cover
Article Per Year (5 Year)
All
Home Page
OAI Link
Editorial Team
Contact
Reviewer
Google Scholar
Contact Name
Andari Wuri Astuti
Contact Email
astutiandari@unisayogya.ac.id
Phone
+6287736351159
Journal Mail Official
jhtam@unisayogya.ac.id
Editorial Address
Universitas 'Aisyiyah (UNISA) Yogyakarta Kampus Terpadu: Jl. Siliwangi (Ring Road Barat) No. 63, Nogotirto, Gamping, Sleman, Yogyakarta 55292  Telepon: (0274) 4469199 Fax.: (0274) 4469204
Location
Kab. sleman,
Daerah istimewa yogyakarta
INDONESIA
Journal of Health Technology Assessment in Midwifery
Published by Universitas Aisyiyah Yogyakarta
ISSN : 26208423     EISSN : 26205653     DOI : https://doi.org/10.31101/jhtam
Core Subject : Health, Science, Education,
Education Health Professions Immunology & microbiology Public Health
Journal of Health Technology Assessment in Midwifery provides an international forum for the publication, dissemination and discussion of advances in evidence, controversies and current research, current knowledge and promotes continuing education through publication of systematic and other reviews and updates across broad range of clinical and interdisciplinary topics including: 1. midwifery; 2. maternity and children health; 3. primary care for women and newborn; 4. public health; 5. health care policy; 6. health system, and global health. It also covers cultural, clinical, psycho-social, sociological, epidemiological, education, managerial, workforce, organizational and technological areas of practice in preconception and other health systems.
Arjuna Subject : Keperawatan - Maternity and Midwifery
Articles 113 Documents
 8   9   10   11   12 
Economic evaluation on pentavalent vaccine versus hexavalent vaccine in childhood immunization programs: A systematic review Fadhila Aulia Dila; Raodiatul Jumiati; Fitri Fitri; Eka Abelian Putri Kelana; Sulistyaningsih Sulistyaningsih; Putri Listiani
Journal of Health Technology Assessment in Midwifery Vol. 9 No. 1 (2026): May
Publisher : Universitas Aisyiyah Yogyakarta

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.31101/jhtam.4670

Abstract

Background: The childhood immunisation programme is a key pillar in the prevention of infectious diseases. The hexavalent vaccine, which combines six antigens (DTPa-HepB-IPV-Hib) in a single formulation, offers a practical alternative to pentavalent vaccines used in combination with separate hepatitis B and polio vaccines. This study aims to evaluate and compare the economic aspects of pentavalent and hexavalent vaccines across various forms of economic evaluation to support the sustainability of childhood immunisation programmes.Method: This systematic review was conducted following PRISMA 2020 guidelines using the PICO framework. Articles were retrieved from PubMed, ScienceDirect, and EBSCO databases using MeSH-based keywords. Inclusion criteria covered articles published within the last five years comparing hexavalent and pentavalent vaccines in childhood immunisation programmes for children aged 0–2 years. Study quality was assessed using Drummond's 10-item checklist.Results: Six studies from Colombia, Peru, Argentina, Chile, South Korea, and China were analysed. All studies assumed comparable clinical efficacy between vaccines and applied the cost-minimisation analysis (CMA) approach. From both health system and societal perspectives, the hexavalent vaccine consistently demonstrated lower total costs per fully immunised child (FIC). Key efficiency drivers included a reduction in injections, fewer health facility visits, reduced adverse events, and improved healthcare worker efficiency. Results remained robust across sensitivity analyses conducted in all models.Conclusion: Although more expensive per dose, the hexavalent vaccine proved more efficient and cost-effective in childhood immunisation programmes, especially in settings with logistical constraints. These findings support the integration of the hexavalent vaccine into national immunisation policies.
A The experience of parents who married as teenagers in applying discipline in child rearing: A scoping review Eka Abelian Putri Kelana; Andari Wuri Astuti; Dewi Rokhanawati
Journal of Health Technology Assessment in Midwifery Vol. 9 No. 1 (2026): May
Publisher : Universitas Aisyiyah Yogyakarta

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.31101/jhtam.4697

Abstract

Background: Discipline in parenting refers to actions or consequences imposed in response to rule violations. Objective: This scoping review aims to map scientific evidence related to the application of discipline, parenting experiences, and factors that influence its application in the context of families with teenage marriages. Methods: This scoping review used the five steps outlined by Arksey and O'Malley; identifying the research question, identifying relevant studies, Study Selection, data charting, results and discussion, and adhered to the prism-scr checklist. This study used the population, exposure, outcome (PEO) framework. The article searches used PubMed and Proquest databases. The critical appraisal tools used were the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) and Mixed Methods Appraisal Tools (MMAT). Results: The scoping review results showed that negative disciplinary practices, such as physical and emotional punishment, are still widely used in parenting, even though various studies have confirmed their adverse effects on children's psychological and emotional development. On the other hand, positive discipline is more conducive to the development of adaptive behaviour, academic ability, and warmer relationships between parents and children. Parents who marry at a young age often face considerable emotional pressure and parenting stress. The application of discipline is influenced by parental self-efficacy, family and social support, economic conditions, culture, education, and the availability of parenting resources. Conclusion: Positive discipline is a more appropriate approach.
Mixed-method development and feasibility analysis of CETING mobile application for digital stunting monitoring Affi Zakiyya; Elma Marsita; Ratna Indah Kartika Sari
Journal of Health Technology Assessment in Midwifery Vol. 9 No. 1 (2026): May
Publisher : Universitas Aisyiyah Yogyakarta

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.31101/jhtam.4705

Abstract

Independent monitoring of toddler growth is a crucial step in stunting prevention; however, conventional methods like the KIA handbook are often perceived as impractical by modern parents. This study aims to develop and evaluate the feasibility of growth monitoring features within the CETING application as a digital solution for early stunting detection. An R&D approach was employed, involving validation by material and media experts, followed by a small-group trial with 15 mothers of toddlers. Data were gathered through Likert-scale questionnaires and in-depth interviews to gain qualitative perspectives. Expert validation indicated high feasibility, with scores of 90.00% from material experts and 85.00% from media experts. The user trial yielded an overall feasibility score of 89.38% (Very Feasible), with "Ease of Use" achieving the highest score (91.25%). Qualitative findings confirmed that users perceived the app as more efficient and accurate than manual methods, supported by an intuitive interface and data synchronization with WHO medical standards. The CETING application is a feasible and effective digital instrument for empowering parents in child health monitoring. Future developments should focus on integrating automated reminder features and expanding trials to groups with diverse digital literacy levels.

Page 12 of 12 | Total Record : 113

 8   9   10   11   12 

Filter by Year

2018 2026


Reset
Filter By Issues
All Issue Vol. 9 No. 1 (2026): May Vol. 8 No. 2 (2025): November Vol. 8 No. 1 (2025): May Vol. 7 No. 2 (2024): November Vol. 7 No. 1 (2024): May Vol. 6 No. 2 (2023): November Vol. 6 No. 1 (2023): May Vol. 5 No. 2 (2022): November Vol 5, No 2 (2022): November Vol 5, No 1 (2022): May Vol. 5 No. 1 (2022): May Vol 4, No 2 (2021): November Vol 4, No 1 (2021): May Vol 3, No 2 (2020): November Vol 3, No 1 (2020): May Vol 2, No 2 (2019): November Vol 2, No 1 (2019): May Vol 1, No 2 (2018): November Vol 1, No 1 (2018): May More Issue