Dữ liệu đại diện — không có cuộc khảo sát trực tiếp nào về sự hối tiếc cho quyết định này. Tỷ lệ được lấy từ điểm hài lòng và dữ liệu rào cản tiếp cận thay vì câu hỏi trực tiếp về sự hối tiếc. Xem cảnh báo bên dưới.
Hối hận vì hành động
Giám hộ pháp lý đầy đủ / bảo hộ
24%
24% người chăm sóc trong gia đình ở Mỹ báo cáo có hối tiếc — cùng mức nền này áp dụng cho các gia đình có người giám hộ; không có khảo sát hối tiếc riêng cho giám hộ nào tồn tại (chỉ báo thay thế)
Người chăm sóc gia đình Mỹ (tất cả các loại), đại diện toàn quốc; dùng làm proxy tốt nhất hiện có cho các gia đình đã theo đuổi giám hộ pháp lý đầy đủ
Cắt ngang; tự báo cáo hồi cứu
Hối hận vì không hành động
Ra quyết định được hỗ trợ, giấy ủy quyền, hoặc giám hộ hạn chế
24%
24% người chăm sóc trong gia đình ở Mỹ báo cáo có hối tiếc — được dùng làm chỉ báo thay thế cho các gia đình đã chọn các thu xếp ít hạn chế hơn (mức nền hối tiếc người chăm sóc của AARP 2017)
Người chăm sóc gia đình Mỹ, đại diện toàn quốc; dùng làm proxy cho các gia đình dựa vào ra quyết định được hỗ trợ hoặc POA thay vì giám hộ đầy đủ
Cắt ngang; tự báo cáo hồi cứu
% hối tiếc về lựa chọn này
Giám hộ pháp lý đầy đủ / bảo hộRa quyết định được hỗ trợ, giấy ủy quyền, hoặc giám hộ hạn chế
24%24%
balanced — Khá cân bằng — cả hai lựa chọn đều mang hối tiếc tương đương.
Quyết định liên quan
Các quyết định tương tự về mặt ngữ nghĩa — cùng lĩnh vực, đánh đổi khác nhau.
Full legal guardianship is a drastic legal instrument. Under a guardianship order, the ward — the incapacitated adult — loses virtually all legal rights to direct their own life: where to live, how to spend money, what medical treatment to receive. Approximately 1.3 to 1.5 million Americans live under some form of guardianship (NCD, 2018; National Center for State Courts, 2011). The National Council on Disability’s 2018 report found that guardianship “is often imposed when not warranted by facts or circumstances,” because capacity determinations frequently “lack sufficient scientific or evidentiary basis” and courts routinely fail to enforce requirements that less-restrictive options be considered first. Families who initiate guardianship in good faith — believing they are protecting a vulnerable relative — can find themselves locked into a court process that requires ongoing legal filings, costs $2,000 to $5,000 or more, and may ultimately have exceeded what the situation required.
The empirical literature on family regret about guardianship versus supported decision-making does not yet include a head-to-head bilateral survey. No large-scale study has asked both groups the same retrospective question at a comparable time horizon. The AARP’s 2017 Family Caregiving Survey (n=1,081, nationally representative) found that 24% of US family caregivers report regrets or things they wish they had done differently — the only measured caregiver-regret figure available. Because that survey covers all caregiver types and does not disaggregate by legal arrangement, both sides of this entry use the same 24% figure. The U.S. GAO (2010) documented hundreds of guardianship abuse allegations across 45 states between 1990 and 2010, with $5.4 million stolen from 158 victims in 20 closed cases; this documents one source of action-side regret (exploitation by the guardian or system) but is not itself a regret survey.
Under Gilovich and Medvec’s framework, action regret is most pronounced when the action was irreversible and its consequences were clearly attributable to the decision. Full guardianship is formally reversible — restoration of rights exists — but the NCD (2018) notes that restoration processes are “rarely used” and present substantial procedural barriers. Less-restrictive arrangements (power of attorney, supported decision-making agreements, limited guardianship) preserve more of the ward’s agency and are adjustable without court order. Both paths carry genuine regret potential: families who chose less-restrictive arrangements and later watched their relative suffer financial exploitation or refuse necessary care carry the inaction regret of knowing they could have sought court-enforced protection. The measured evidence cannot distinguish between these scenarios at the population level; the balanced pattern reflects this evidentiary reality, not a finding that outcomes are identical. Structural arguments for higher action-side regret are sound but unquantified.
Nguồn: hành động
Sổ cái xác nhận
Mỗi con số dưới đây là những gì mỗi nguồn đã báo cáo, cùng với trích dẫn nguyên văn mà chúng tôi dựa vào và cách chúng tôi đưa ra con số của mình. Nhấp vào bất kỳ liên kết nào để xác minh trực tiếp.
3/3 nguồn được xác minh độc lập đúng từng chữ so với nguồn được trích dẫn
[1]AARP Public Policy Institute — Family Caregiving: Roles and Impacts (AARP Family Caregiving Survey 2017)
Đã xác minh
Nguồn tham khảo
24% of US family caregivers report regrets or things they wish they had done differently; regrets include wishing they had spent more time, been more compassionate, or been better prepared financially and emotionally
Trích đoạn
“"On the other hand, about one-quarter (24%) say they have regrets. Regrets ranged from wishing they spent more time with their loved one, being more compassionate to being better prepared both financially and emotionally."
”
Dữ liệu nguồn từ
2017-11-01
Truy cập
2026-05-22
Xác minh
Trích đoạn đã được tải lại độc lập và xác nhận đúng từng chữ so với nguồn được trích dẫn trong quá trình kiểm định căn cứ của chúng tôi.
Tính toán
AARP Family Caregiving Survey 2017, n=1,081 caregivers + 479 care recipients, nationally representative online survey conducted August–September 2017. The 24% regret rate covers all family caregivers regardless of legal arrangement type. No published survey has specifically measured regret rates among families who pursued full legal guardianship versus those who chose less-restrictive alternatives. This rate is used as the action-side measured proxy — the best available estimate — not a guardianship-specific figure. The structural features of full guardianship (court costs of $2,000–$5,000+, ongoing filing requirements, ward autonomy loss, NCD-documented over-guardianship risk) suggest this 24% may understate action-side regret, but the quantitative gap is unmeasured and cannot be derived from available data.
[2]National Council on Disability (NCD) — Beyond Guardianship: Toward Alternatives That Promote Greater Self-Determination for People with Disabilities
Đã xác minh
Báo cáo chính phủ
Approximately 1.3 million Americans are under guardianship; guardianship is frequently imposed without sufficient evidentiary basis, courts do little to enforce less-restrictive-alternative requirements, oversight mechanisms are routinely inadequate, and though every state has a rights-restoration process, it is rarely used
Trích đoạn
“"Guardianship is often imposed when not warranted by facts or circumstances, because guardianship proceedings often operate under erroneous assumptions that people with disabilities lack capability to make autonomous decisions, and capacity determinations often lack sufficient scientific or evidentiary basis." "Although most state laws require consideration of less-restrictive alternatives, courts do little to enforce those requirements. Similarly, though every state has a process for the restoration of one's rights lost through guardianship, the process is rarely used."
”
Dữ liệu nguồn từ
2018-03-22
Truy cập
2026-05-22
Xác minh
Trích đoạn đã được tải lại độc lập và xác nhận đúng từng chữ so với nguồn được trích dẫn trong quá trình kiểm định căn cứ của chúng tôi.
Tính toán
NCD report, published March 22, 2018. Documents qualitative evidence that guardianship is over-imposed and courts "lack adequate resources, technical infrastructure, and training to monitor guardianships effectively." Used as a corroborating authoritative source establishing that unnecessary guardianship is common and that the conditions for action-side regret are structurally present — but this does not quantify a regret rate. The 24% figure from the AARP survey is the only measured caregiver-regret baseline available. 2026-07 grounding fix: added the verbatim key-findings sentences on courts not enforcing less-restrictive-alternative requirements and rights-restoration being rarely used, confirmed verbatim on ncd.gov, to ground the body-prose sentences making these two claims (previously uncited in this source's excerpt).
[3]U.S. Government Accountability Office — Guardianships: Cases of Financial Exploitation, Neglect, and Abuse of Seniors (GAO-10-1046)
Đã xác minh
Báo cáo chính phủ
GAO identified hundreds of allegations of physical abuse, neglect, and financial exploitation by guardians in 45 states and the District of Columbia between 1990 and 2010; in 20 selected closed cases, guardians stole or otherwise improperly obtained $5.4 million in assets from 158 incapacitated victims
Trích đoạn
“"GAO identified hundreds of allegations of physical abuse, neglect and financial exploitation by guardians in 45 states and the District of Columbia between 1990 and 2010. In 20 selected closed cases, GAO found that guardians stole or otherwise improperly obtained $5.4 million in assets from 158 incapacitated victims, many of whom were seniors."
”
Dữ liệu nguồn từ
2010-09-01
Truy cập
2026-07-04
Xác minh
Trích đoạn đã được tải lại độc lập và xác nhận đúng từng chữ so với nguồn được trích dẫn trong quá trình kiểm định căn cứ của chúng tôi.
Tính toán
2026-07 grounding fix. Verbatim confirmed via the GAO-10-1046 Highlights PDF (gao.gov/assets/gao-10-1046-highlights.pdf), a September 2010 report to the Chairman, Special Committee on Aging, U.S. Senate. Grounds the body-prose and caveats sentence attributing "hundreds of guardianship abuse allegations across 45 states" and "$5.4 million stolen from 158 victims in 20 closed cases" to "the U.S. GAO (2010)" — a claim previously made in prose without a corresponding sources[] citation. This documents guardian misconduct/exploitation risk, not family regret, and is not used to derive the 24% regret_rate on either side.
Nguồn: không hành động
Sổ cái xác nhận
Mỗi con số dưới đây là những gì mỗi nguồn đã báo cáo, cùng với trích dẫn nguyên văn mà chúng tôi dựa vào và cách chúng tôi đưa ra con số của mình. Nhấp vào bất kỳ liên kết nào để xác minh trực tiếp.
2/2 nguồn được xác minh độc lập đúng từng chữ so với nguồn được trích dẫn
[1]AARP Public Policy Institute — Family Caregiving: Roles and Impacts (AARP Family Caregiving Survey 2017)
Đã xác minh
Nguồn tham khảo
24% of US family caregivers say they have regrets or things they wish they had done differently
Trích đoạn
“"On the other hand, about one-quarter (24%) say they have regrets. Regrets ranged from wishing they spent more time with their loved one, being more compassionate to being better prepared both financially and emotionally."
”
Dữ liệu nguồn từ
2017-11-01
Truy cập
2026-05-22
Xác minh
Trích đoạn đã được tải lại độc lập và xác nhận đúng từng chữ so với nguồn được trích dẫn trong quá trình kiểm định căn cứ của chúng tôi.
Tính toán
Same AARP 2017 survey, n=1,081. The 24% rate covers all family caregivers regardless of legal arrangement type. Because most caregivers rely on informal care, durable POA, or healthcare proxies rather than formal guardianship, this figure is treated as the inaction-side proxy: the general caregiver regret rate for families who did not escalate to full court-supervised guardianship. No survey directly compares regret rates between guardianship and POA/SDM families; this is the best available baseline for the less-restrictive path. (The 26% figure cited in the same AARP report refers to care recipients, not caregivers, and is not used here.)
[2]Journal of the American Geriatrics Society (PMC) — Guardianship: A medicolegal review for clinicians
Đã xác minh
Được bình duyệt
An estimated 1–3 million Americans are under guardianship (National Center for State Courts 2011 estimate: 1.5 million); guardianship is characterised as a mechanism of last resort due to exploitation risks and autonomy loss; no centralized outcome tracking exists
Trích đoạn
“"As of 2011, the National Center for State Courts estimated 1.5 million individuals were under guardianship, but due to scant data, the number could be anywhere between 1 and 3 million." The review frames guardianship as "a mechanism of last resort" and highlights exploitation risk and the absence of centralized oversight as ongoing concerns.
”
Dữ liệu nguồn từ
2022-12-27
Truy cập
2026-05-22
Xác minh
Trích đoạn đã được tải lại độc lập và xác nhận đúng từng chữ so với nguồn được trích dẫn trong quá trình kiểm định căn cứ của chúng tôi.
Tính toán
Pugh et al. (2022), JAGS / PMC9790446. Systematic review noting surveillance gaps, exploitation risk, and the lack of centralized outcome data. Used to corroborate the proxy-only framing and confirm that no peer-reviewed head-to-head comparison of regret between guardianship and SDM/POA families exists in the published literature. The 24% inaction-side rate is therefore a floor estimate — not an SDM-specific regret rate.
Lưu ý
Both sides of this entry rely on the same proxy measure: no large-scale peer-reviewed survey has directly asked families whether they regret choosing full guardianship versus supported decision-making or power of attorney for an incapacitated adult relative. Both rates are set to the AARP 2017 general caregiver regret figure of 24% — the only measured bilateral baseline available. The regret_delta of 0.00 and gilovich_pattern of balanced reflects this evidentiary reality, not a finding that the two paths carry equal regret. The structural features of full guardianship (court costs of $2,000–$5,000+, ongoing filing requirements, loss of ward autonomy, NCD-documented over-imposition) provide strong prior reasons to expect the action side to carry higher regret than less-restrictive alternatives, but this cannot be quantified from published data. The U.S. GAO (2010) documented hundreds of guardianship abuse allegations across 45 states and $5.4 million stolen from 158 victims in 20 closed cases, but this tracks guardian misconduct, not family regret. The true regret differential is unknown: for families whose incapacitated relative required enforceable court protection — and who could not have achieved it through POA or SDM — guardianship regret may be lower than the baseline. For families who later discovered their relative did not legally need full guardianship, regret may be substantially higher. The entry is marked proxy_only: true. Treat both figures as a shared baseline with acknowledged directional uncertainty.
