Self-Care Experiences of Adults with Chronic Disease in Indonesia: An Integrative Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We conducted a literature review to document what is known regarding the self-care experiences and various influencing factors among adults living with chronic disease in Indonesia, from the perspective of those living with the illness. We searched CINAHL and Google Scholar to identify peer-reviewed research focused on men and/or women living with a chronic disease (the most prevalent) in urban or rural settings in Indonesia. Using a "Self-Care of Chronic Illness" framework as a guide, information on self-care experiences and how various factors influence these experiences, was extracted and synthesized. Nine studies were included (3 quantitative; 6 qualitative). Self-care involves maintaining well-being through different strategies (e.g., foot hygiene, seeking information/care, praying, diet, resting, and simplifying life), following prescribed treatments, and using traditional remedies. Religion sometimes serves as a means for taking care of one's health (e.g., prayer), or as a source of motivation to self-care, while in other instances, it results in a fatalistic attitude. Which treatments (conventional versus traditional) are sought, it is affected by an understanding of the disease and treatments, which is shaped by beliefs, values, emotions, health literacy, and SES. The literature shows that family, especially women, has a key role in providing support. Community organizations also play an important supportive role, particularly for patients in rural areas. Significant barriers to healthcare include costs and care not being well-adapted to the psychosocial needs and contexts of patients. The literature highlights a disconnection between the self-care experiences and how healthcare and support are delivered. To better support self-care, healthcare professionals should use a personalized approach; however, more research is needed to gain a better understanding of what patients want and expect regarding how religion, beliefs, life circumstances, and the use of alternative therapies should be addressed within the patient-professional dynamic.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".