A systematic literature review of breastfeeding interventions among Black populations using the RE-AIM framework

Background Lactation support resources are less likely to be located in close proximity to where Black families live and there is a systemic racist health care belief that Black women prefer bottle feeding (with infant formula) over breastfeeding. Together, these lead to lower reported breastfeeding rates of Black babies compared to other racial / ethnic groups. It is imperative to have a deeper understanding of the cultural aspects as well as the underlying limitations that prevent Black women / persons from being supported to breastfeed. There is a need to know how effective breastfeeding interventions are in reaching the intended population; how well they work in promoting breastfeeding initiation and continuation; and how successful they are when implemented at the setting and staff level. The purpose of this investigation was to establish the level of internal and external validity that was reported by breastfeeding intervention studies among Black communities. Methods Studies on breastfeeding interventions on Black people that were published between the years 1990 and 2019 were carefully examined through PubMed, EBSCOhost, Web of Science, and OneSearch. A total of 31 studies fulfilled the requirements to be included for this evaluation. In order to extract the information from the articles, the reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance (RE-AIM) framework extraction tool was utilized. Results On average, the proportion of studies that reported across reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance indicators was 54, 35, 19, 48, and 9%, respectively. Across core RE-AIM indicators only sample size (100%) and breastfeeding outcomes (90%) were reported consistently. External validity indicators related to representativeness of participants (16%) and sites (3%) were rarely reported. Similarly, adherence to intervention protocol, and indicator of internal validity, was reported in a small proportion of articles (19%). Conclusion This body of literature under-reported on aspects associated to both internal and external validity across all RE-AIM domains. The reporting of the individual level of representativeness; the setting level of representativeness; the intervention’s adherence to the protocol; the expenses; and the factors of sustainability would benefit from improvement in future research.