Muhammad Yaufi Ahdi

012106230

Journal Reading
PENERAPAN FUNGSI MANAJEMEN DI PUSKESMAS
MINASA UPA KOTA MAKASSAR
TAHUN 2012

IDENTITAS JURNAL
Judul jurnal :
Penerapan Fungsi Manajemen Di Puskesmas
Minasa Upa Kota Makassar Tahun 2012
Publikasi :
Jurnal Kesehatan Lingkungan Indonesia Vol.
12 No. 1 / April 2013

Hubungan antara Riwayat Paparan Asap Rokok

dengan Kejadian Ketuban Pecah Dini pada Ibu
Hamil di RSUD Dr. H. Soewondo Kendal

Judul Informatif:

1. Variabel terikat : Kejadian Ketuban Pecah Dini

2. Variabel bebas : Riwayat Paparan Asap Rokok
. Tersedia subjek penelitian, yaitu ibu hamil di RSUD Dr. H.
Soewondo Kendal
. Tempat penelitian dinyatakan secara jelas, yaitu di RSUD
Dr. H. Soewondo Kendal
. Nama penulis jurnal tercantum di bawah judul penelitan
Kekurangan judul:
. Tidak mencantumkan waktu penelitian.
. Penulisan judul > 12 kata (20 kata).

 Judul jurnal
menarik:
Pembaca belum
pernah
mendapat
pengetahuan
tersebut
Jurnal tersebut
mengandung
informasi baru
..

Judul Jurnal Normatif:

Judul terlalu panjang,
lebih dari 12 kata (18
kata), sebaiknya dibuat
sub judul
Judul jelas, tidak memiliki
maksud ganda
Judul menunjukkan
dengan tepat masalah
yang akan diteliti
Judul menggunakan
singkatan yang baku
Menyiratkan variabelvariabel yang diamati

ABSTRAK

ABSTRAK
Abstrak satu paragraf

Ya

Terdiri 4 bagian: latar

belakang, metode, hasil
penelitian, dan kesimpulan?

Ya, 4 bagian: latar belakang,

metode, hasil penelitian,
kesimpulan

Kata kunci (keyword)

sesuai?

ada kata kunci dan sesuai,

Keywords: the cigarette smoke
exposure, premature rupture,
cotinine, polyhidramnion
Tidak (286 kata)
Ya

Jumlah kata 250 kata?

Abstrak secara keseluruhan
informatif?

LATAR BELAKANG
Data Nasional
tahun 20072008 : AKI
sebesar 228
per 100.000
kelahiran
hidup.
AKI
penyebab
kematian Ibu
yang
terbanyak
adalah
perdarahan,
eklampsi,
perdarahan
sebelum
persalinan
dan infeksi.

terjadi akibat
berkurangnya
kekuatan
membran
yang
disebabkan
oleh infeksi
KPD
dari vagina
dan servik
dan akibat
pengaruh
nikotin dari
rokok.

Kabupaten
Kendal
merupakan
pusat
produsen
tembakau
sebagai
Rokok
bahan
dasar
rokok.
Lebih dari
80% pria
dewasa
mempunyai
kebiasaan
merokok

Jumlah ibu
hamil KPD
tahun 2011 :
445
Januari
sampai
dengan
RSUD Dr. H.
September
Soewondo
2012 : 542
penderita

TUJUAN PENELITIAN
Mengetahui hubungan riwayat
paparan asap rokok terhadap
kejadian KPD

METODE PENELITIAN
Jenis penelitian
Analitik observational
Desain penelitian
Case control
Tempat penelitian
RSUD Dr. H. Soewondo kendal
Waktu penelitian
-

POPULASI DAN SAMPEL

SAMPEL :
Semua
ibu
hamil
POPULAS
I:

64
orang

CARA PEMILIHAN SUBJEK

Teknik
pengambilan
sampel: analitik
kategorik tidak
berpasangan

Sampel: 64 ibu
hamil dibagi
menjadi 32
kelompok kasus
dan 32 kelompok
kontrol

KRITERIA INKLUSI &

EKSKLUSI
kriteria inklusi kasus
Ibu hamil dengan
ketuban pecah dini
yang mempunyai
data lengkap
Terpapar asap rokok
3 hari.
Kriteria inklusi kontrol
Ibu hamil normal
yang mempunyai
data lengkap
Terpapar asap rokok
3 hari.

kriteria eksklusi kasus

Ibu hamil dengan
KPD yang menolak
menjadi responden
mengalami infeksi,
trauma, riwayat KPD,
kehamilan kembar
dan malposisi.
Kriteria eksklusi
kontrol
Ibu hamil normal
yang menolak
menjadi responden

VARIABEL PENELITIAN

VARIABEL BEBAS
Riwayat paparan
asap rokok

VARIABEL
TERGANTUNG
Kejadian KPD

BAHAN DAN CARA

Alat penelitian/ Instrumen penelitian
Kuesioner : riwayat paparan rokok.
Checklist : riwayat Poly Hidramnion
Rapid Diagnostic Cotinine Test untuk
mengetahui kandungan Cotinine dalam urin
Cara Penelitian
Data sekunder : catatan medis ibu hamil di
RSUD Dr. H. Soewondo Kendal.
Data primer : pengisian kuesioner untuk
mengetahui tentang riwayat paparan asap
rokok dan dengan menggunakan alat Rapid
Diagnostic Cotinine Test untuk mengetahui
kandungan cotinine dalam urine.

ANALISIS DATA
analisis statistik menggunakan SPSS
versi 16.0.
rancangan analisa statistik yang
digunakan adalah analisis univariat,
analisis bivariat dan analisis
Multivariat.

HASIL PENELITIAN

HASIL PENELITIAN

HASIL PENELITIAN

KESIMPULAN
Terdapat hubungan

Tidak terdapat
Sebagian besar
yang bermakna
hubungan antara
responden yang
antara riwayat
riwayat
mengalami KPD
paparan asap
Polyhidramnion
mempunyai
rokok dengan
dengan kejadian
riwayat paparan
kejadian ketuban
ketuban pecah dini
asap rokok: 24
pecah dini (KPD)
(KPD) pada ibu
responden atau
pada ibu hamil p
hamil nilai p value
75%.
value 0,00
atau< paparan asap
Riwayat
0,30 atau > 0,05.
Tidak terdapat
0,05. rokok merupakan
hubungan antara
variable yang paling
paritas dengan
berpengaruh
kejadian ketuban
terhadap terjadinya
pecah dini (KPD)
ketuban pecah dini
pada ibu hamil
(KPD) pada ibu hamil
nilai p value 0,21
idramniondengan OR
atau > 0,05.
23,188.

CRITICAL
APPRAISAL

(A) Are the results of the study valid?

Screening Questions
1. Did the study
address a clearly
focused question /
issue?

2. Did the authors

use an appropriate
method to answer
their question?

HINT: A question can be focused in

terms of
The population studied
The risk factors studied
Whether the study tried to detect a
beneficial or harmful effect?

Yes

HINT: Consider
Is a case control study an
appropriate way of answering the
question under the circumstances? (Is
the outcome rare or harmful)
Did it address the study question?

Yes

Is it worth continuing?
Detailed questions
3. Were the
HINT: We are looking for selection bias which
cases
might compromise validity of the findings
recruited
Are the cases defined precisely?
in an
Were the cases representative of a defined
acceptabl population? (geographically and/or temporally?)
e way?
Was there an established reliable system for
selecting all the cases
Are they incident or prevalent?
Is there something special about the cases?
Is the time frame of the study relevant to
disease/exposure?
Was there a sufficient number of cases
selected?
Was there a power calculation?

Yes

Detailed questions
4. Were the
HINT: We are looking for selection bias which
controls
might compromise
selected
The generalisibilty of the findings
in an
Were the controls representative of defined
acceptabl population (geographically and/or temporally)
e way?
Was there something special about the
controls?
Was the non-response high? Could nonrespondents be different in any way?
Are they matched, population based or
randomly selected?
Was there a sufficient number of controls
selected?

Yes

5. Was the
exposure
accurately
measured
to
minimise
bias?

6. What
confounding
factors have

HINT: We are looking for measurement, recall or

classification bias
Was the exposure clearly defined and
accurately measured?
Did the authors use subjective or objective
measurements?
Do the measures truly reflect what they are
supposed to measure? (Have they been
validated?)
Were the measurement methods similar in the
cases and controls?
Did the study incorporate blinding where
feasible?
Is the temporal relation correct? (Does the
exposure of interest precede the outcome?)
HINT: List the ones you think might be important,
that The author missed.
Genetic

Yes

Detailed questions
7. What are the
HINT: Consider
results of this
What are the bottom line results?
study?
Is the analysis appropriate to the
design?
How strong is the association
between exposure and outcome (look
at the odds ratio)?
Are the results adjusted for
confounding, and might confounding
still explain the association?
Has adjustment made a big
difference to the OR?

(B) What are the results?

8. How precise are
the results?
How precise is the
estimate of risk?

9. Do you believe
the results?

HINT: Consider
Size of the P-value
Size of the confidence intervals
Have the authors considered all the
important variables?
How was the effect of subjects refusing to
participate evaluated?
HINT: Consider
Big effect is hard to ignore!
Can it be due to chance, bias or
confounding?
Are the design and methods of this study
sufficiently flawed to make the results
unreliable?
Consider Bradford Hills criteria (e.g. time

Yes

(C) Will the results help

locally?
Detailed questions
10. Can the results HINT: Consider whether
be applied to the
The subjects covered in the study
local population?
could be
sufficiently different from your
population
to cause concern
Your local setting is likely to differ
much from that of the study
Can you quantify the local benefits
and harms?
11. Do the results HINT: Consider all the available
of this study fit
evidence from RCTs, systematic
with
reviews, cohort studies and case-control
other available
studies as well for consistency.

Yes

Yes

TERIMA KASIH