Centerscope

Centerscope, formerly Scope, was published by the Boston University Medical Center "to communicate the concern of the Medical Center for the development and maintenance of improved health care in contemporary society.

ANALISIS PERBANDINGAN KINERJA KEUANGAN PADA PERUSAHAAN UNILEVER INDONESIA TBK DAN MAYORA TBK YANG TERDAFTAR DI BEI SKRIPSI

The purpose of this research is to determine the financial performance of PT. Unilever Tbk and PT Mayora Tbk reviewed from financial ratio analysis. The analytical method used is descriptive analysis using measurements of liquidity, activity, solvency, profitability and market ratios. Research data and information were obtained from the Indonesian Stock Exchange. Lastly, this research can be a reference that can be used as a recommendation for related parties for making business decisions

Centerscope

Centerscope, formerly Scope, was published by the Boston University Medical Center "to communicate the concern of the Medical Center for the development and maintenance of improved health care in contemporary society.

Efektivitas Teknik Progesive Muscle Relaxtation, Dengan Progesive Muscle Relaxtation Dan Dzikir Anfas Terhadap Kecemasan

This Study aoims to deremine the effect of PMR ( Progresive Muscle Relaxtation) therapy, PMR (Progesive Muscle Relaxtation) and Anfas Remembrance to reduce PAPP Khodijah students' anxiety, and to find out the difference in PMR, PMR and Dzikir Anfas Therapy which is more effective than the two therapies reduce anxiety levels. The method used is by using the Quasi experimental research design pretest and post test with control group. With Progressive Muscle Relaxation therapy intervention with Progressive Muscle Relaxation and Anfas dhikr as a control group. Each group consisted of 5 participants, within one week the research was conducted at PAPP Khodijah. The results of the study obtained Based on the results of the Mann Whitney U test on the gain score changes in the value of anxiety the progressive group muscle relaxtation, PMR and Anfas Dhikr were Z = -623, P = 0.548 (P≥0.05). This explains that both PMR and PMR groups and Dzikir Anfaz did not have a significant difference

Legally Blind: The Therapeutic Illusion in the SUPPORT Study of Extremely Premature Infants

Physician-researchers follow a protocol to generate generalizable knowledge; physicians have a duty to treat patients in ways they and their patients think best. In both activities, research and treatment, physicians often see themselves simply as physicians, practicing medicine. Sick people have similar perception difficulties, and prefer to think of their physician-researcher simply as their physician, even when their treatment is 2 determined by a protocol or the flip of a coin. Almost 20 years ago, in this Journal, one of us suggested that at least some researchers use language to obscure; to blur or eliminate the distinctions between research and therapy, ,3 scientist and physician, and subject and patient. It was suggested that a major reason for the blurring was to lower the standards for obtaining informed consent. To prevent this, it was further suggested that it is necessary to firmly establish that the modem informed consent doctrine applies to both research and treatment.4 In this article we explore the recurrent problem of equating research and treatment, and its recurring (but misinformed) rationale-that in practice, informed consent only applies to research, and not treatment. Historically, misleading and confusing terms such as therapeutic research, experimental treatment, and invalidated treatment have been used to blur the distinction between research and treatment. Similar misleading terms are being deployed in an effort to make evidence-based medicine research (including comparative-effectiveness research) easier to do by dispensing with or watering down disclosure requirements. We agree with the great need to do more research on the safety and efficacy of currently used treatments, but strongly disagree that such research requires abandoning or diluting informed consent, or treating patients simply as passive objects for the valid purpose of improving the quality of care for all. The latest term for conflating research and treatment is standard of care research, and the leading example that illustrates the problems with employing new and confusing terms for research is a study on extremely premature infants, the Surfactant, Positive Pressure, and Pulse Oximetry Randomized Trial (known as the SUPPORT study and described below). 5 The (mistaken) belief that clinical practice on children does not require the informed consent of the parents explains, we think, why this seductive term, standard-of-care research, was invented. It seemed to justify, for example, not informing parents of the risks of death in each of the two possible groups to which their infant would be randomized in the SUPPORT study. Viewing research as treatment is a common mistake patients also make, so common that it has been given a name, the therapeutic misconception, or the therapeutic illusion. 6 We will suggest that in the SUPPORT study the therapeutic illusion was strongest on the part of the researchers, sponsors, Institutional Review Boards ( IRBs ), and institutions, rather than, as is usual, on the part of the patient-subjects

The Effect of Using the Two Stay Two Stray Technique to Develop Young Learners’ Speaking Skills and Motivation

This was a quantitative experimental study with the aim of finding out the result of using the Two-stay–two-stray (TS-TS) technique to develop young learners’ speaking skills, and motivation. The method used was a one group pre-test and post-test design: The instruments were the pre-test, the post-test and a questionnaire. The population was all the middle school students at SMPN2 in Idi Timur, East Aceh and the sample was the second grade students at SMPN2 Idi Timur chosen by using purposive sampling. The students’ achievements were tested by using a test and their motivation was measured by using a questionnaire. A pre-test and a post-test were given before and after the treatment. The results showed that the mean score from the pre-test was 54 and from the post-test it was 66. The result from the t-score was 9.37, while the critical value from the t-table was 2.06 at the level of significance of 0.01 it was 2.78 with 25 degrees of freedom. Since the result from the t-test was higher than the t-table, the alternative hypothesis was accepted. This proved that using the Two-stay-two-stray technique improved the speaking skills of the sample young learners. Regarding motivation, the students’ opinion about motivation in speaking English and the results from their pre-test were contradictory. Based on the answers to some questions in the questionnaire, the students showed lack of interest in developing their English speaking skills: Yet more than 50% of the students said that they practiced continuously so that their English speaking ability would get better. This means that these, students may still not be aware whether they are motivated or not in speaking English