Mencari perawatan formal untuk kecanduan vs. menghindari perawatan
Jika Anda bertindak
Mencari perawatan kecanduan formal
23%
Jika Anda tidak bertindak
Menghindari atau menunda perawatan kecanduan formal
34%
Persentase orang yang kemudian menyesali setiap pilihan. Diagram batang dan catatan lengkap ditampilkan di bawah.
Kesehatan
Terakhir ditinjau 2026-05-22
Kualitas bukti 4.25/5
Skor tinjauan delapan dimensi terhadap
rubrik kualitas
. Setiap dimensi dinilai 1–5.
D1 Verifikasi sumber
5/5
D2 Otoritas & independensi sumber
5/5
D3 Akurasi tingkat penyesalan
2/5
D4 Keterbandingan sumber
2/5
D5 Pola Gilovich
5/5
D6 Kualitas prosa
5/5
D7 Kelengkapan peringatan
5/5
D8 Kualitas sampel
5/5
Rata-rata4.25/5
Data proksi — tidak ada survei penyesalan langsung untuk keputusan ini. Tingkat diturunkan dari skor kepuasan dan data hambatan akses daripada pertanyaan yang langsung menanyakan tentang penyesalan. Lihat peringatan di bawah.
Penyesalan atas tindakan
Mencari perawatan kecanduan formal
23%
23% pendatang perawatan SUD putus sebelum penyelesaian (putus perawatan sebagai proksi penyesalan)
Orang dewasa yang dipulangkan dari program perawatan gangguan penggunaan zat AS, TEDS-D 2017-2019
Episode pemulangan; TEDS-D 2017-2019
Penyesalan atas kelambanan
Menghindari atau menunda perawatan kecanduan formal
34%
34% orang dewasa dengan AUD dalam NESARC-III memiliki gangguan persisten tanpa pemulihan (AUD persisten sebagai proksi penyesalan untuk jalur tidak diobati)
Orang dewasa AS dengan gangguan penggunaan alkohol tahun lalu, NESARC-III (2012-2013); sampel sebagian besar tidak diobati
Prevalensi tahun lalu; gelombang NESARC-III (2012-2013)
% menyesal dengan pilihan ini
Mencari perawatan kecanduan formalMenghindari atau menunda perawatan kecanduan formal
23%34%
inaction dominates — Tidak bertindak mendominasi — sebagian besar menyesali karena tidak bertindak.
Keputusan terkait
Keputusan yang serupa secara semantik — area yang sama, kompromi yang berbeda.
Berapa fraksi orang dewasa AS yang mengalami depresi berat atau gangguan kecemasan tidak menerima pengobatan kesehatan mental selama setidaknya satu tahun?
22.8% of adults who enter formal substance use disorder treatment drop out before
completing it — the action-side regret proxy drawn from 649,479 discharge episodes
in the TEDS-D dataset (Baird, Cheng, and Xia 2022). Dropout is the most tractable
available signal for treatment dissatisfaction: people who found the programme insufficient
or incompatible enough to leave. The figure sits alongside a 33.8% completion rate, meaning
roughly one in three entrants finishes the programme as designed, and the remaining third
transfer to other programmes, are terminated, or leave for logistical reasons. No published
study has directly asked treatment-seekers whether they regret entering formal care; dropout
is used as a proxy under full disclosure. What the evidence does establish clearly, via the
2020 Cochrane review of 27 trials and 10,565 participants, is that AA and 12-step facilitation
produce the highest continuous abstinence rates of any tested formal intervention — 24% at
one year in Project MATCH versus 15% for cognitive-behavioural therapy and 14% for
motivational enhancement therapy — suggesting that among those who remain engaged, treatment
pays off substantially.
For adults who avoided or delayed formal treatment, the Tucker et al. (2020) re-analysis of
NESARC-III (n=7,785 US adults with AUD) found that 34% had persistent AUD with no recovery
trajectory at the time of the survey. Since only 23% of the NESARC-III sample had ever
received alcohol treatment, the 34% persistent-AUD rate predominantly reflects untreated
pathways. The Liu et al. JAMA Network Open analysis of NSDUH data (2013–2023, n=657,583)
adds a cross-sectional layer: among all untreated adults with any SUD, only 5.7% acknowledged
a perceived need for treatment at the moment of survey, and only 2.7% had taken steps to
seek it. This low perceived-need figure is consistent with the anosognosia literature on
substance use disorders and does not imply that the remaining 94% were satisfied with their
untreated status — it more likely reflects the insight deficits that characterise active
addiction. The 34% persistent-AUD proxy captures the long-run outcome for those who remained
on the untreated path.
Under Gilovich and Medvec’s temporal regret framework, actions generate more regret shortly
after the decision, while inaction regret accumulates over years as the forgone alternative
becomes salient. The pattern for addiction aligns with inaction_dominates: the consequences
of remaining untreated — continued dependence, relationship loss, occupational decline,
health deterioration — compound over time in ways that are not apparent at the moment of
avoidance. Treatment dropout (action-side regret) tends to be experienced acutely but may
attenuate as individuals transition to other recovery pathways (natural recovery, mutual help,
medication-only). The persistent-AUD outcome for untreated individuals (34%) exceeds the
treatment-dropout rate (23%), and that gap, while based on non-equivalent denominators and
disclosed proxy assumptions, is directionally consistent with the full body of longitudinal
treatment-outcome evidence.
Sumber: tindakan
Buku besar klaim
Setiap angka di bawah ini adalah apa yang dilaporkan masing-masing sumber, dengan kutipan kata demi kata yang kami andalkan dan bagaimana kami sampai pada angka kami. Klik tautan mana saja untuk memverifikasi langsung.
2/2 sumber diverifikasi secara independen kata demi kata terhadap sumber terkutip
[1]PLoS ONE — Use of machine learning to examine disparities in completion of substance use disorder treatment
Terverifikasi
Telaah sejawat
33.8% of 649,479 discharges were treatment-completed; 22.8% dropped out before completion
Kutipan
“"the highest Reason for Discharge in the full sample was 'treatment completed' (33.8%)," while those who "dropped out of treatment" represented 22.8% of discharges. Other discharge reasons included: transferred to another program (29.2%), terminated by facility (7.6%), incarcerated (2.3%), and death (0.2%).
”
Data sumber dari
2022-09-23
Diakses
2026-05-22
Verifikasi
Kutipan diambil ulang secara independen dan dikonfirmasi kata demi kata terhadap sumber terkutip selama audit pendasaran kami.
Perhitungan
Baird A, Cheng Y, Xia Y. PLoS ONE. 2022 Sep 23. Analysis of TEDS-D datasets (2017–2019), n=649,479 discharge episodes. The action-side regret proxy is the treatment dropout rate: 22.8% of all treatment entrants left before completing the programme. Dropout represents the clearest available signal of "found treatment insufficient or unsatisfactory" among people who actively sought formal care. This is an undercount of regret among completers (some completers may still regret the decision) and an overcount among dropouts (some dropout may reflect life events rather than dissatisfaction). No direct "do you regret entering treatment?" survey exists in the published literature; dropout is used under full proxy_only disclosure.
[2]Alcohol and Alcoholism / PMC (Cochrane distillation) — Alcoholics Anonymous and 12-Step Facilitation Treatments for Alcohol Use Disorder: A Distillation of a 2020 Cochrane Review for Clinicians and Policy Makers
Terverifikasi
Telaah sejawat
AA/TSF achieved 24% continuous abstinence at 1 year vs 15% CBT and 14% MET (Project MATCH outpatients); 45% lower alcohol-related healthcare costs for AA participants vs 64% higher for CBT-treated patients
Kutipan
“"the proportion of participants continuously abstinent throughout the first year following treatment among outpatients who were assigned to the AA/TSF intervention was 24%, whereas only 15 and 14% of participants assigned to CBT and MET, respectively, were abstinent during that timeframe."
”
Data sumber dari
2020-11-01
Diakses
2026-05-22
Verifikasi
Kutipan diambil ulang secara independen dan dikonfirmasi kata demi kata terhadap sumber terkutip selama audit pendasaran kami.
Perhitungan
Kelly JF, Humphreys K, Ferri M. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020, issue 3, CD012880; distilled in Alcohol and Alcoholism. Included as authoritative context for treatment efficacy: the best-tested formal intervention (AA/TSF) achieves 24% continuous abstinence at 1 year. This contextualises the dropout proxy — treatment does work for those who engage — and establishes that the 23% dropout regret proxy is a floor, not a ceiling, of action-side dissatisfaction. Not the source of the primary regret_rate.
Sumber: tidak bertindak
Buku besar klaim
Setiap angka di bawah ini adalah apa yang dilaporkan masing-masing sumber, dengan kutipan kata demi kata yang kami andalkan dan bagaimana kami sampai pada angka kami. Klik tautan mana saja untuk memverifikasi langsung.
2/2 sumber diverifikasi secara independen kata demi kata terhadap sumber terkutip
[1]Alcohol Research: Current Reviews — Epidemiology of Recovery From Alcohol Use Disorder
Terverifikasi
Telaah sejawat
34% of NESARC-III respondents with AUD had persistent AUD (no recovery); only 23% had ever received alcohol treatment; over 70% of problem resolutions occur without formal intervention
Kutipan
“"Only 34% of respondents had persistent AUD" and "more than 70% of problem resolutions occur outside the context of treatment" and "fewer than 25% utilize alcohol-focused services."
”
Data sumber dari
2020-01-01
Diakses
2026-05-22
Verifikasi
Kutipan diambil ulang secara independen dan dikonfirmasi kata demi kata terhadap sumber terkutip selama audit pendasaran kami.
Perhitungan
Tucker JA, Chandler SD, Witkiewitz K. Alcohol Res Curr Rev. 2020;40(3):06. Re-analysis of Fan et al. NESARC-III (N=7,785 US adults with any AUD history). The inaction-side regret proxy is the 34% persistent-AUD rate in the overall sample: the share of people with AUD who remained dependent without achieving any recovery. Since only 23% of this sample ever received treatment, the 34% figure predominantly reflects untreated trajectories. Persistent AUD is used as a regret proxy because remaining stuck in active addiction is the worst-case inaction outcome — analogous to how home-care burden proxies inaction regret in the nursing-home entry. This is NOT a direct "do you regret not seeking treatment?" question; it is an outcome-failure proxy. The denominators are not equivalent to the TEDS-D action-side sample: TEDS-D captures treatment entrants (selected for severity and motivation); NESARC-III is a general AUD population (includes mild/early-stage cases who may naturally recover). The proxy asymmetry is disclosed; the direction (inaction_dominates) is consistent with the evidence that formal treatment outperforms no-treatment pathways on sustained remission.
[2]JAMA Network Open — Trends in Treatment Need and Receipt for Substance Use Disorders in the US
Terverifikasi
Telaah sejawat
Among untreated SUD adults over 2013–2023, only 5.7% perceived a need for treatment and 2.7% perceived need and actively sought treatment; treatment receipt fell to 6.5% in 2020 and recovered to 14.9% in 2022
Kutipan
“"over the decade and among all participants with SUD who did not receive treatment, 5.7% had a perceived need for treatment and 2.7% perceived a need for treatment and made efforts in seeking treatment."
”
Data sumber dari
2025-01-06
Diakses
2026-05-22
Verifikasi
Kutipan diambil ulang secara independen dan dikonfirmasi kata demi kata terhadap sumber terkutip selama audit pendasaran kami.
Perhitungan
Liu L, Zhang C, Nahata MC. JAMA Network Open. 2025;8(1):e2454813. DOI:10.1001/ jamanetworkopen.2024.54813. Analysis of NSDUH data 2013–2023, n=657,583. The 5.7% perceived-need figure represents the acknowledged-need fraction among untreated SUD adults — a conservative floor for inaction-side regret, since many people with SUD lack insight into their disorder (anosognosia effect). The much larger 34% persistent-AUD proxy is used as the primary inaction rate rather than this 5.7%, because perceived need measured at a cross-sectional moment captures current insight, not retrospective regret accumulated over time after remaining untreated. Included as a corroborating source establishing the treatment gap magnitude and the baseline treatment receipt rate.
Catatan
Kedua sisi menggunakan proksi kegagalan-hasil, bukan survei penyesalan langsung. Tidak ada studi yang diterbitkan menanyakan sampel representatif nasional "apakah Anda menyesali mencari perawatan?" atau "apakah Anda menyesali tidak mencari perawatan?" untuk gangguan penggunaan zat. Proksi sisi tindakan (22,8% putus TEDS-D, n=649.479 episode pemulangan) berasal dari pendatang perawatan — populasi yang dipilih untuk keparahan gangguan dan motivasi untuk berubah — dan mengukur penghentian perawatan, bukan penyesalan per se. Proksi sisi non-tindakan (34% AUD persisten dari NESARC-III, n=7.785) berasal dari populasi AUD umum yang sebagian besar tidak diobati (hanya 23% pernah menerima perawatan). Populasi ini mencakup kasus ringan dan tahap awal yang tidak mungkin mencari perawatan. Arah inaction_dominates tetap konsisten dengan totalitas bukti.
