SI S

L I
A
AN M A R
A N IK EG
AS L
A S IR
U G R N A
N JU AN D
PE
YO
 LATAR BELAKANG
Populasi rawan rentan terhadap penyakit yang tidak menular (NCD) yang menjadi faktor risiko
buruknya kualitas hidup (QoL). Itu Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menyelidiki efek sejarah NCDs
terhadap kualitas hidup. QoL tadinya diukur dengan WHODAS. NCD dengan prevalensi lebih dari 1%
terlibat dalam analisis. NCD tersebut termasuk sesak napas, diabetes, hipertensi, penyakit sendi dan
stroke. Di antara 1.872 responden di Riskesdas, 7,7% di antaranya memiliki kualitas hidup yang
buruk, menderita hipertensi (8,7%), sesak napas (7,3%) dan asma (6,9%). Risiko kualitas hidup yang
buruk enam kali lebih tinggi di antara mereka yang memiliki sejarah PTM (PORADJ 5.987; 95% CI
4.210-8.514) setelah disesuaikan dengan usia, jenis kelamin, pendidikan, status sosial ekonomi dan
wilayah tempat tinggal. Stroke memberi yang terbaik dampak dengan POR 25.00 (95% CI 10.406
hingga 60.063). Kami merekomendasikan promosi dan pencegahan NCD harus diintegrasikan dengan
mitigasi terkait dan aktivitas ketahanan masyarakat terhadap bencana.
 PICO
• PICO 1
• P: Pasien terduga klinis penyakit tidak menular
( Diabetes,hipertensi, stroke, penyakit sendi, sesak nafas)
• I: -
• C:
• O: Penegakan diagnosis dan prognosis.
• Pertanyaan: Bagaimana keakuratan pemeriksaan
procalcitonin dibandingkan kadar CRP dalam
menegakkan diagnosis pneumonia pada pasien infeksi
saluran napas bawah ?
 CRITICAL
APPRAISAL
 1. Did the study address a
clearly focused question /
issue?
The
study aims at investigating the effect of history
Yes of NCDs to the QoL.
Can’t tell
No
 2. Is the research method
(study design) appropriate for
answering the research
question?
Yes This study was a follow-up analysis
from the Basic Health Research (Riskesdas) in
Can’t tell 2013 using a quantitative approach of
crosssectional study design. A cross-sectional
No design could describe the health status at the
time of observation.
 3. Is the method of selection
of the subjects (employees,
teams, divisions,
organizations) clearly
described?
Yes
Can’t tell
No
 4. Could the way the sample
was obtained introduce
(selection) bias?
Yes
Can’t tell
No
5. Was the sample of subjects
representative with regard to
the population to which the
findings will be referred?
The research population was the
Yes population residing in volcanic prone
areas of Kelud in Kediri. In 2014,
Can’t tell
No The samples were individual respondents
Riskesdas 2013 in Kediri Regency who had the
inclusion criteria: those who were 18-65 years
old and had complete data.
 6. Was the sample size based
on pre-study considerations of
statistical power?
The sample size sample size which was
Yes calculated based on the formula of the
samples test the hypothesis by using a
Can’t tell significance different proportion of 95% and
No 90% power studies.
7. Was a satisfactory response
rate achieved?
Yes
Can’t tell
No
 8. Are the measurements
(questionnaires) likely to be
valid and reliable?
Yes
Can’t tell
No
 9. Was the statistical
significance assessed?
Yes
Can’t tell
No
 10. Are confidence intervals
given for the main results?
Respondents who have a history of
Yes noncommunicable diseases are significantly at
Can’t tell risk for poor health-related quality of life six
times greater than those who do not have a
No history of non-communicable disease (OR
5.987; 95% CI 4.210 to 8.514)
 11. Could there be
confounding factors that
haven’t been accounted for?
Yes After being controlled by some
confounding variables such as age, gender,
Can’t tell
No
12. Can the results be applied
to your organization?
Yes
Can’t tell
No
TERIMAKAS
IH