Ga naar inhoud
Likelier

Spijt van handelen vs. niets doen

Formele behandeling voor verslaving zoeken vs behandeling vermijden

Als je handelt

Formele verslavingsbehandeling gezocht

23%

Als je niets doet

Formele behandeling vermeden of uitgesteld

34%

Percentage dat later spijt heeft van elke keuze. De balken en het volledige overzicht staan hieronder.


Gezondheid

Laatst beoordeeld 2026-05-22

Kwaliteit van bewijs 4.25/5

Beoordelingsscore op acht dimensies volgens de kwaliteitsrubriek . Elke dimensie krijgt een score van 1 tot 5.

D1 Bronverificatie
5/5
D2 Autoriteit en onafhankelijkheid van bronnen
5/5
D3 Nauwkeurigheid van spijtcijfer
2/5
D4 Vergelijkbaarheid van bronnen
2/5
D5 Gilovich-patroon
5/5
D6 Prozakwaliteit
5/5
D7 Volledigheid van voorbehouden
5/5
D8 Steekproefkwaliteit
5/5
Gemiddelde 4.25/5
A clipboard with a treatment intake form next to a closed door with a padlock
Proxygegevens — er bestaat geen directe spijtenquête voor deze beslissing. De percentages zijn afgeleid van tevredenheidsscores en toegangsdrempelgegevens in plaats van vragen die direct naar spijt vroegen. Zie opmerkingen hieronder.

Spijt van handelen

Formele verslavingsbehandeling gezocht

23%

23% van SUD-behandelingsinstappers viel uit voor voltooiing (behandelingsuitval als spijtproxy)

Volwassenen ontslagen uit Amerikaanse middelengebruiks-stoornisbehandelingsprogramma's, TEDS-D 2017–2019

Ontslag-episode; TEDS-D 2017–2019

Spijt van nalaten

Formele behandeling vermeden of uitgesteld

34%

34% van volwassenen met AUD in NESARC-III had persistente stoornis zonder herstel (persistent-AUD als spijtproxy voor onbehandeld pad)

Amerikaanse volwassenen met afgelopen-jaar alcoholgebruikstoornis, NESARC-III (2012–2013); voornamelijk onbehandeld sample

Afgelopen-jaar prevalentie; NESARC-III golf (2012–2013)

% betreurt deze keuze

inaction dominates — Niets doen domineert — de meesten hebben spijt dat ze niet handelden.

Gerelateerde keuzes

Semantisch vergelijkbare keuzes — zelfde terrein, andere afwegingen.

Gezondheid

Behandeling zoeken vs. verslaving verbergen

% betreurt deze keuze

Niet-handelen overheerst

Spijt over niet-handelen 4.3× hoger

Gezondheid

Ingrijpen voor revalidatie vs wachten

% betreurt deze keuze

Niet-handelen overheerst

Spijt over niet-handelen 1.8× hoger

Gezondheid

MAT vs alleen onthouding bij opioidverslaving

% betreurt deze keuze

Niet-handelen overheerst

Spijt over niet-handelen 3.9× hoger

GezondheidDirect

Vroege diagnose

% betreurt deze keuze

Niet-handelen overheerst

Spijt over niet-handelen 1.3× hoger

Gezondheid

Therapie of geen therapie

% betreurt deze keuze

In evenwicht

Grotendeels in evenwicht

family

Verslaving aan familie onthullen

% betreurt deze keuze

Niet-handelen overheerst

Spijt over niet-handelen 1.8× hoger

Gezondheid

Levensduur vs veroudering accepteren

% betreurt deze keuze

Niet-handelen overheerst

Spijt over niet-handelen 1.5× hoger

Gezondheid

Stoppen met roken

% betreurt deze keuze

Niet-handelen overheerst

Spijt over niet-handelen 90.0× hoger

Risico's achter deze beslissing

De kansen die aan deze keuze ten grondslag liggen.

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.

Bronnen: handelen

Bronnenverantwoording

Elk getal hieronder is wat elke bron rapporteerde, met het letterlijke citaat waarop we ons baseerden en hoe we tot ons cijfer kwamen. Klik op een link om rechtstreeks te verifiëren.

2/2 bronnen onafhankelijk woordelijk geverifieerd tegenover de geciteerde bron

  1. [1] PLoS ONE — Use of machine learning to examine disparities in completion of substance use disorder treatment Geverifieerd
    Use of machine learning to examine disparities in completion of substance use disorder treatment
    Statistiek
    33.8% of 649,479 discharges were treatment-completed; 22.8% dropped out before completion
    Fragment
    “"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%). ”
    Brongegevens van
    2022-09-23
    Geraadpleegd
    2026-05-22
    Verificatie
    Fragment onafhankelijk opnieuw opgehaald en woord voor woord bevestigd tegenover de geciteerde bron tijdens onze onderbouwingsaudit.
    Berekening
    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. [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 Geverifieerd
    Alcoholics Anonymous and 12-Step Facilitation Treatments for Alcohol Use Disorder: A Distillation of a 2020 Cochrane Review for Clinicians and Policy Makers
    Statistiek
    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
    Fragment
    “"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." ”
    Brongegevens van
    2020-11-01
    Geraadpleegd
    2026-05-22
    Verificatie
    Fragment onafhankelijk opnieuw opgehaald en woord voor woord bevestigd tegenover de geciteerde bron tijdens onze onderbouwingsaudit.
    Berekening
    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.

Bronnen: niet handelen

Bronnenverantwoording

Elk getal hieronder is wat elke bron rapporteerde, met het letterlijke citaat waarop we ons baseerden en hoe we tot ons cijfer kwamen. Klik op een link om rechtstreeks te verifiëren.

2/2 bronnen onafhankelijk woordelijk geverifieerd tegenover de geciteerde bron

  1. [1] Alcohol Research: Current Reviews — Epidemiology of Recovery From Alcohol Use Disorder Geverifieerd
    Epidemiology of Recovery From Alcohol Use Disorder
    Statistiek
    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
    Fragment
    “"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." ”
    Brongegevens van
    2020-01-01
    Geraadpleegd
    2026-05-22
    Verificatie
    Fragment onafhankelijk opnieuw opgehaald en woord voor woord bevestigd tegenover de geciteerde bron tijdens onze onderbouwingsaudit.
    Berekening
    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. [2] JAMA Network Open — Trends in Treatment Need and Receipt for Substance Use Disorders in the US Geverifieerd
    Trends in Treatment Need and Receipt for Substance Use Disorders in the US
    Statistiek
    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
    Fragment
    “"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." ”
    Brongegevens van
    2025-01-06
    Geraadpleegd
    2026-05-22
    Verificatie
    Fragment onafhankelijk opnieuw opgehaald en woord voor woord bevestigd tegenover de geciteerde bron tijdens onze onderbouwingsaudit.
    Berekening
    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.

Kanttekeningen

Beide zijden gebruiken proxies voor behandelfalen, geen directe spijt-enquêtes. De ongelijkwaardigheid van de populaties in de behandel- en niet-behandelgroepen is openbaar gemeld.

Ruwe data: /api/decisions.json

Recent bekeken op dit apparaat