Настаивать на лечении зависимости у члена семьи или ждать, пока он сам обратится за помощью
Если вы действуете
Инициировал или организовал поступление на лечение
38%
Если вы бездействуете
Ждал, пока человек самостоятельно обратится за помощью
67%
Доля тех, кто впоследствии жалеет о каждом выборе. Столбцы и полный реестр показаны ниже.
Здоровье
Последнее обновление 2026-05-22
Качество доказательств 4.25/5
Оценка по восьми измерениям согласно
рубрике качества
. Каждое измерение оценивается от 1 до 5.
D1 Проверка источников
5/5
D2 Авторитетность и независимость источника
5/5
D3 Точность уровня сожаления
2/5
D4 Сопоставимость источников
2/5
D5 Шаблон Гиловича
5/5
D6 Качество текста
5/5
D7 Полнота оговорок
5/5
D8 Качество выборки
5/5
Среднее4.25/5
Косвенные данные — для этого решения не существует прямого исследования сожалений. Показатели получены из оценок удовлетворённости и данных о барьерах доступа, а не из вопросов, непосредственно касавшихся сожалений. Смотрите оговорки ниже.
Сожаление о действии
Инициировал или организовал поступление на лечение
38%
38% семейно инициированных интервенций не достигают вхождения в лечение (приближение через неучастие)
Обеспокоенные значимые другие лиц, устойчивых к лечению, с расстройством употребления психоактивных веществ
6-месячное наблюдение после интервенции
Сожаление о бездействии
Ждал, пока человек самостоятельно обратится за помощью
67%
67% семей нелеченых лиц сообщили о задержке обращения за помощью, 88,9% сообщили о трудностях эмоциональной адаптации (приближение через бремя)
Члены семей лиц с расстройством употребления психоактивных веществ, в основном нелеченых
поперечно, ретроспективно; данные собраны июнь 2012 – июль 2013
% сожалеют об этом выборе
Инициировал или организовал поступление на лечениеЖдал, пока человек самостоятельно обратится за помощью
38%67%
inaction dominates — Бездействие преобладает — большинство сожалеет, что не действовали.
Похожие решения
Семантически близкие решения — та же область, другие компромиссы.
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.
Источники: действие
Реестр утверждений
Каждое число ниже — это то, что сообщил источник, с дословной цитатой, на которую мы опирались, и тем, как мы пришли к нашей цифре. Нажмите на ссылку, чтобы проверить самостоятельно.
1/2 источников независимо дословно сверены с указанным источником
[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
Проверено
Рецензируемая публикация
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
Выдержка
“"An additional analysis showed an IP treatment engagement rate of 43% after six months among the CSOs who received individual or group CRAFT."
”
Данные источника:
2022-04-01
Дата обращения
2026-05-22
Проверка
Выдержка независимо повторно загружена и подтверждена слово в слово по указанному источнику в ходе нашей проверки достоверности.
Расчёт
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?
Рецензируемая публикация
CRAFT achieved 62% treatment engagement vs 37% in Al-Anon/Nar-Anon Facilitation in a sample of 115 CSOs
Выдержка
“"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)."
”
Данные источника:
2017-11-01
Дата обращения
2026-05-22
Расчёт
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.
Источники: бездействие
Реестр утверждений
Каждое число ниже — это то, что сообщил источник, с дословной цитатой, на которую мы опирались, и тем, как мы пришли к нашей цифре. Нажмите на ссылку, чтобы проверить самостоятельно.
1/2 источников независимо дословно сверены с указанным источником
[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
Рецензируемая публикация
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%)
Выдержка
“"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%)."
”
Данные источника:
2024-06-01
Дата обращения
2026-05-22
Расчёт
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
Проверено
Рецензируемая публикация
88.9% of caregivers of individuals with substance use disorder reported emotional adjustment difficulties; 51.9% had major depressive disorder
Выдержка
“"Emotional adjustment 88.9% experienced difficulties. 71.6% felt overwhelmed. Major depressive disorder was identified in 51.9% of the caregivers."
”
Данные источника:
2022-08-01
Дата обращения
2026-05-22
Проверка
Выдержка независимо повторно загружена и подтверждена слово в слово по указанному источнику в ходе нашей проверки достоверности.
Расчёт
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.
Оговорки
Both sides use proxy measures, not direct regret surveys; `proxy_only: true` is set. The action-side rate (38%) is an outcome-failure proxy derived from the CRAFT RCT: the proportion of family members who completed a structured intervention program and still could not engage their loved one in treatment. This is not the same as "regret" — many of these families may have no regret about trying. The inaction-side rate (67%) is a delay proxy from a Brazilian national study (N=3,030); US data are broadly consistent in direction but no equivalent nationally representative US survey on family delay duration and retrospective regret has been published. The caregiver burden statistics (88.9% emotional difficulties, 51.9% MDD) are from a separate sample of caregivers of SUD patients and are used as corroborating evidence of inaction-side harm, not as independent regret rates. The two sides measure different constructs: action-side measures objective intervention failure, inaction-side measures subjective retrospective delay and burden. The regret_delta (-0.29) should be interpreted as directional, not cardinal. Treatment entry per se does not guarantee recovery — the NIAAA notes that treatment dropout and relapse are common, and families who successfully enrolled a loved one may face renewed regret if treatment does not lead to sustained recovery. CRAFT itself shows no between-group differences in family wellbeing outcomes (depression, quality of life) despite higher treatment entry rates, suggesting the act of organising intervention does not by itself reduce family psychological burden.
