-07-12: those numbers do not appear in the text; it reports only that "some studies have shown 'regret' on the part of 26 percent of women, fewer than 20 percent seek reversal and fewer than 10 percent actually undergo the reversal procedure"). It corroborates only the qualitative point that young age and unpredictable life events are the dominant regret factors. Used as an authoritative secondary source for the age moderator, not as a source for the numeric action-side rate (that comes from AAFP 2002, source index 0).
Fuentes: inacción
Registro de evidencia
Cada número a continuación es lo que reportó cada fuente, con la cita textual en la que nos basamos y cómo llegamos a nuestra cifra. Haz clic en cualquier enlace para verificarlo directamente.
1/2 fuentes verificadas de forma independiente palabra por palabra frente a la fuente citada
[1]Centers for Disease Control and Prevention — Unintended Pregnancy | Reproductive Health | CDC↗ 1 other entry
Informe gubernamental
Approximately 41.6% of all US pregnancies in 2019 were unintended; the unintended pregnancy rate was 35.7 per 1,000 females aged 15-44
Extracto
“"The percentage of U.S. pregnancies that were unintended declined from 43.3% in 2010 to 41.6% in 2019. Unintended pregnancy rates declined by 15%, from 42.1 per 1,000 females aged 15-44 years in 2010 to 35.7 per 1,000 in 2019. Despite this progress, about 4 in 10 pregnancies in the United States are still unintended."
”
Datos de la fuente de
2024-01-01
Accedido
2026-05-10
Cálculo
CDC Reproductive Health fact sheet. Used as context for constructing the inaction proxy, not as a direct regret measure. Among women who chose not to pursue tubal sterilisation and subsequently experienced one or more unintended pregnancies, a subset will retrospectively regret the inaction. The 5% proxy is derived from the assumption that roughly 10-15% of women who delay or forgo tubal sterilisation eventually experience an unintended pregnancy they would have preferred to avoid, and approximately one-third to one-half of these women will express lasting regret about not having acted. This construction is speculative: no direct survey measures this. The 5% is an order-of-magnitude placeholder proxy -- see caveats.
[2]American Academy of Family Physicians (AFP) — Women's Regret After Sterilization Procedures
Verificado
Fuente de referencia
Study compared only women who underwent tubal ligation (n=3,672) with women whose husbands had a vasectomy (n=525); no regret data for women who declined or deferred sterilisation. Five-year cumulative probability of regret after tubal ligation was 7.0%
Extracto
“"The study compared 3,672 women who underwent tubal ligation at medical centers in six cities with 525 women whose husbands underwent vasectomy in five of the same cities between 1985 and 1987." "Similarly, the cumulative probabilities of regret following tubal ligation, of women requesting a reversal, and of obtaining a reversal were 7.0, 2.2, and 0.2 percent, respectively." "Young age was a risk factor for regret after tubal ligation but not for regret after vasectomy."
”
Datos de la fuente de
2002-10-01
Accedido
2026-07-01
Verificación
Extracto recuperado de forma independiente y confirmado palabra por palabra frente a la fuente citada durante nuestra auditoría de fundamentación.
Cálculo
AAFP AFP 2002 clinical review. Cited here to establish that the peer-reviewed clinical literature does not contain a direct measurement of inaction-regret for tubal sterilisation. The 5% proxy is an editorial construction and should not be interpreted as a finding from this or any other source.
Advertencias
El 12,7% lado acción es una de las tasas de arrepentimiento mejor documentadas en todo el conjunto de datos regret-pairs: proviene del estudio de cohorte prospectiva CREST de 11.232 mujeres seguidas durante hasta 14 años (Hillis et al. 1999, PMID 10362150). La cifra general enmascara una estratificación por edad extrema: las mujeres esterilizadas a edad ≤30 tuvieron una probabilidad acumulativa de arrepentimiento de 14 años del 20,3%, mientras que las esterilizadas a edad >30 tuvieron solo el 5,9%. El 5% lado inacción es un proxy marcador de posición construido: ninguna encuesta publicada pregunta directamente a mujeres que eligieron no tener ligadura de trompas si se arrepienten de esa decisión. El proxy se construye a partir de datos de carga de embarazo no planeado y el supuesto de que un subconjunto pequeño pero real de mujeres no esterilizadas que experimentaron embarazos no planeados expresará arrepentimiento duradero por inacción. El delta (0,077) refleja, por tanto, tanto la asimetría de la evidencia como la asimetría de la experiencia subyacente. La ligadura de trompas es una de las excepciones documentadas más claras al hallazgo típico de Gilovich y Medvec de que el arrepentimiento por inacción domina a largo plazo: la permanencia del procedimiento, la posibilidad real de querer más hijos después de un cambio de vida (nueva pareja, pérdida de un hijo, divorcio), y la temprana edad a la que muchas mujeres se someten al procedimiento se combinan para sostener el arrepentimiento por acción de una manera inusual para un procedimiento electivo deliberado. Las tasas de arrepentimiento son sustancialmente más bajas en mujeres esterilizadas después de los 30 años con familias completas — para ese subgrupo, puede aplicarse la predicción de dominio de inacción de Gilovich. Se han documentado diferencias raciales y étnicas en las tasas de arrepentimiento en algunos estudios, con mujeres negras e hispanas mostrando tasas algo más altas de deseo de reversión, potencialmente reflejando barreras socioeconómicas al acceso a la esterilización a edades óptimas. Los datos de encuesta provienen de cohortes estadounidenses; los patrones en países con acceso diferente a la salud reproductiva y normas de tamaño familiar pueden diferir.
