BAB 3

METODE PENELITIAN

3.1 Strategi Pencarian Literature

3.1.1 Protokol dan Registrasi

Rangkuman menyeluruh yang terbentuk dalam literature review yang

berkaitan dengan pengaruh senam hamil terhadap kualitas tidur pada ibu

hamil trimester III. Protokol dalam studi ini menggunakan The Joanna

Briggs Institute Guideline sebagai panduan dalam asesmen kualitas dari

studi yang dirangkum. Evaluasi dari literature review akan menggunakan

PRISMA checklist untuk menentukan penyeleksian studi yang telah

disesuaikan dan ditemukan dengan tujuan dari literature review (Nursalam

& Hons, 2020)

3.1.2 Database Pencarian

Literature review merupakan ringkasan menyeluruh dari beberapa

penelitian yang ditentukan berdasarkan topik tertentu. Pencarian literatur

dilakukan mulai November 2020 – Desember 2020. Dalam penelitian ini

menggunakan data sekunder yaitu data yang diperoleh bukan dari

pengamatan secara langsung, melainkan data yang diperoleh dari hasil

penelitian yang telah dilakukan oleh peneliti-peneliti terdahulu. Sesuai

dengan topik yang telah ditentukan, sumber data sekunder yang diperoleh

berupa artikel jurnal bereputasi baik nasional maupun international. Data

yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah data sekunder yang diperoleh

bukan dari pengamatan langsung, akan tetapi diperoleh dari hasil penelitian

yang telah dilakukan oleh peneliti-peneliti terdahulu. Sumber data sekunder

 yang didapat berupa artikel atau jurnal yang relevan dengan topik dilakukan

menggunakan database melalui e-Resources Perpusnas , Scient Direct dan

google scholar.

3.1.3 Kata Kunci.

Dalam mencari jurnal atau artikel pada penelitian ini menggunakan

keyword dan boolean operator (AND, OR NOT or AND NOT) yang

digunakan untuk memperluas atau menspesifikkan penelusuran, sehingga

dapat lebih mudah dalam menentukan jurnal atau artikel yang digunakan.

Keyword dalam literature review ini disesuaikan dengan MeSH (Medical

Subject Heading) yang terdiri dari sebagai berikut (Nursalam & Hons,

2020):

Table 3.1 Kata Kunci (Keyword)

Pregnancy Exercise Sleep Quality Third Trimester

pregnant women
Pregnancy exercise Sleep quality Third Trimester
pregnan women
OR OR OR
Senam hamil Insomnia Ibu hamil
OR OR
Kualitas tidur Ibu hamil Trimester III

Keyword dalam penelitian ini adalah :

((pregnancy exercise) OR senam hamil) AND sleep quality) OR Insomnia)

OR Kualitas tidur) AND Third trimester pregnant women) OR Ibu hamil

trimester III).

3.2 Kriteria Inklusi dan Eksklusi

Strategi yang digunakan untuk mencari artikel menggunakan PICOS

framework (Nursalam & Hons, 2020).

1. Population/problem , populasi atau masalah dalam literature review ini

adalah senam hamil terhadap kualitas tidur

2. Intervention , tindakan dalam literature review ini adalah pemberian

kuesioner kualitas tidur yang diisi oleh responden, dan intervensi senam

hamil

3. Comparation , tidak ada faktor pembanding.

4. Outcome, terdapat pengaruh senma hamil terhadap kualitas tidur pada

ibu hamil trimester III.

5. Study design, menggunakan desain penelitian yang digunakan dalam

artikel yang akan di riview.

Table 3.2 Identifikasi Kriteria Inklusi dan Eksklusi

Kriteria Inklusi Eksklusi

Population Jurnal international yang Jurnal international yang
Berhubungan dengan tidak berhubungan dengan
topik peneliti yakni senam topik peneliti yakni senam
hamil terhadap kualitas hamil terhadap kualitas
tidur pada ibu hamil tidur pada ibu hamil
trimester III. trimester I.
Intervention Pemberian kuesioner Pemberian terapi
kualitas tidur dan farmakologi
intervensi senam hamil
Comparasion Tidak ada faktor Tidak ada faktor
pembanding pembanding
Outcome Adanya pengaruh senam Tidak ada pengaruh senam
hamil terhadap kualitas hamil terhadap kualitas
tidur pada ibu hamil tidur pada ibu hamil
trimester III. trimester III.
Study Design Semua jenis penelitian Tidak ada
Publication Artikel atau jurnal yang Artikel atau jurnal yang
Years terbit setelah tahun 2015 terbit sebelum tahun 2015
Language Bahasa Inggris Selain Bahasa Indonesia
dan Bahasa Indonesia dan Bahasa Inggris
3.3 Seleksi Studi dan Penilaian Kualitas

3.3.1 Hasil Pencarian dan Seleksi Jurnal

Berdasarkan hasil pencarian literatur melalui database publikasi e-

Resources perpusnas, Google Scholar , Science direct dengan menggunakan

kata kunci “Pregnancy exercise” AND “Sleep quality” AND “Third

trimester pregnant women” yang dispesifikasikan kembali dengan

mengarahkan ke masalah hubungan tingkat stress dengan kejadian hipertensi,

peneliti menemukan 9.785 jurnal yang sesuai dengan kata kunci tersebut.

Jurnal penelitian tersebut kemudian diskrisning atau disaring kembali, dimana

terdapat 3.685 jurnal yang sesuai dengan kriteria inklusi yaitu terbitan 5 tahun

terakhir, menggunakan bahasa indonesia dan bahasa inggris. Kemudian,

jurnal dipilah kembali berdasarkan kriteria inklusi yang sudah ditentukan oleh

peneliti, seperti jurnal dengan judul penelitian yang sama ataupun memiliki

tujuan penelitian yang hampir sama dengan penelitian ini dengan

mengidentifikasi abstrak pada jurnal-jurnal tersebut. Jurnal yang tidak

memenuhi kriteria tersebut maka diekslusi. Sehingga didapatkan 11 jurnal

yang akan dilakukan review.

 Pencarian menggunakan keyword
melalui database e-Resources
Perpusnas (n = 4.595)
perpusnas, dan google scholar Google scholar (n=3.480)
Scient Direct (n=1.800)
N= 9.875

Seleksi jurnal 5 tahun terakhir, dan

menggunakan bahasa inggris atau
bahasa indonesia Excluded (n=186)
Problem/Populasi:
N = 3.685 - Tidak sesuai dengan topik (n=87)
Intervention:
- ibu hamil trimester III (n=20)
Outcome :
Seleksi judul dan duplikat
- Tidak ada pengaruh senam hamil
terhadap kualitas tidur pada ibu
N = 345
hamil trimester III (n=11)
Study design:
- Systematic review (n=27)
- Literature review (n=6)
- Book chapters (n=18)
- Conference abstract (n=17)
Identifikasi abstrak

N = 159
Excluded (n=148)
- Hasil penelitian tidak menyebutkan
mengenai pengaruh senam hamil
terhadap kualitas tidur pada ibu hamil
trimester III (n=25)
Jurnal akhir yang dapat dianalisa - Tujuan penelitian tidak sesuai (n=49)
sesuai rumusan masalah dan - Metode penelitian yang tidak
tujuan dijelaskan secara rinci (n=74)

N = 11

Gambar 2. Diagram Flow literature review Berdasarkan PRISMA 2009

(Polit and Beck, 2013 dalam Nursalam & Hons, 2020)
3.3.2 Penilaian Kualitas
Analisis kualitas metodologi dalam setiap studi (n=11) dengan

menggunakan checklist daftar penilaian yang didapat dari JBI critical

appraisal (The Joanna Briggs Institute). Penilaian kriteria diberi nilai ‘ya’,

‘tidak’, ‘tidak jelas’ atau ‘tidak berlaku’, dan setiap kriteria dengan skor ‘ya’

diberi satu poin dan nilai yang lain adalah nol, lalu setiap skor studi dihitung

dan dijumlahkan. Critical appraisal dengan nilai titik cut-off yang sudah

disepakati oleh peneliti, studi dimasukkan ke dalam kriteria inklusi. Studi

yang berkualitas rendah dan untuk menghindari bias dalam validitas hasil

dan rekomendasi ulasan maka oleh peneliti dikecualikan. Hasil skrining

terakhir dalam literature review didapatkan 11 jurnal yang mencapai 50%

dan siap dilakukan analisis data.

Resiko bias dalam literature review menggunakan asesmen pada

metode penelitian masing-masing studi, diantaranya (Nursalam & Hons,

2020):

1. Teori : Teori yang sudah tidak sesuai, sudah kadaluwarsa, dan

kredibilitas yang kurang

2. Desain : Desain yang kurang sesuai dengan tujuan penelitian

3. Sample : Ada 4 hal yang harus diperhatikan yaitu populasi, sampel,

sampling, dan besar sampel yang tidak sesuai dengan kaidah

pengambilan sampel

4. Variabel : Variabel yang diterapkan kurang sesuai dari segi jumlah,

pengontrolan variabel perancu, dan variabel lainnya.

5. Instrumen : Instrumen yang digunakan tidak memiliki sensitivitas,

spesivikasi dan validatas-reliabilitas

6. Analisis data : Analisis data tidak sesuai dengan kaidah analisis yang

sesuai dengan standar.

JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Quasi - Experimental Studies
(Non – Randomized Experimental Studies)

Reviewer : Date : 11/1/2021

Author : Risky Amalia Purba year : 2018
record number :

Yes No Unclear Not

applicable
1. Is it clear in the study what is the
‘cause’ and what is the ‘effect’ (i.e. √ □ □ □
there is no confusion about which
variable comes first)?
2. Were the participants included in any
comparisons similar? √ □ □ □
3. Were the participants included in any
comparisons receiving similar √ □ □ □
treatment/care, other than the exposure
or intervention of interest?
4. Was there a control group?
√ □ □ □
5. Were there multiple measurements of
the outcome both pre and post the √ □ □ □
intervention/exposure?
6. Was follow up complete and if not,
were differences between groups in √ □ □ □
terms of their follow up adequately
described and analyzed?
7. Were the outcomes of participants
included in any comparisons measured □ √ □ □
in the same way?
8. Were outcomes measured in a reliable
way? √ □ □ □
9. Was appropriate statistical analysis
used? √ □ □ □
Overall appraisal: Include √ Exclude □ □ Seek further info

Comments (Including reason for exclusion)

Cut of point = 90%
JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Quasi - Experimental Studies
(Non – Randomized Experimental Studies)

Reviewer : Date : 11/1/2021

Author : Susanti & Herdiana year : 2019
record number : 2657-1366

Yes No Unclear Not

applicable
1. Is it clear in the study what is the
‘cause’ and what is the ‘effect’ (i.e. √ □ □ □
there is no confusion about which
variable comes first)?
2. Were the participants included in any
comparisons similar? √ □ □ □
3. Were the participants included in any
comparisons receiving similar √ □ □ □
treatment/care, other than the exposure
or intervention of interest?
4. Was there a control group?
□ √ □ □
5. Were there multiple measurements of
the outcome both pre and post the √ □ □ □
intervention/exposure?
6. Was follow up complete and if not,
were differences between groups in √ □ □ □
terms of their follow up adequately
described and analyzed?
7. Were the outcomes of participants
included in any comparisons measured √ □ □ □
in the same way?
8. Were outcomes measured in a reliable
way? √ □ □ □
9. Was appropriate statistical analysis
used? √ □ □ □
Overall appraisal: Include √ Exclude □ □ Seek further info

Comments (Including reason for exclusion)

Cut of point = 90%
JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Quasi - Experimental Studies
(Non – Randomized Experimental Studies)

Reviewer : Date : 11/1/2021

Author : Putih & Nuraeni year : 2017
record number :

Yes No Unclear Not

applicable
1. Is it clear in the study what is the
‘cause’ and what is the ‘effect’ (i.e. √ □ □ □
there is no confusion about which
variable comes first)?
2. Were the participants included in any
comparisons similar? √ □ □ □
3. Were the participants included in any
comparisons receiving similar √ □ □ □
treatment/care, other than the exposure
or intervention of interest?
4. Was there a control group?
□ √ □ □
5. Were there multiple measurements of
the outcome both pre and post the √ □ □ □
intervention/exposure?
6. Was follow up complete and if not,
were differences between groups in □ √ □ □
terms of their follow up adequately
described and analyzed?
7. Were the outcomes of participants
included in any comparisons measured √ □ □ □
in the same way?
8. Were outcomes measured in a reliable
way? √ □ □ □
9. Was appropriate statistical analysis
used? √ □ □ □
Overall appraisal: Include √ Exclude □ □ Seek further info

Comments (Including reason for exclusion)

Cut of point = 80%
JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Quasi - Experimental Studies
(Non – Randomized Experimental Studies)

Reviewer : Date : 11/1/2021

Author : Renityas, et al year : 2017
record number :

Yes No Unclear Not

applicable
1. Is it clear in the study what is the
‘cause’ and what is the ‘effect’ (i.e. √ □ □ □
there is no confusion about which
variable comes first)?
2. Were the participants included in any
comparisons similar? √ □ □ □
3. Were the participants included in any
comparisons receiving similar √ □ □ □
treatment/care, other than the exposure
or intervention of interest?
4. Was there a control group?
□ √ □ □
5. Were there multiple measurements of
the outcome both pre and post the √ □ □ □
intervention/exposure?
6. Was follow up complete and if not,
were differences between groups in □ √ □ □
terms of their follow up adequately
described and analyzed?
7. Were the outcomes of participants
included in any comparisons measured √ □ □ □
in the same way?
8. Were outcomes measured in a reliable
way? √ □ □ □
9. Was appropriate statistical analysis
used? √ □ □ □
Overall appraisal: Include √ Exclude □ □ Seek further info

Comments (Including reason for exclusion)

Cut of point = 80%
JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Quasi - Experimental Studies
(Non – Randomized Experimental Studies)

Reviewer : Date : 11/1/2021

Author : Rahayu & Hastuti year : 2018
record number :

Yes No Unclear Not

applicable
1. Is it clear in the study what is the
‘cause’ and what is the ‘effect’ (i.e. √ □ □ □
there is no confusion about which
variable comes first)?
2. Were the participants included in any
comparisons similar? √ □ □ □
3. Were the participants included in any
comparisons receiving similar √ □ □ □
treatment/care, other than the exposure
or intervention of interest?
4. Was there a control group?
□ √ □ □
5. Were there multiple measurements of
the outcome both pre and post the √ □ □ □
intervention/exposure?
6. Was follow up complete and if not,
were differences between groups in □ √ □ □
terms of their follow up adequately
described and analyzed?
7. Were the outcomes of participants
included in any comparisons measured √ □ □ □
in the same way?
8. Were outcomes measured in a reliable
way? √ □ □ □
9. Was appropriate statistical analysis
used? √ □ □ □
Overall appraisal: Include √ Exclude □ □ Seek further info

Comments (Including reason for exclusion)

Cut of point = 80%
JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Quasi - Experimental Studies
(Non – Randomized Experimental Studies)

Reviewer : Date : 11/1/2021

Author : Herdiani & Simatupang year : 2019
record number : 2615-6644

Yes No Unclear Not

applicable
1. Is it clear in the study what is the
‘cause’ and what is the ‘effect’ (i.e. √ □ □ □
there is no confusion about which
variable comes first)?
2. Were the participants included in any
comparisons similar? √ □ □ □
3. Were the participants included in any
comparisons receiving similar √ □ □ □
treatment/care, other than the exposure
or intervention of interest?
4. Was there a control group?
□ √ □ □
5. Were there multiple measurements of
the outcome both pre and post the √ □ □ □
intervention/exposure?
6. Was follow up complete and if not,
were differences between groups in □ √ □ □
terms of their follow up adequately
described and analyzed?
7. Were the outcomes of participants
included in any comparisons measured √ □ □ □
in the same way?
8. Were outcomes measured in a reliable
way? √ □ □ □
9. Was appropriate statistical analysis
used? √ □ □ □
Overall appraisal: Include √ Exclude □ □ Seek further info

Comments (Including reason for exclusion)

Cut of point = 80%
JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Quasi - Experimental Studies
(Non – Randomized Experimental Studies)

Reviewer : Date : 11/1/2021

Author : Yang, et al year : 2020
record number : 2093-7482

Yes No Unclear Not

applicable
1. Is it clear in the study what is the
‘cause’ and what is the ‘effect’ (i.e. √ □ □ □
there is no confusion about which
variable comes first)?
2. Were the participants included in any
comparisons similar? √ □ □ □
3. Were the participants included in any
comparisons receiving similar √ □ □ □
treatment/care, other than the exposure
or intervention of interest?
4. Was there a control group?
□ √ □ □
5. Were there multiple measurements of
the outcome both pre and post the √ □ □ □
intervention/exposure?
6. Was follow up complete and if not,
were differences between groups in □ √ □ □
terms of their follow up adequately
described and analyzed?
7. Were the outcomes of participants
included in any comparisons measured √ □ □ □
in the same way?
8. Were outcomes measured in a reliable
way? √ □ □ □
9. Was appropriate statistical analysis
used? √ □ □ □
Overall appraisal: Include √ Exclude □ □ Seek further info

Comments (Including reason for exclusion)

Cut of point = 80%
JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Quasi - Experimental Studies
(Non – Randomized Experimental Studies)

Reviewer : Date : 11/1/2021

Author : Handayani & Suryani year : 2017
record number :

Yes No Unclear Not

applicable
1. Is it clear in the study what is the
‘cause’ and what is the ‘effect’ (i.e. √ □ □ □
there is no confusion about which
variable comes first)?
2. Were the participants included in any
comparisons similar? √ □ □ □
3. Were the participants included in any
comparisons receiving similar √ □ □ □
treatment/care, other than the exposure
or intervention of interest?
4. Was there a control group?
□ √ □ □
5. Were there multiple measurements of
the outcome both pre and post the √ □ □ □
intervention/exposure?
6. Was follow up complete and if not,
were differences between groups in □ √ □ □
terms of their follow up adequately
described and analyzed?
7. Were the outcomes of participants
included in any comparisons measured √ □ □ □
in the same way?
8. Were outcomes measured in a reliable
way? √ □ □ □
9. Was appropriate statistical analysis
used? √ □ □ □
Overall appraisal: Include √ Exclude □ □ Seek further info

Comments (Including reason for exclusion)

Cut of point = 80%
JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Quasi - Experimental Studies
(Non – Randomized Experimental Studies)

Reviewer : Date : 11/1/2021

Author : Marwiyah & Sufi year : 2018
record number : 2597-8667

Yes No Unclear Not

applicable
1. Is it clear in the study what is the
‘cause’ and what is the ‘effect’ (i.e. √ □ □ □
there is no confusion about which
variable comes first)?
2. Were the participants included in any
comparisons similar? √ □ □ □
3. Were the participants included in any
comparisons receiving similar √ □ □ □
treatment/care, other than the exposure
or intervention of interest?
4. Was there a control group?
□ √ □ □
5. Were there multiple measurements of
the outcome both pre and post the √ □ □ □
intervention/exposure?
6. Was follow up complete and if not,
were differences between groups in □ √ □ □
terms of their follow up adequately
described and analyzed?
7. Were the outcomes of participants
included in any comparisons measured √ □ □ □
in the same way?
8. Were outcomes measured in a reliable
way? √ □ □ □
9. Was appropriate statistical analysis
used? √ □ □ □
Overall appraisal: Include √ Exclude □ □ Seek further info

Comments (Including reason for exclusion)

Cut of point = 80%
JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Quasi - Experimental Studies
(Non – Randomized Experimental Studies)

Reviewer : Date : 11/1/2021

Author : Avifah, et al year : 2018
record number :

Yes No Unclear Not

applicable
1. Is it clear in the study what is the
‘cause’ and what is the ‘effect’ (i.e. √ □ □ □
there is no confusion about which
variable comes first)?
2. Were the participants included in any
comparisons similar? √ □ □ □
3. Were the participants included in any
comparisons receiving similar √ □ □ □
treatment/care, other than the exposure
or intervention of interest?
4. Was there a control group?
□ √ □ □
5. Were there multiple measurements of
the outcome both pre and post the √ □ □ □
intervention/exposure?
6. Was follow up complete and if not,
were differences between groups in □ √ □ □
terms of their follow up adequately
described and analyzed?
7. Were the outcomes of participants
included in any comparisons measured √ □ □ □
in the same way?
8. Were outcomes measured in a reliable
way? √ □ □ □
9. Was appropriate statistical analysis
used? √ □ □ □
Overall appraisal: Include √ Exclude □ □ Seek further info

Comments (Including reason for exclusion)

Cut of point = 80%
JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Quasi - Experimental Studies
(Non – Randomized Experimental Studies)

Reviewer : Date : 11/1/2021

Author : Witari & Widiani year : 2020
record number : 2615-7047

Yes No Unclear Not

applicable
1. Is it clear in the study what is the
‘cause’ and what is the ‘effect’ (i.e. √ □ □ □
there is no confusion about which
variable comes first)?
2. Were the participants included in any
comparisons similar? √ □ □ □
3. Were the participants included in any
comparisons receiving similar √ □ □ □
treatment/care, other than the exposure
or intervention of interest?
4. Was there a control group?
□ √ □ □
5. Were there multiple measurements of
the outcome both pre and post the √ □ □ □
intervention/exposure?
6. Was follow up complete and if not,
were differences between groups in □ √ □ □
terms of their follow up adequately
described and analyzed?
7. Were the outcomes of participants
included in any comparisons measured √ □ □ □
in the same way?
8. Were outcomes measured in a reliable
way? √ □ □ □
9. Was appropriate statistical analysis
used? √ □ □ □
Overall appraisal: Include √ Exclude □ □ Seek further info

Comments (Including reason for exclusion)

Cut of point = 80%
 DAFTAR PUSTAKA

Nursalam, P., & Hons, M. N. (2020). Pedoman Penyusunan Skripsi- Literature

Review dan Tesis - Systematic Review Alih Pembelajaran Akibat Pandemi.
(April).