Se faire une ligature des trompes vs ne pas s'en faire
Si vous agissez
Se faire une ligature des trompes
7,0%
Si vous n’agissez pas
Ne pas se faire une ligature des trompes
5,0%
Pourcentage de personnes qui regrettent ensuite chaque choix. Les barres et le registre complet s’affichent ci-dessous.
Santé
Dernière révision 2026-05-10
Qualité des preuves 4.25/5
Score d’évaluation en huit dimensions selon la
grille de qualité
. Chaque dimension notée de 1 à 5.
D1 Vérification des sources
5/5
D2 Autorité et indépendance des sources
5/5
D3 Précision du taux de regret
2/5
D4 Comparabilité des sources
3/5
D5 Motif de Gilovich
5/5
D6 Qualité de la prose
5/5
D7 Complétude des réserves
5/5
D8 Qualité de l’échantillon
4/5
Moyenne4.25/5
Données de substitution — aucune enquête directe sur les regrets n'existe pour cette décision. Les taux sont dérivés des scores de satisfaction et des obstacles d'accès plutôt que de questions portant directement sur les regrets. Voir les mises en garde ci-dessous.
Regret d'action
Se faire une ligature des trompes
7,0%
12,7% de probabilité cumulative de regret dans les 14 ans (CREST)
Femmes ayant subi une stérilisation tubaire, cohorte prospective américaine (n=11 232)
probabilité cumulative à 14 ans ; cohorte CREST stérilisée 1978-1987
Regret d'inaction
Ne pas se faire une ligature des trompes
5,0%
~5% (proxy construit — aucune enquête de regret d'inaction direct n'existe)
Femmes qui ont choisi de ne pas subir de stérilisation tubaire, estimé
rétrospective, estimé
% regrettent ce choix
Se faire une ligature des trompesNe pas se faire une ligature des trompes
7,0%5,0%
action dominates — L'action domine — la plupart regrettent d'avoir agi.
Décisions associées
Décisions sémantiquement similaires — même terrain, compromis différents.
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).
Sources : action
Registre des sources
Chaque chiffre ci-dessous correspond à ce que la source a rapporté, avec la citation textuelle sur laquelle nous nous sommes appuyés et la méthode de calcul. Cliquez sur un lien pour vérifier directement.
2/3 sources vérifiées de manière indépendante, mot pour mot, par rapport à la source citée
[1]American Academy of Family Physicians (AFP) — Women's Regret After Sterilization Procedures
Vérifié
Source de référence
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%)
Extrait
“"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."
”
Données source de
2002-10-01
Consulté le
2026-07-12
Vérification
Extrait récupéré et confirmé de manière indépendante, mot pour mot, par rapport à la source citée lors de notre audit de vérification.
Calcul
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
Étude primaire
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)
Extrait
“"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.
”
Données source de
1999-06-01
Consulté le
2026-07-12
Calcul
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
Vérifié
Source de référence
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
Extrait
“"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."
”
Données source de
2003-03-15
Consulté le
2026-07-01
Vérification
Extrait récupéré et confirmé de manière indépendante, mot pour mot, par rapport à la source citée lors de notre audit de vérification.
Calcul
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).
Sources : inaction
Registre des sources
Chaque chiffre ci-dessous correspond à ce que la source a rapporté, avec la citation textuelle sur laquelle nous nous sommes appuyés et la méthode de calcul. Cliquez sur un lien pour vérifier directement.
1/2 sources vérifiées de manière indépendante, mot pour mot, par rapport à la source citée
[1]Centers for Disease Control and Prevention — Unintended Pregnancy | Reproductive Health | CDC↗ 1 other entry
Rapport gouvernemental
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
Extrait
“"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."
”
Données source de
2024-01-01
Consulté le
2026-05-10
Calcul
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
Vérifié
Source de référence
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%
Extrait
“"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."
”
Données source de
2002-10-01
Consulté le
2026-07-01
Vérification
Extrait récupéré et confirmé de manière indépendante, mot pour mot, par rapport à la source citée lors de notre audit de vérification.
Calcul
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.
Réserves
Les 12,7% côté action sont l'un des taux de regret les mieux étayés par les preuves dans tout l'ensemble de données regret-pairs : ils proviennent de l'étude de cohorte prospective CREST de 11 232 femmes suivies jusqu'à 14 ans (Hillis et al. 1999, PMID 10362150). Le chiffre global masque une stratification d'âge extrême : les femmes stérilisées à ≤30 ans avaient une probabilité cumulative de regret à 14 ans de 20,3%, tandis que celles stérilisées à >30 ans n'avaient que 5,9%. Les 5% côté inaction sont un proxy de substitution construit : aucune enquête publiée ne demande directement aux femmes qui ont choisi de ne pas avoir de ligature tubaire si elles regrettent cette décision. Le proxy est construit à partir des données de fardeau de grossesse non désirée et de l'hypothèse qu'un petit mais réel sous-ensemble de femmes non stérilisées ayant subi des grossesses non désirées exprimera un regret d'inaction durable. Le delta (0,077) reflète donc l'asymétrie des preuves autant que l'asymétrie de l'expérience sous-jacente. La ligature tubaire est l'une des exceptions documentées les plus claires à la conclusion typique de Gilovich et Medvec selon laquelle le regret d'inaction domine à long terme : la permanence de la procédure, la possibilité réelle de vouloir plus d'enfants après un changement de vie (nouveau partenaire, perte d'un enfant, divorce) et l'âge jeune auquel beaucoup de femmes la subissent se combinent pour soutenir le regret d'action d'une manière inhabituelle pour une procédure élective délibérée. Les taux de regret sont substantiellement plus bas chez les femmes stérilisées après 30 ans avec familles complètes — pour ce sous-groupe, la prédiction de dominance d'inaction de Gilovich peut s'appliquer. Des différences raciales et ethniques dans les taux de regret ont été documentées dans certaines études, les femmes noires et hispaniques montrant des taux quelque peu plus élevés de désir d'inversion, reflétant potentiellement des obstacles socio-économiques à l'accès à la stérilisation aux âges optimaux. Les données d'enquête proviennent de cohortes américaines ; les schémas dans les pays avec un accès différent à la santé reproductive et des normes de taille de famille peuvent différer.
