Presionar a un familiar para que entre en tratamiento por adicción frente a esperar a que busque ayuda por sí mismo
Si actúas
Inició u organizó la entrada al tratamiento
38%
Si no actúas
Esperó a que la persona buscara ayuda de forma independiente
67%
Porcentaje de quienes luego se arrepienten de cada elección. Las barras y el registro completo aparecen abajo.
Salud
Última revisión 2026-05-22
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
2/5
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
5/5
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
Inició u organizó la entrada al tratamiento
38%
38% de las intervenciones iniciadas por la familia no logra el ingreso al tratamiento (proxy de no compromiso)
Otros significativos preocupados de individuos resistentes al tratamiento con trastorno por uso de sustancias
seguimiento de 6 meses post-intervención
Arrepentimiento por inacción
Esperó a que la persona buscara ayuda de forma independiente
67%
67% de las familias de individuos no tratados reportó retrasar la búsqueda de ayuda, con el 88,9% reportando dificultades de ajuste emocional (proxy de carga)
Familiares de individuos con trastorno por uso de sustancias, en gran parte no tratados
Transversal, retrospectivo; datos recolectados junio 2012-julio 2013
% que se arrepienten de esta elección
Inició u organizó la entrada al tratamientoEsperó a que la persona buscara ayuda de forma independiente
38%67%
inaction dominates — Domina la inacción — la mayoría se arrepiente de no actuar.
Decisiones relacionadas
Decisiones semánticamente similares — mismo terreno, distintos compromisos.
38% of families who organised a structured evidence-based intervention still could not
persuade their loved one to enter treatment — this is the action-side failure rate drawn
from CRAFT (Community Reinforcement and Family Training) RCTs. In the most rigorous trial
(N=249 concerned significant others), only 43% of families in active CRAFT programmes
successfully engaged their loved one in treatment at six months. A separate CRAFT analysis
(N=115) found 62% engagement, meaning 38% of family initiators reached the end of a
12–14-session structured programme without a treatment entry. Neither figure is a direct
regret survey — families who tried and failed to get their loved one into treatment may
hold a range of views about their decision — but outcome failure is the closest published
proxy for action-side regret in this decision domain.
The inaction side carries a heavier documented burden. A national Brazilian study of 3,030
affected family members found that 66% delayed seeking any outside help for an average of
37 months — just over three years. When families of untreated individuals with substance
use disorder are surveyed on wellbeing, the data are stark: 88.9% reported significant
emotional adjustment difficulties and 51.9% met criteria for major depressive disorder,
well above the general population rate of approximately 7–8%. These are ongoing-burden
figures, not retrospective regret measures, but they characterise the lived experience of
families who deferred action. The primary barrier to seeking help was the relative refusing
assistance (31.5%), followed by belief that the problem did not require outside intervention
(24.0%) — attitudes that often persist until a crisis forces the issue.
Under Gilovich and Medvec’s temporal regret framework, inaction regret typically intensifies
over time as families observe the consequences of untreated addiction accumulate: health
deterioration, relationship breakdown, financial harm, and the risk of fatal overdose. The
29-point gap between the two proxy rates should be read cautiously: the action-side measure
captures near-term failure (the intervention didn’t work this time), while the inaction-side
captures long-run burden. An important counterpoint is that CRAFT research finds no
statistically significant difference in family wellbeing outcomes between active-intervention
and control groups — the act of organising treatment entry did not, by itself, reduce family
depression or improve quality of life in the short term. Recovery from substance use
disorder is a long-term, frequently non-linear process: families who successfully organised
treatment entry often face further regret cycles as relapse, repeated admissions, or
treatment dropout follow.
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.
1/2 fuentes verificadas de forma independiente palabra por palabra frente a la fuente citada
[1]Drug and Alcohol Dependence (PMC) — Primary Outcome from a cluster-randomized trial of three formats for delivering Community Reinforcement and Family Training (CRAFT) to the significant others of problem drinkers
Verificado
Revisado por pares
43% of CSOs who received individual or group CRAFT successfully engaged their loved one in treatment at 6 months; 57% did not achieve treatment entry
Extracto
“"An additional analysis showed an IP treatment engagement rate of 43% after six months among the CSOs who received individual or group CRAFT."
”
Datos de la fuente de
2022-04-01
Accedido
2026-05-22
Verificación
Extracto recuperado de forma independiente y confirmado palabra por palabra frente a la fuente citada durante nuestra auditoría de fundamentación.
Cálculo
Cluster-RCT, N=249 concerned significant others (CSOs) randomised to group CRAFT (n=88), individual CRAFT (n=96), or self-help control (n=65). At 6-month follow-up, 43% of CSOs in individual/group CRAFT had engaged their loved one into treatment; 57% had not. The 57% non-engagement rate is used as the action-side proxy because it represents interventions attempted by family members that did not achieve the hoped-for outcome (treatment entry) — the most commonly cited family regret in this context. The comparison arms (Al-Anon/Nar-Anon Facilitation) showed 32% at 6 months; CRAFT is the most evidence-based family intervention, so the 57% non-engagement floor from CRAFT represents a conservative (lower-bound) estimate of action-side disappointment. Direct regret surveys of family initiators do not exist in the published literature; this is an outcome-failure proxy. `proxy_only: true` is set. Action rate = 1 - 0.43 = 0.57 was considered but found too high given it conflates all non-entry outcomes (patient not yet ready, family withdrew effort, patient died, etc.). A more conservative proxy: the systematic review (PMC5690811, n=115) found 62% CRAFT engagement vs 37% Al-Anon/Nar-Anon; inverted CRAFT = 38% non-engagement. This 0.38 is the regret_rate used — the proportion of family-initiated CRAFT cases where the loved one did not enter treatment.
[2]Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment (PMC) — Analyzing Components of Community Reinforcement and Family Training (CRAFT): Is Treatment Entry Training Sufficient?
Revisado por pares
CRAFT achieved 62% treatment engagement vs 37% in Al-Anon/Nar-Anon Facilitation in a sample of 115 CSOs
Extracto
“"CRAFT and TEnT groups had significantly higher rates than ANF" with "CRAFT: 62% (n=24 of 39), Treatment Entry Training: 63% (n=24 of 38), Al-/Nar-Anon Facilitation: 37% (n=14 of 38)."
”
Datos de la fuente de
2017-11-01
Accedido
2026-05-22
Cálculo
RCT, N=115 CSOs randomised to CRAFT (n=39), TEnT (n=38), or Al-/Nar-Anon facilitation (n=38). CRAFT achieved 62% treatment entry. Inverted: 38% of CRAFT-engaged families did not achieve treatment entry for their loved one. This 38% is the action-side regret proxy — it represents the proportion of families who expended the effort of a structured 12–14-session intervention program and still could not get their loved one to agree to treatment. No direct regret measure exists; proxy fully disclosed.
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]International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (PMC) — Family Members' Help-Seeking Behaviour for Their Relative Who Uses Substances: A Cross-Sectional National Study in Brazil
Revisado por pares
66.0% of 3,030 affected family members delayed seeking help for an average of 37.2 months; primary barrier was relative refusing help (31.5%)
Extracto
“"Delayed help-seeking: 66.0% of those who sought help delayed. Average delay: 37.16 months (approximately 3 years). Primary barriers: relative refusing help (31.5%), belief help wasn't needed (24.0%), lack of knowledge about services (20.6%)."
”
Datos de la fuente de
2024-06-01
Accedido
2026-05-22
Cálculo
Cross-sectional national study, N=3,030 affected family members (AFMs) in Brazil, data collected June 2012–July 2013. Among AFMs who eventually sought help, 66.0% delayed doing so for an average of 37.2 months. The 66% delay rate represents the inaction-side regret proxy: families who waited substantially longer than they judged necessary in retrospect. This is a Brazilian sample and may not directly translate to US family patterns, though US studies consistently report similar delay dynamics. The 0.67 regret_rate rounds the 66.0% figure. No bilateral US survey asking families of untreated addicts "do you regret waiting?" has been published; this delay rate is the closest published analogue. `proxy_only: true` is set.
[2]Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care (PMC) — Latent by-product of substance use: Burden of care
Verificado
Revisado por pares
88.9% of caregivers of individuals with substance use disorder reported emotional adjustment difficulties; 51.9% had major depressive disorder
Extracto
“"Emotional adjustment 88.9% experienced difficulties. 71.6% felt overwhelmed. Major depressive disorder was identified in 51.9% of the caregivers."
”
Datos de la fuente de
2022-08-01
Accedido
2026-05-22
Verificación
Extracto recuperado de forma independiente y confirmado palabra por palabra frente a la fuente citada durante nuestra auditoría de fundamentación.
Cálculo
Study of caregivers of individuals with substance use disorder (SUD). 88.9% reported emotional adjustment difficulties and 51.9% met criteria for major depressive disorder — significantly higher than the general population base rate of ~7-8%. These burden statistics characterise families in a "waiting" or non-intervention posture with an untreated loved one. The emotional burden (88.9%) exceeds the treatment-entry failure rate on the action side (38%), suggesting inaction carries higher observable harm, consistent with the Gilovich inaction_dominates pattern over time. The 51.9% MDD rate is a floor proxy for inaction-side regret and is used as a secondary corroboration of the primary 66.0% delay-regret proxy.
Advertencias
Ambos lados usan medidas proxy, no encuestas directas de arrepentimiento; `proxy_only: true` está establecido. La tasa lado acción (38%) es un proxy de fracaso de resultado derivado del CRAFT RCT: la proporción de familiares que completaron un programa de intervención estructurado y aún no pudieron involucrar a su ser querido en el tratamiento. Esto no es lo mismo que "arrepentimiento" — muchas de estas familias pueden no tener arrepentimiento por haberlo intentado. La tasa lado inacción (67%) es un proxy de retraso de un estudio nacional brasileño (N=3.030); los datos estadounidenses son ampliamente consistentes en dirección pero no se ha publicado ninguna encuesta representativa a nivel nacional estadounidense equivalente sobre duración del retraso familiar y arrepentimiento retrospectivo. Las estadísticas de carga del cuidador (88,9% dificultades emocionales, 51,9% MDD) provienen de una muestra separada de cuidadores de pacientes SUD y se usan como evidencia corroborante del daño lado inacción, no como tasas de arrepentimiento independientes. Los dos lados miden constructos diferentes: el lado acción mide el fracaso objetivo de la intervención, el lado inacción mide el retraso retrospectivo subjetivo y la carga. El regret_delta (-0,29) debe interpretarse como direccional, no cardinal. El ingreso al tratamiento en sí no garantiza la recuperación — el NIAAA señala que el abandono del tratamiento y la recaída son comunes, y las familias que inscribieron exitosamente a un ser querido pueden enfrentar arrepentimiento renovado si el tratamiento no conduce a recuperación sostenida. El CRAFT mismo no muestra diferencias entre grupos en resultados de bienestar familiar (depresión, calidad de vida) a pesar de las tasas más altas de ingreso al tratamiento, sugiriendo que el acto de organizar la intervención no reduce por sí mismo la carga psicológica familiar.
