Mendorong anggota keluarga masuk perawatan kecanduan vs. menunggu mereka mencari bantuan sendiri
Jika Anda bertindak
Memulai atau mengorganisir masuk perawatan
38%
Jika Anda tidak bertindak
Menunggu orang tersebut mencari bantuan secara mandiri
67%
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
Memulai atau mengorganisir masuk perawatan
38%
38% intervensi keluarga yang dimulai gagal mencapai masuk perawatan (proksi non-keterlibatan)
Orang lain yang signifikan dari individu yang tahan perawatan dengan gangguan penggunaan zat
tindak lanjut 6 bulan pasca-intervensi
Penyesalan atas kelambanan
Menunggu orang tersebut mencari bantuan secara mandiri
67%
67% keluarga individu yang tidak diobati melaporkan menunda mencari bantuan, dengan 88,9% melaporkan kesulitan penyesuaian emosional (proksi beban)
Anggota keluarga individu dengan gangguan penggunaan zat, sebagian besar tidak diobati
Lintas-bagian, retrospektif; data dikumpulkan Juni 2012-Juli 2013
% menyesal dengan pilihan ini
Memulai atau mengorganisir masuk perawatanMenunggu orang tersebut mencari bantuan secara mandiri
38%67%
inaction dominates — Tidak bertindak mendominasi — sebagian besar menyesali karena tidak bertindak.
Keputusan terkait
Keputusan yang serupa secara semantik — area yang sama, kompromi yang berbeda.
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.
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.
1/2 sumber diverifikasi secara independen kata demi kata terhadap sumber terkutip
[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
Terverifikasi
Telaah sejawat
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
Kutipan
“"An additional analysis showed an IP treatment engagement rate of 43% after six months among the CSOs who received individual or group CRAFT."
”
Data sumber dari
2022-04-01
Diakses
2026-05-22
Verifikasi
Kutipan diambil ulang secara independen dan dikonfirmasi kata demi kata terhadap sumber terkutip selama audit pendasaran kami.
Perhitungan
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?
Telaah sejawat
CRAFT achieved 62% treatment engagement vs 37% in Al-Anon/Nar-Anon Facilitation in a sample of 115 CSOs
Kutipan
“"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)."
”
Data sumber dari
2017-11-01
Diakses
2026-05-22
Perhitungan
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.
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.
1/2 sumber diverifikasi secara independen kata demi kata terhadap sumber terkutip
[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
Telaah sejawat
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%)
Kutipan
“"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%)."
”
Data sumber dari
2024-06-01
Diakses
2026-05-22
Perhitungan
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
Terverifikasi
Telaah sejawat
88.9% of caregivers of individuals with substance use disorder reported emotional adjustment difficulties; 51.9% had major depressive disorder
Kutipan
“"Emotional adjustment 88.9% experienced difficulties. 71.6% felt overwhelmed. Major depressive disorder was identified in 51.9% of the caregivers."
”
Data sumber dari
2022-08-01
Diakses
2026-05-22
Verifikasi
Kutipan diambil ulang secara independen dan dikonfirmasi kata demi kata terhadap sumber terkutip selama audit pendasaran kami.
Perhitungan
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.
Catatan
Kedua sisi menggunakan ukuran proksi, bukan survei penyesalan langsung; `proxy_only: true` diatur. Tingkat sisi tindakan (38%) adalah proksi kegagalan-hasil yang diturunkan dari RCT CRAFT: proporsi anggota keluarga yang menyelesaikan program intervensi terstruktur dan masih tidak dapat melibatkan orang yang dicintai dalam perawatan. Ini tidak sama dengan "penyesalan" — banyak keluarga ini mungkin tidak memiliki penyesalan tentang mencoba. Tingkat sisi non-tindakan (67%) adalah proksi penundaan dari studi nasional Brasil (N=3.030); data AS secara luas konsisten dalam arah. Statistik beban pengasuh (88,9% kesulitan emosional, 51,9% MDD) dari sampel pengasuh pasien SUD terpisah. Kedua sisi mengukur konstruksi yang berbeda: sisi tindakan mengukur kegagalan intervensi objektif, sisi non-tindakan mengukur penundaan retrospektif subjektif dan beban. Regret_delta (-0,29) harus diinterpretasikan sebagai directional.
