PENGARUH PSYCOEDUCATIVE FAMILY THERAPY TERHADAP PENGETAHUAN, DUKUNGAN KELUARGA DAN STIGMA KUSTA DENGAN MODEL PENDEKATAN CALGARY DI PUSKESMAS BALEREJO KABUPATEN MADIUN
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: A person with leprosy present disability and lesions caused by related nerve damage. Without treatment leprosy can permanently damage skin, feet and eyes. Leprosy-related documents show that stigma is typically a very deep rooted social process. It refers to unfavourable attitudes and beliefs directed toward someone or something. The stigma against leprosy not only burdens the affected individuals but also their family members. This research aims was to analyze the influence of family on knowledge psychoeducative intervention, family support and the self stigma. Method: The design was a quasy experiment. The samples were the intervention and the comparison group each of 30 respondents. The sample consisted of respondent and respondent's family. Sampling technique is using purposive sampling. The research instrument was a questionnaire used by researchers. Result and Analysis: The result showed that not only psychoeducative family influence level of knowledge, support family and self stigma. The other factor are family characteristics and respondent characteristics. The statistical result shown that a significant relationship between psychoeducative family with knowledge (p=0,000), family support (p=0,000) and the stigma of leprosy (p=0,004). Discuss and Conclution: Level of knowledge, family support and self stigma have relations to each other. Families who have less knowledge about leprosy will influence to be given family support. Leprosy patients who have high self stigma caused by lack of knowledge and they feel there have not symphaty, attention and support from their families.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".