<p><strong>BACKGROUND: </strong>Few studies have addressed obesity prevention among low-income families whose infants are at increased obesity risk. We tested a Facebook peer-group intervention for low-income mothers to foster behaviors promoting healthy infant growth.</p>

<p><strong>METHODS: </strong>In this randomized controlled trial, 87 pregnant women (Medicaid insured, BMI ≥25 kg/m(2)) were randomized to the Grow2Gether intervention or text message appointment reminders. Grow2Gether participants joined a private Facebook group of 9-13 women from 2 months before delivery until infant age 9 months. A psychologist facilitated groups featuring a curriculum of weekly videos addressing feeding, sleep, parenting, and maternal well-being. Feasibility was assessed using the frequency and content of participation, and acceptability using surveys. Maternal beliefs and behaviors and infant growth were assessed at birth, 2, 4, 6, and 9 months. Differences in infant growth between study arms were explored. We conducted intention-to-treat analyses using quasi-least-squares regression.</p>

<p><strong>RESULTS: </strong>Eighty-eight percent (75/85) of intervention participants (42% (36/85) food insecure, 88% (75/85) black) reported the group was helpful. Participants posted 30 times/group/week on average. At 9 months, the intervention group had significant improvement in feeding behaviors (Infant Feeding Style Questionnaire) compared to the control group (p = 0.01, effect size = 0.45). Intervention group mothers were significantly less likely to pressure infants to finish food and, at age 6 months, give cereal in the bottle. Differences were not observed for other outcomes, including maternal feeding beliefs or infant weight-for-length.</p>

<p><strong>CONCLUSIONS: </strong>A social media peer-group intervention was engaging and significantly impacted certain feeding behaviors in families with infants at high risk of obesity.</p>

<p>We compared results of a modified version of the Asthma Control Test using parent proxy report (PP-ACT) with results reported by children and parents using the validated Childhood-Asthma Control Test (C-ACT). 104 parent-child dyads with a child aged 6 to 12 years with asthma were randomized to complete PP-ACT followed by C-ACT or C-ACT followed by PP-ACT. Scores ≤19 indicated uncontrolled asthma. We calculated sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value for the PP-ACT in comparison with the C-ACT, and calculated concordance between the 2 scales. The PP-ACT had sensitivity of 86% and negative predictive value of 88% for detecting uncontrolled asthma. More than 75% of surveys were concordant (κ = 0.54, moderate agreement). Our results suggest that while the PP-ACT missed few children with uncontrolled asthma and may simplify reporting of asthma control in circumstances when child report is not feasible or creates barriers to survey receipt, limitations of proxy reporting should be considered.</p>

We compared results of a modified version of the Asthma Control Test using parent proxy report (PP-ACT) with results reported by children and parents using the validated Childhood-Asthma Control Test (C-ACT). 104 parent-child dyads with a child aged 6 to 12 years with asthma were randomized to complete PP-ACT followed by C-ACT or C-ACT followed by PP-ACT. Scores ≤19 indicated uncontrolled asthma. We calculated sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value for the PP-ACT in comparison with the C-ACT, and calculated concordance between the 2 scales. The PP-ACT had sensitivity of 86% and negative predictive value of 88% for detecting uncontrolled asthma. More than 75% of surveys were concordant (κ = 0.54, moderate agreement). Our results suggest that while the PP-ACT missed few children with uncontrolled asthma and may simplify reporting of asthma control in circumstances when child report is not feasible or creates barriers to survey receipt, limitations of proxy reporting should be considered.