Quale frazione degli adulti statunitensi che sviluppano depressione maggiore o un disturbo d'ansia non riceve alcun trattamento di salute mentale per almeno un anno?
Among UK adults who have had therapy, 27% did not find it helpful (BACP/YouGov 2025, n=5,150); among US adults who have never sought mental health care, approximately 33% express latent demand — they want care but have not pursued it (APA/Harris Poll 2025, n=1,076). The bilateral comparison is directionally consistent with Gilovich and Medvec’s inaction-dominance model, but the 6-percentage-point gap is computed from incomparable populations — UK therapy-attenders versus US non-attenders — and should not be read as a precise effect size. The pattern is classified as balanced: the signal points toward inaction carrying more regret, but the cross-national measurement gap prevents a stronger directional claim.
The data-quality limitations are layered. The action-side BACP figure is the stronger instrument: a large, nationally representative YouGov survey asking therapy-attenders to assess their own outcomes. Its weakness is framing — “not helpful” captures a broad range of outcomes from genuine harm to mild disappointment, and the 27% unhelpfulness rate sits well above the 5.2% lasting-harm rate found in Crawford et al.’s NHS patient survey (n=14,587), confirming that most of the 27% experienced disappointment rather than lasting damage. The inaction-side rate is a derived figure: 17% of all US adults said they want mental health care but have not sought it, out of 51% who had never sought care, yielding 33% latent demand among non-attenders. Latent demand is prospective (want to go) rather than retrospective (wish I had gone), which likely understates actual regret in older cohorts where the opportunity cost has already accumulated.
Two structural confounders qualify any strong directional claim. First, access barriers make much inaction involuntary: NHS England waiting lists, US insurance gaps, cost, and persistent stigma mean that a share of non-attenders who want care cannot readily obtain it, conflating structural barriers with personal decision regret. Second, cross-national asymmetry in the data — UK for the action side, US for the inaction side — introduces noise because NHS cost-free access and US insurance-dependent access produce different selection effects in who enters therapy and who doesn’t. Within those limits, the data are consistent with the established finding that long-run regret accumulates more on the side of inaction than action, though the effect size here is too small to carry strong causal weight.
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.
1/2 fonti verificate in modo indipendente e alla lettera rispetto alla fonte citata
[1]British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy / YouGov — BACP Public Perceptions Survey 2025
Fonte di riferimento
73% of UK adults who have had therapy found it helpful; 27% did not
Estratto
“"More than seven in 10 adults who've had therapy found it helpful (73%) and three quarters (75%) would recommend it to anyone looking for mental health support and to improve their wellbeing."
”
Dati originali da
2025-03-04
Consultato
2026-05-01
Calcolo
BACP/YouGov 2025 Public Perceptions Survey (n=5,150 UK adults, nationally representative). 73% of therapy-attenders found therapy helpful, implying 27% did not (1 - 0.73 = 0.27). This is used as the action-side regret proxy: therapy-attenders who did not find treatment helpful are the subgroup most likely to regret having attended. "Not helpful" and "regret going" are not the same construct — a person can find therapy emotionally challenging but ultimately beneficial, and a person can find a single course unhelpful without regretting the attempt. The 27% figure likely overstates harm-based regret and understates indifference-based outcomes. D3 score: 3 (real survey measuring helpfulness, a recognized proxy for regret rather than a direct regret instrument). Used as the primary action-side rate because it is the largest nationally representative UK survey measuring therapy outcome from the patient's perspective.
[2]British Journal of Psychiatry / Crawford et al. — Patient experience of negative effects of psychological treatment: results of a national survey
Verificato
Articolo peer-reviewed
5.2% of 14,587 NHS psychotherapy patients in England and Wales reported lasting negative effects from their psychological treatment
Estratto
“"Of 14,587 respondents who had received psychological treatment, 763 (5.2%) reported experiencing lasting bad effects. Patients treated with cognitive behaviour therapy and psychodynamic psychotherapy were included across 184 different NHS services."
”
Dati originali da
2016-03-01
Consultato
2026-05-02
Verifica
Estratto recuperato in modo indipendente e confermato parola per parola rispetto alla fonte citata durante il nostro audit di attendibilità.
Calcolo
Crawford et al. (2016) surveyed 14,587 NHS patients who received psychotherapy across 184 services and found 5.2% reported lasting negative effects. This is the largest published national survey of therapy harm and provides a conservative floor for harm-based regret. The 5.2% rate sits well below the BACP 2025 "not helpful" figure of 27%, confirming that lasting harm is a smaller subcomponent of overall treatment dissatisfaction. This source corroborates that the action-side floor for serious harm-based regret is low. Included as a corroborating peer-reviewed source; the primary action-side rate (0.27) is drawn from the BACP 2025 survey.
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.
1/1 fonti verificate in modo indipendente e alla lettera rispetto alla fonte citata
[1]American Psychological Association / The Harris Poll — Public Attitudes Toward Mental Health in the U.S.
Verificato
Fonte di riferimento
17% of all US adults want mental health care in the future but have not yet sought it; 34% have never sought care and don't want to — yielding 17/(17+34) = 33% latent demand among non-attenders
Estratto
“"More adults said they have sought mental health care in the past (45%), and close to 1 in 5 said they want to in the future (17%). Only one-third of adults (34%) said they had never sought professional mental health care and do not want to." Survey of 1,076 U.S. adults ages 18+, conducted online by The Harris Poll in partnership with APA, April 18-21, 2025.
”
Dati originali da
2025-04-21
Consultato
2026-05-01
Verifica
Estratto recuperato in modo indipendente e confermato parola per parola rispetto alla fonte citata durante il nostro audit di attendibilità.
Calcolo
APA/Harris Poll 2025 (n=1,076 US adults, nationally representative, April 18-21 2025). The survey identified three mutually exclusive groups: those who sought care in the past (45%), those who want to in the future but haven't (17%), and those who never sought and don't want to (34%). The remaining ~4% are likely currently in care or did not respond. Among non-attenders (17% + 34% = 51% of the sample), 17/51 = 33% express latent demand (want care but haven't sought it). This 33% is used as the inaction-side regret proxy: non-attenders with latent demand are the subgroup most likely to retrospectively regret not having sought help. Construct limitation: "want care in the future" is not equivalent to "regret not having gone already" — latent demand is a forward-looking aspiration, while regret is a backward-looking counterfactual. Access barriers (cost, insurance, availability) mean some latent demand reflects structural obstacles rather than personal decision regret. Cross-national note: this is US data, not UK; the UK setting for the action side has different access structures (NHS, means-tested IAPT waitlists). UK latent demand data were searched across BACP/YouGov, MIND UK, Mental Health Foundation, NHS APMS 2023-24, and Rethink Mental Illness; no comparable nationally representative instrument was found that asked non-attenders directly about latent demand. The APA/Harris estimate (33%) is broadly consistent with UK treatment-gap literature and is used here as the best available nationally representative proxy.
Avvertenze
Nessuno dei due lati di questa voce porta un tasso di rimpianto direttamente misurato. Il 27% sul lato azione (BACP/YouGov 2025, n=5.150 adulti britannici) misura la frazione di chi ha frequentato la terapia che non l'ha trovata utile — "non utile" e "si pente di esserci andato" sono costrutti distinti. Una persona può trovare la terapia difficile o inconclusiva senza pentirsi del tentativo, e può trovare un singolo ciclo non utile beneficiando di trattamenti successivi. BACP è un'associazione professionale per terapeuti; il suo sondaggio è stato commissionato da un ente con un interesse finanziario nella diffusione della terapia, il che potrebbe orientare l'inquadramento "utile" verso esiti positivi. Il 33% sul lato inazione (APA/Harris Poll 2025, n=1.076 adulti USA) è un tasso di domanda latente derivato: il 17% di tutti gli adulti USA desidera assistenza ma non l'ha cercata, diviso per il 51% che non l'ha mai cercata, dà il 33% dei non frequentanti che esprime domanda prospettica (il restante ~4% è probabilmente attualmente in cura o non ha risposto a quella domanda). La domanda latente non equivale al rimpianto retrospettivo. Una parte significativa dell'inazione è involontaria: i tempi di attesa del NHS (Inghilterra), le lacune assicurative (USA), le barriere di costo e lo stigma persistente vincolano tutti l'accesso indipendentemente dalla preferenza individuale. L'asimmetria cross-nazionale è una limitazione fondamentale: il lato azione utilizza dati britannici (BACP/YouGov, Crawford NHS) e il lato inazione utilizza dati USA (APA/Harris). L'accesso dipendente dall'assicurazione USA e l'accesso gratuito del NHS producono effetti di selezione diversi in chi entra in terapia e chi no; il divario di 6 punti percentuali tra popolazioni incomparabili non dovrebbe essere letto come una dimensione di effetto precisa. Lo schema gilovich_pattern è quindi classificato come bilanciato piuttosto che inaction_dominates: il segnale direzionale è coerente con il modello di dominanza dell'inazione di Gilovich e Medvec, ma il divario di misura cross-nazionale significa che il delta non può sostenere un'affermazione direzionale più forte. Entrambe le popolazioni mostrano tassi di adesione alla terapia comparabili di circa 35-45% lifetime.
