Sottoporsi a una legatura delle tube vs. non farlo
Se agisci
Sottoporsi a una legatura delle tube
7,0%
Se non agisci
Non sottoporsi a una legatura delle tube
5,0%
Percentuale di chi poi rimpiange ciascuna scelta. Le barre e il registro completo dei dati compaiono sotto.
Salute
Ultima revisione 2026-05-10
Qualità delle prove 4.25/5
Punteggio di revisione su otto dimensioni rispetto alla
griglia di qualità
. Ogni dimensione valutata da 1 a 5.
D1 Verifica delle fonti
5/5
D2 Autorità e indipendenza delle fonti
5/5
D3 Precisione del tasso di rimpianto
2/5
D4 Comparabilità delle fonti
3/5
D5 Schema di Gilovich
5/5
D6 Qualità della prosa
5/5
D7 Completezza degli avvertimenti
5/5
D8 Qualità del campione
4/5
Media4.25/5
Dati proxy — non esiste alcun sondaggio diretto sul rimpianto per questa decisione. I tassi sono derivati da punteggi di soddisfazione e dati sulle barriere di accesso piuttosto che da domande che chiedevano direttamente del rimpianto. Vedi avvertenze di seguito.
Rimpianto per azione
Sottoporsi a una legatura delle tube
7,0%
12,7% di probabilità cumulativa di rimpianto entro 14 anni (CREST)
Donne che hanno subito sterilizzazione tubarica, coorte prospettica statunitense (n=11.232)
probabilità cumulativa a 14 anni; coorte CREST sterilizzata 1978-1987
Rimpianto per inazione
Non sottoporsi a una legatura delle tube
5,0%
~5% (proxy costruito — non esiste un'indagine diretta sul rimpianto da inazione)
Donne che hanno scelto di non subire sterilizzazione tubarica, stimato
retrospettivo, stimato
% rimpiange questa scelta
Sottoporsi a una legatura delle tubeNon sottoporsi a una legatura delle tube
7,0%5,0%
action dominates — L'azione domina — la maggior parte si pente di aver agito.
Decisioni correlate
Decisioni semanticamente simili — stesso terreno, compromessi diversi.
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).
Fonti: azione
Registro delle fonti
Ogni numero qui sotto è ciò che ciascuna fonte ha riportato, con la citazione testuale su cui ci siamo basati e come siamo arrivati alla nostra cifra. Clicca su qualsiasi link per verificare direttamente.
2/3 fonti verificate in modo indipendente e alla lettera rispetto alla fonte citata
[1]American Academy of Family Physicians (AFP) — Women's Regret After Sterilization Procedures
Verificato
Fonte di riferimento
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%)
Estratto
“"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."
”
Dati originali da
2002-10-01
Consultato
2026-07-12
Verifica
Estratto recuperato in modo indipendente e confermato parola per parola rispetto alla fonte citata durante il nostro audit di attendibilità.
Calcolo
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
Studio 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)
Estratto
“"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.
”
Dati originali da
1999-06-01
Consultato
2026-07-12
Calcolo
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
Verificato
Fonte di riferimento
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
Estratto
“"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."
”
Dati originali da
2003-03-15
Consultato
2026-07-01
Verifica
Estratto recuperato in modo indipendente e confermato parola per parola rispetto alla fonte citata durante il nostro audit di attendibilità.
Calcolo
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).
Fonti: inazione
Registro delle fonti
Ogni numero qui sotto è ciò che ciascuna fonte ha riportato, con la citazione testuale su cui ci siamo basati e come siamo arrivati alla nostra cifra. Clicca su qualsiasi link per verificare direttamente.
1/2 fonti verificate in modo indipendente e alla lettera rispetto alla fonte citata
[1]Centers for Disease Control and Prevention — Unintended Pregnancy | Reproductive Health | CDC↗ 1 other entry
Rapporto governativo
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
Estratto
“"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."
”
Dati originali da
2024-01-01
Consultato
2026-05-10
Calcolo
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
Verificato
Fonte di riferimento
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%
Estratto
“"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."
”
Dati originali da
2002-10-01
Consultato
2026-07-01
Verifica
Estratto recuperato in modo indipendente e confermato parola per parola rispetto alla fonte citata durante il nostro audit di attendibilità.
Calcolo
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.
Avvertenze
Il 12,7% lato azione è uno dei tassi di rimpianto meglio documentati nell'intero dataset regret-pairs: proviene dallo studio di coorte prospettica CREST di 11.232 donne seguite per fino a 14 anni (Hillis et al. 1999, PMID 10362150). La cifra complessiva maschera l'estrema stratificazione per età: le donne sterilizzate a età ≤30 avevano una probabilità cumulativa di rimpianto a 14 anni del 20,3%, mentre quelle sterilizzate a età >30 avevano solo il 5,9%. Il 5% lato inazione è un proxy segnaposto costruito: nessuna indagine pubblicata chiede direttamente alle donne che hanno scelto di non fare la legatura delle tube se si pentono di quella decisione. Il proxy è costruito da dati sul carico di gravidanze non volute e dall'assunto che un piccolo ma reale sottoinsieme di donne non sterilizzate che hanno sperimentato gravidanze non volute esprimerà un duraturo rimpianto dall'inazione. Il delta (0,077) riflette quindi l'asimmetria delle prove tanto quanto l'asimmetria dell'esperienza sottostante. La legatura delle tube è una delle più chiare eccezioni documentate al tipico risultato di Gilovich e Medvec che il rimpianto dall'inazione domina a lungo termine: la permanenza della procedura, la reale possibilità di volere più figli dopo un cambiamento di vita (nuovo partner, perdita di un figlio, divorzio) e la giovane età in cui molte donne la subiscono si combinano per sostenere il rimpianto dall'azione in un modo insolito per una procedura elettiva deliberata. I tassi di rimpianto sono sostanzialmente inferiori nelle donne sterilizzate dopo i 30 anni con famiglie complete — per quel sottogruppo, può applicarsi la previsione di dominanza dell'inazione di Gilovich. Sono state documentate differenze razziali ed etniche nei tassi di rimpianto in alcuni studi, con donne nere e ispaniche che mostrano tassi un po' più alti di desiderio di inversione, potenzialmente riflettendo barriere socioeconomiche all'accesso alla sterilizzazione a età ottimali. I dati delle indagini provengono da coorti statunitensi; i modelli in paesi con accesso diverso alla salute riproduttiva e norme sulle dimensioni della famiglia possono differire.
