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
Tìm kiếm điều trị nghiện chính thức
23%
23% người vào điều trị SUD đã bỏ học trước khi hoàn thành (proxy bỏ điều trị là hối tiếc)
Người trưởng thành xuất viện từ các chương trình điều trị rối loạn sử dụng chất Mỹ, TEDS-D 2017–2019
Tập xuất viện; TEDS-D 2017–2019
Hối hận vì không hành động
Tránh né hoặc trì hoãn điều trị nghiện chính thức
34%
34% người trưởng thành mắc AUD trong NESARC-III có rối loạn dai dẳng mà không có phục hồi (proxy AUD dai dẳng là hối tiếc cho đường không điều trị)
Người trưởng thành Mỹ mắc rối loạn sử dụng rượu năm qua, NESARC-III (2012–2013); mẫu chủ yếu không điều trị
Tỷ lệ năm qua; sóng NESARC-III (2012–2013)
% hối tiếc về lựa chọn này
Tìm kiếm điều trị nghiện chính thứcTránh né hoặc trì hoãn điều trị nghiện chính thức
23%34%
inaction dominates — Không hành động chiếm ưu thế — hầu hết hối tiếc vì đã không hành động.
Quyết định liên quan
Các quyết định tương tự về mặt ngữ nghĩa — cùng lĩnh vực, đánh đổi khác nhau.
Bao nhiêu phần trăm người trưởng thành ở Mỹ bị trầm cảm nặng hoặc rối loạn lo âu không nhận được bất kỳ điều trị sức khỏe tâm thần nào trong ít nhất một năm?
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.
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.
2/2 nguồn được xác minh độc lập đúng từng chữ so với nguồn được trích dẫn
[1]PLoS ONE — Use of machine learning to examine disparities in completion of substance use disorder treatment
Đã xác minh
Được bình duyệt
33.8% of 649,479 discharges were treatment-completed; 22.8% dropped out before completion
Trích đoạn
“"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%).
”
Dữ liệu nguồn từ
2022-09-23
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
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]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
Đã xác minh
Được bình duyệt
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
Trích đoạn
“"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."
”
Dữ liệu nguồn từ
2020-11-01
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
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.
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]Alcohol Research: Current Reviews — Epidemiology of Recovery From Alcohol Use Disorder
Đã xác minh
Được bình duyệt
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
Trích đoạn
“"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."
”
Dữ liệu nguồn từ
2020-01-01
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
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]JAMA Network Open — Trends in Treatment Need and Receipt for Substance Use Disorders in the US
Đã xác minh
Được bình duyệt
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
Trích đoạn
“"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."
”
Dữ liệu nguồn từ
2025-01-06
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
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.
Lưu ý
Both sides use outcome-failure proxies, not direct regret surveys. No published study has asked a nationally representative sample "do you regret seeking treatment?" or "do you regret not seeking treatment?" for substance use disorder. The action-side proxy (22.8% TEDS-D dropout, n=649,479 discharge episodes) comes from treatment entrants — a population selected for disorder severity and motivation to change — and measures treatment discontinuation, not regret per se. Some dropouts may reflect life events (housing, employment, incarceration) rather than dissatisfaction with treatment itself. The inaction-side proxy (34% persistent AUD from NESARC-III, n=7,785) comes from a general AUD population that was predominantly untreated (only 23% ever received treatment). This population includes mild and early-stage cases unlikely to seek treatment — and indeed over 70% of problem resolutions in this data occurred without formal intervention. The two denominators are not equivalent: treatment entrants in TEDS-D are more severely affected than the general NESARC-III AUD sample; direct comparison overstates the gap. The inaction_dominates direction is nevertheless consistent with the totality of the evidence: the Cochrane 2020 review (27 studies, 10,565 participants) confirms AA/TSF produces the highest continuous abstinence rates of any tested intervention (24% vs 15% CBT at 1 year in Project MATCH), and formal treatment is consistently associated with higher sustained remission rates than untreated pathways in longitudinal studies. The persistent-AUD rate in untreated populations exceeds the treatment-dropout rate; avoiding treatment is a worse long-term outcome than starting and not finishing it. The 5.7% perceived-need figure from NSDUH (Liu et al. 2025) is a reminder that most people with SUD do not acknowledge needing help at a given moment — long-term retrospective regret may be substantially higher once disorder consequences accumulate. Self-selection effects are pervasive throughout this literature: people who seek treatment have more severe disorders, so treatment vs no-treatment outcome comparisons are confounded by baseline severity.
