Pengaruh Terapi Murottal Terhadap Kecemasan Penderita Diabetes Melitus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Data WHO tahun 2020 penderita Diabetes Melitus sebanyak 422 juta orang. Seseorang yang telah mengetahui dirinya terkena diabetes merasa cemas. Kecemasan dapat mempersulit dalam penyembuhan penyakit seseorang. Salah satu penanganan kecemasan dapat dengan memberikan terapi relaksasi murottal Alqur’an surah Arrahman. Tujuan penelitian untuk mengetahui adanya pengaruh terapi murottal terhadap tingkat kecemasan pada penderita diabetes melitus. Penelitian ini menggunakan desain Quasi Experiment dengan rancangan one group pretest-postest. Penelitian ini dilakukan di wilayah kerja Puskesmas Kebun Sikolos Padang Panjang. Waktu penelitian bulan April tahun 2021 dengan teknik pengambilan sampel dengan Non Probability Sampling, sampel dalam penelitian ini adalah 16 responden. Alat ukur yang digunakan adalah kuisoner HARS (Hamilton Anciety Rating Scale).Analisa data yang digunakan Paired Sample t-test. Hasil uji-T pada tingkat kecemasan sebelum dan sesudah Terapi murottal didapatkan nilai P-value = 0.000 ( p-value < 0,005 ) sehingga dapat disimpulkan bahwa ada pengaruh terapi murottal tehadap tingkat kecemasan pada penderita diabetes mellitus. Untuk penelitian selanjutnya diharapkan dapat memberikan penanganan kecemasan dengan memberikan terapi murottal pada responden lebih banyak sehingga ada pengaruh lebih adekuat.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.018 | 0.003 |
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".