Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hipertensi atau tekanan darah tinggi tidak dapat dianggap penyakit yang ringan. Tidak hanya menurunkan kualitas hidup, namun dapat mengancam jiwa penderita. Tujuan dari penelitian ini adalah untuk mengetahui pengaruh terapi pijat refleksi kaki dengan metode manual terhadap tekanan darah pada penderita hipertensi. Desain penelitian ini menggunakan Quasi experimental design dengan pendekatan pretest-posttest control group design. Populasi seluruh penderita hipertensi di Karangrejo Timur Wonokromo Surabaya sebesar 38 orang, sampel sebagian penderita sebesar 35 diambil dengan metode simple random sampling. Variabel independen terapi pijat refleksi kaki dengan metode manual, variabel dependen adalah tekanan darah penderita hipertensi. Instrumen yang digunakan adalah lembar observasi. Uji statistik menggunakan Uji Wilcoxon dengan nilai kemaknaan α = 0,05. Hasil uji wilcoxon didapatkan nilai ρ = 0,001 dan nilai α = 0,05 berarti ρ < α maka H0 ditolak, artinya ada pengaruh terapi pijat refleksi kaki metode manual terhadap tekanan darah pada penderita hipertensi. Simpulan dari penelitian adalah terapi pijat refleksi kaki dengan metode manual dapat menurunkan tekanan darah pada penderita hipertensi. Diharapkan perawat dapat memberikan penyuluhan tentang cara pencegahan dan pengobatan terhadap hipertensi baik menggunakan terapi pijat refleksi dengan metode manual maupun dengan metode yang lain.; Kata kunci : Terapi pijat refleksi kaki, Metode manual, Hipertensi
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.208 | 0.100 |
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".