SynthesisInternational breastfeeding journal2022
A systematic literature review of breastfeeding interventions among Black populations using the RE-AIM framework.
Synthesis in International breastfeeding journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Applying RE-AIM to evaluations of Veterans Health Administration Enterprise-Wide Initiatives: lessons learned.Frontiers in health services · 2023Article
- A Narrative Review of Culturally Informed Breastfeeding Interventions for African American Women.The Journal of perinatal & neonatal nursingReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLactation 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.
methodsStudies 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.
resultsOn 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%).
conclusionThis 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.