Aileen Angel Henderinne Hozefa Laa, Adi Dwi Susanto, Imas Sartika

Hubungan Tingkat Pengetahuan Terhadap Gaya Hidup Penderita Penyakit Paru Obstruktif Kronik (PPOK) Di RS An-Nisa Tangerang Tahun 2025

Introduction

Hubungan tingkat pengetahuan terhadap gaya hidup penderita penyakit paru obstruktif kronik (ppok) di rs an-nisa tangerang tahun 2025. Temukan hubungan tingkat pengetahuan dengan gaya hidup penderita PPOK di RS An-Nisa Tangerang. Studi ini meneliti dampak kurangnya pengetahuan pada kasus PPOK.

Abstract

Pendahuluan: Penyakit Paru Obstruktif Kronik (PPOK) adalah penyakit yang menyerang paru-paru terutama bagian saluran napas (bronkus) dan kantung udara (alveolus) yang ditandai dengan keterbatasannya aliran udara yang tidak dapat pulih sepenuhnya. Gaya hidup yang diikuti dengan kebiasaan merokok dapat meningkatkan risiko terkena PPOK. Ketidaktahuan masyarakat mengenai faktor-faktor risiko penyebab PPOK, pengetahuan yang kurang akan meningkatkan angka kasus penyakit paru obstruktif kronik (PPOK). Tujuan: Untuk mengetahui hubungan tingkat pengetahuan terhadap gaya hidup penderita PPOK di RS An-Nisa Tangerang Tahun 2025. Metode: Penelitian ini menggunakan metode kuantitatif dengan desain penelitian cross-sectional. Penelitian ini dilakukan di poli paru dan ruang rawat inap di RS An-Nisa Tangerang dan dilaksanakan pada 21 Juli – 13 Agustus 2025. Teknik Sampel: Teknik yang digunakan adalah total sampling. Jumlah Sampel: Sampel berjumlah 151 responden. Analisis Data: Analisa data menggunakan uji Chi-Square. Hasil Penelitian: Terdapat hubungan antara tingkat pengetahuan terhadap gaya hidup pada penderita PPOK di RS An-Nisa Tangerang Tahun 2025 dengan p-value 0,000.

Review

This manuscript aims to investigate the relationship between knowledge level and lifestyle among patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) at RS An-Nisa Tangerang. The topic is highly relevant given the global burden of COPD and the critical role of patient lifestyle in disease progression and management. The stated objective—to determine this relationship—is clear and directly addresses a significant public health issue. Understanding this connection is essential for designing effective educational interventions. However, a crucial and fundamental concern arises immediately from the reported timeline: the study is stated to have been conducted from July 21 to August 13, 2025. This indicates that the research has not yet taken place, rendering the presentation of "Hasil Penelitian" (Research Results) as definitive findings highly problematic and premature. Methodologically, the study proposes a quantitative, cross-sectional design, which is appropriate for exploring associations between variables like knowledge and lifestyle. The use of total sampling for 151 respondents is a valid approach if this represents the entire accessible population within the specified timeframe. The Chi-Square test is also suitable for analyzing relationships between categorical variables, assuming both knowledge and lifestyle are appropriately categorized. Nonetheless, beyond the glaring issue of the future study date, the abstract lacks crucial details regarding the operational definitions and measurement tools for both "tingkat pengetahuan" (knowledge level) and "gaya hidup" (lifestyle). Without knowing how these variables were assessed (e.g., specific questionnaires, validated scales), it is impossible to evaluate the reliability and validity of the data collection. The reported result, indicating a significant relationship between knowledge level and lifestyle (p=0.000), would, if truly derived from an already completed study, highlight an important area for clinical intervention. However, given the explicit statement that the study is slated for 2025, these "results" cannot be accepted as valid findings from empirical research. This fundamental error casts doubt on the entire submission. Before any further peer review can proceed, the authors must urgently clarify the discrepancy in the study dates. If the work is a prospective protocol, it should be presented as such, outlining proposed methods without reporting definitive results. If the dates are a typographical error, immediate correction and a revised abstract detailing the actual study period, along with comprehensive information on data collection instruments, are absolutely essential.

Full Text

Comments

You need to be logged in to post a comment.