Introduction: The Virtual Diabetes Specialty Clinic (VDiSC) study demonstrated the feasibility of providing comprehensive diabetes care entirely virtually by combining virtual visits with continuous glucose monitoring support and remote patient monitoring (RPM). However, the financial sustainability of this model remains uncertain.Methods: We developed a financial model to estimate the variable costs and revenues of virtual diabetes care, using visit data from the 234 VDiSC participants with type 1 or type 2 diabetes. Data included virtual visits with certified diabetes care and education specialists (CDCES), endocrinologists, and behavioral health services (BHS). The model estimated care utilization, variable costs, reimbursement revenue, gross profit, and gross profit margin per member, per month (PMPM) for privately insured, publicly insured, and overall clinic populations (75% privately insured). We performed two-way sensitivity analyses on key parameters.Results: Gross profit and gross profit margin PMPM (95% confidence interval) were estimated at $-4 ($-14.00 to $5.68) and -4% (-3% to -6%) for publicly insured patients; $267.26 ($256.59-$277.93) and 73% (58%-88%) for privately insured patients; and $199.41 ($58.43-$340.39) and 67% (32%-102%) for the overall clinic. Profits were primarily driven by CDCES visits and RPM. Results were sensitive to insurance mix, cost-to-charge ratio, and commercial-to-Medicare price ratio.Conclusions: Virtual diabetes care can be financially viable, although profitability relies on privately insured patients. The analysis excluded fixed costs of clinic infrastructure, and securing reimbursement may be challenging in practice. The financial model is adaptable to various care settings and can serve as a planning tool for virtual diabetes clinics.

Background: The objective was to examine patient-reported outcomes (PROs) associated with access to a virtual clinic model for diabetes care. Methods: Adults with diabetes (N = 234) received virtual care, including support for continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) over a 6-month study period. Care was led by a Certified Diabetes Care and Education Specialist and focused on optimizing self-management skills and response to glucose values observed on CGM. After 6 months of CGM use and access to diabetes education, participants could opt in to another 6 months of follow-up with access to the virtual care team. Participants completed PRO surveys and had health and glycemic measures collected at baseline, 3, 6, and 12 months. Results: Participants with type 1 diabetes (N = 160) were 44 +/- 14 years and had mean baseline HbA1c of 61 mmol/mol (7.7%). Participants with type 2 diabetes (N = 74) were 52 +/- 12 years and had mean baseline HbA1c of 66 mmol/mol (8.2%). Compared with baseline levels, at 6 months participants experienced less depression, diabetes distress, and hypoglycemic fears while also experiencing greater satisfaction with glucose monitoring, diabetes technology and specifically with CGM, and confidence for managing hypoglycemic (p < 0.05). For participants with type 1 diabetes, more time in the target range for glucose levels (70-180 mg/dL) was associated with less depression, diabetes distress, and hypoglycemic fears. Conclusions: PROs improved for adults with diabetes utilizing virtual diabetes care, including support for CGM use. Paired with the glycemic improvements observed in this virtual clinic study, there were robust benefits on the quality of life of adults with diabetes. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04765358.

Background: Older adults may be less comfortable with continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) technology or require additional education to support use. The Virtual Diabetes Specialty Clinic study provided the opportunity to understand glycemic outcomes and support needed for older versus younger adults living with diabetes and using CGM. Methods: Prospective, virtual study of adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D, N = 160) or type 2 diabetes (T2D, N = 74) using basal-bolus insulin injections or insulin pump therapy. Remote CGM diabetes education (3 scheduled visits over 1 month) was provided by Certified Diabetes Care and Education Specialists with additional visits as needed. CGM-measured glycemic metrics, HbA1c and visit duration were evaluated by age (<40, 40-64 and ≥65 years). Results: Median CGM use was ≥95% in all age groups. From baseline to 6 months, time 70 to 180 mg/dL improved from 45% ± 22 to 57% ± 16%; 50 ± 25 to 65 ± 18%; and 60 ± 28 to 69% ± 18% in the <40, 40-64, and ≥65-year groups, respectively (<40 vs 40-64 years P = 0.006). Corresponding values for HbA1c were 8.0% ± 1.6 to 7.3% ± 1.0%; 7.9 ± 1.6 to 7.0 ± 1.0%; and 7.4 ± 1.4 to 7.1% ± 0.9% (all P > 0.05). Visit duration was 41 min longer for ages ≥65 versus <40 years ( P = 0.001). Conclusions: Adults with diabetes experience glycemic benefit after remote CGM use training, but training time for those >65 years is longer compared with younger adults. Addressing individual training-related needs, including needs that may vary by age, should be considered.

This cohort study examines glycemic outcome data for adults with type 1 or type 2 diabetes who participated in a virtual endocrinology clinic that supported continuous glucose monitoring and provided education and behavioral health support.

The impact of a telemedicine model for a virtual diabetes clinic was assessed 6 months following completion of a 6-month intervention of education and support for diabetes self-management, including initiation and use of CGM. One hundred and sixty-one participants ≥18 years old with T1D (N=109) or T2D (N=52) using MDI/pump participated in the 12-month study. At the end of the 6-month intervention period, mean HbA1c decreased from 7.6% at baseline to 7.0% in T1D and from 8.1% to 7.0% in T2D (P<0.001). At 12 months (6 months after discontinuation of the intervention), mean HbA1c was 7.0% for T1D and 7.2% for T2D (P<0.001 compared with baseline). Mean time in range 70-180 mg/dL was 51% at baseline, increasing to 62% at 6 months (P<0.001) and 64% at 12 months in T1D (P<0.001) and from 49% to 66% (P<0.001) and 68% (P<0.001), respectively, in T2D. Similar improvements were observed for mean glucose and hyperglycemia metrics. A sustained reduction in hypoglycemia also was observed. The virtual diabetes clinic intervention was successful in promoting improved glycemic outcomes, which were sustained 6 months after the intervention was completed. These findings demonstrate the impact that virtual care and education can have on self-management over time and provide opportunity to expand care models that could minimize barriers to specialty care access. Disclosure R. L. Gal: None. S. Oser: Advisory Panel; Cecelia Health, Dexcom, Inc., Consultant; Medscape, Research Support; Abbott Diabetes. T. Oser: Advisory Panel; Cecelia Health, Consultant; Dexcom, Inc., Medscape, Research Support; Abbott. K. K. Hood: Consultant; Cecelia Health. T. L. Cushman: None. M. L. Johnson: Research Support; Abbott, Lilly, Insulet Corporation, NIH - National Institutes of Health, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, Novo Nordisk, Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc., Medtronic, Hemsley Charitable Trust, Jaeb Center for Health Research. C. Kollman: Research Support; Insulet Corporation, Dexcom, Inc., Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. R. Beck: Consultant; Eli Lilly and Company, Novo Nordisk, Diasome, Insulet Corporation, Research Support; Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc., Beta Bionics, Inc., Dexcom, Inc., Bigfoot Biomedical, Inc., Medtronic, Ascensia Diabetes Care, Roche Diabetes Care, Eli Lilly and Company, Novo Nordisk. D. Raghinaru: None. G. Aleppo: Advisory Panel; Medscape, Consultant; Bayer Inc., Insulet Corporation, Research Support; Dexcom, Inc., Eli Lilly and Company, Emmes, Insulet Corporation, Fractyl Health, Inc., WellDoc, Speaker's Bureau; Dexcom, Inc. B. A. Olson: Stock/Shareholder; Abbott. D. F. Kruger: Advisory Panel; Abbott Diabetes, Lilly, Medtronic, Novo Nordisk, Research Support; Dexcom, Inc., Beta Bionics, Inc., Speaker's Bureau; Dexcom, Inc., Lilly, Xeris Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Novo Nordisk. R. M. Bergenstal: Advisory Panel; Abbott Diabetes, Eli Lilly and Company, Medtronic, Novo Nordisk, Roche Diabetes Care, Zealand Pharma A/S, Consultant; Ascensia Diabetes Care, Bigfoot Biomedical, Inc., CeQur SA, Dexcom, Inc., Hygieia, Onduo LLC, Sanofi, Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated, Research Support; Abbott Diabetes, Dexcom, Inc., Eli Lilly and Company, Insulet Corporation, Medtronic, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, UnitedHealth Group. R. S. Weinstock: Consultant; Jaeb Center for Health Research, Other Relationship; Wolters Kluwer Health, Research Support; Insulet Corporation, Medtronic, Eli Lilly and Company, Novo Nordisk, Boehringer Ingelheim Inc., Hemsley Charitable Trust, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc., Kowa Pharmaceuticals America, Inc. A. Bradshaw: None. T. S. Mcarthur: None.

Behavioral health support can benefit those living with diabetes, but there is limited information on patient reported outcomes (PROs) associated with a virtual clinic. Adults with diabetes (n=234) received virtual care including support for CGM initiation and management over a 6-month study period. Care was led by a CDCES with support from a behavioral team. Participants completed PROs surveys 1) at baseline and 6 months to evaluate change and 2) each month on diabetes distress (DD), fear of hypoglycemia (FOH), and depression (DEP). Full list of PROs surveys included in table. A positive screen led to recommendation for a brief behavioral intervention. Participants with T1D (n=160) were 44(±14) years and mean baseline A1c of 7.8%. Participants with T2D (n=74) were 55(±12) years and mean baseline A1c of 8.1%. Participants screened positive for DD, FOH, or DEP 67% of the time with FOH as the most common concern. Of those with a positive screen, 70% of T1D and 59% of T2D participants had at least one behavioral team contact. Virtual clinic care was associated with a benefit on 7 of 9 PROs for T1D and 7 of 9 PROs for T2D (p values < 0.05; see table). For these virtual clinic adults with diabetes, PROs improved 78% of the time with noteworthy benefits of less FOH, less DD, and more glucose monitoring satisfaction. Paired with the glycemic improvements observed in this virtual clinic study, there were robust benefits on the quality of life of adults with diabetes. Disclosure K.K.Hood: Consultant; Cecelia Health. S.Oser: Advisory Panel; Cecelia Health, Dexcom, Inc., Consultant; Medscape, Research Support; Abbott Diabetes. T.Oser: Advisory Panel; Cecelia Health, Consultant; Dexcom, Inc., Medscape, Research Support; Abbott. D.Raghinaru: None. Z.Thompson: None. R.S.Weinstock: Consultant; Jaeb Center for Health Research, Other Relationship; Wolters Kluwer Health, Research Support; Insulet Corporation, Medtronic, Eli Lilly and Company, Novo Nordisk, Boehringer Ingelheim Inc., Hemsley Charitable Trust, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc., Kowa Pharmaceuticals America, Inc. R.Beck: Consultant; Eli Lilly and Company, Novo Nordisk, Diasome, Insulet Corporation, Research Support; Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc., Beta Bionics, Inc., Dexcom, Inc., Bigfoot Biomedical, Inc., Medtronic, Ascensia Diabetes Care, Roche Diabetes Care, Eli Lilly and Company, Novo Nordisk. G.Aleppo: Advisory Panel; Medscape, Consultant; Bayer Inc., Insulet Corporation, Research Support; Dexcom, Inc., Eli Lilly and Company, Emmes, Insulet Corporation, Fractyl Health, Inc., WellDoc, Speaker's Bureau; Dexcom, Inc. R.M.Bergenstal: Advisory Panel; Abbott Diabetes, Eli Lilly and Company, Medtronic, Novo Nordisk, Roche Diabetes Care, Zealand Pharma A/S, Consultant; Ascensia Diabetes Care, Bigfoot Biomedical, Inc., CeQur SA, Dexcom, Inc., Hygieia, Onduo LLC, Sanofi, Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated, Research Support; Abbott Diabetes, Dexcom, Inc., Eli Lilly and Company, Insulet Corporation, Medtronic, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, UnitedHealth Group. T.L.Cushman: None. R.L.Gal: None. C.Kollman: Research Support; Insulet Corporation, Dexcom, Inc., Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. D.F.Kruger: Advisory Panel; Abbott Diabetes, Lilly, Medtronic, Novo Nordisk, Research Support; Dexcom, Inc., Beta Bionics, Inc., Speaker's Bureau; Dexcom, Inc., Lilly, Xeris Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Novo Nordisk. M.L.Johnson: Research Support; Abbott, Lilly, Insulet Corporation, NIH - National Institutes of Health, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, Novo Nordisk, Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc., Medtronic, Hemsley Charitable Trust, Jaeb Center for Health Research. T.S.Mcarthur: None. B.A.Olson: Stock/Shareholder; Abbott. Funding The Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust; Dexcom, Inc.

The Virtual Diabetes Specialty Clinic (VDiSC) provided type 1 (T1D) and type 2 diabetes (T2D) adults taking insulin virtual care with remote CGM training and support. HbA1c improved from baseline to 6 months in T1D (7.8% to 7.0%) and T2D (8.2% to 7.0%) with increased time in range (70-180 mg/dL; TIR). Here we compare glycemic outcomes (Table 1) and duration of remote CGM training visits (Table 2) in adults ages <40 yr, 40-59 yr and ≥ 60 yr. HbA1c and %TIR improved in each group. Limitations include a small sample size that was mostly White. Results suggest that both T1D and T2D adults ≥60 years of age experience glycemic benefit after remote training and support in the use of CGM from CDCESs, but when compared to young adults, older adults require more time for training. Support for approaches that address the individual needs of older adults with diabetes is required. Disclosure R.S.Weinstock: Consultant; Jaeb Center for Health Research, Other Relationship; Wolters Kluwer Health, Research Support; Insulet Corporation, Medtronic, Eli Lilly and Company, Novo Nordisk, Boehringer Ingelheim Inc., Hemsley Charitable Trust, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc., Kowa Pharmaceuticals America, Inc. T.S.Mcarthur: None. B.A.Olson: Stock/Shareholder; Abbott. S.Oser: Advisory Panel; Cecelia Health, Dexcom, Inc., Consultant; Medscape, Research Support; Abbott Diabetes. T.Oser: Advisory Panel; Cecelia Health, Consultant; Dexcom, Inc., Medscape, Research Support; Abbott. D.Raghinaru: None. R.Beck: Consultant; Eli Lilly and Company, Novo Nordisk, Diasome, Insulet Corporation, Research Support; Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc., Beta Bionics, Inc., Dexcom, Inc., Bigfoot Biomedical, Inc., Medtronic, Ascensia Diabetes Care, Roche Diabetes Care, Eli Lilly and Company, Novo Nordisk. G.Aleppo: Advisory Panel; Medscape, Consultant; Bayer Inc., Insulet Corporation, Research Support; Dexcom, Inc., Eli Lilly and Company, Emmes, Insulet Corporation, Fractyl Health, Inc., WellDoc, Speaker's Bureau; Dexcom, Inc. Z.Thompson: None. R.M.Bergenstal: Advisory Panel; Abbott Diabetes, Eli Lilly and Company, Medtronic, Novo Nordisk, Roche Diabetes Care, Zealand Pharma A/S, Consultant; Ascensia Diabetes Care, Bigfoot Biomedical, Inc., CeQur SA, Dexcom, Inc., Hygieia, Onduo LLC, Sanofi, Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated, Research Support; Abbott Diabetes, Dexcom, Inc., Eli Lilly and Company, Insulet Corporation, Medtronic, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, UnitedHealth Group. T.L.Cushman: None. R.L.Gal: None. C.Kollman: Research Support; Insulet Corporation, Dexcom, Inc., Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. D.F.Kruger: Advisory Panel; Abbott Diabetes, Lilly, Medtronic, Novo Nordisk, Research Support; Dexcom, Inc., Beta Bionics, Inc., Speaker's Bureau; Dexcom, Inc., Lilly, Xeris Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Novo Nordisk. K.K.Hood: Consultant; Cecelia Health. M.L.Johnson: Research Support; Abbott, Lilly, Insulet Corporation, NIH - National Institutes of Health, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, Novo Nordisk, Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc., Medtronic, Hemsley Charitable Trust, Jaeb Center for Health Research. Funding The Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust; Dexcom, Inc.

Pregnant and breastfeeding women are motivated to improve their diets for the health of their infants, but have difficulty maintaining changes postpartum or post-breastfeeding. Tailoring nutrition education to the mother-infant dyad versus individually, and providing mothers with information on the continued connection between them and their infants, may be effective at promoting healthful behaviors for both. However, low-income mothers report barriers to in-person education; technology may therefore help reach this audience. The objective of this study was to explore the receptivity of low-income mothers to the use of technology in providing nutrition education for themselves, their infants and families. Women with a child <3 years were recruited through WIC to participate in focus groups. Topics explored were sources of nutrition information for themselves, infants and families, and use of technology to find information. Groups were recorded, transcribed and analyzed with N-Vivo to develop overarching themes. African American, Hispanic and White (N = 13) women participated in 4 mixed groups. Overarching themes developed from the data are (1) Prioritization: Women seek health information (from any source) for their infants and family, not themselves; (2) Context: Women accept nutrition information from health professionals, but seek to make it relevant to their lives through social networks, both personal and online; (3) Online Usage: Women seek nutrition information online in the same manner they do with other topics, including the platforms used (social media), at the time information is needed, and valuing resources they consider appropriate to their individual needs and their culture, values and lifestyles. Health professional sources online are not prioritized. Online resources are currently used by low-income mothers as support for implementing nutrition information. Making use of this technology to provide education that is relevant, but also-evidence based, is needed. NIFA USDA Hatch Grant.

Introduction: Breastfeeding (BF) duration remains problematic, especially among women returning to work. Given that use of workplace lactation support programs has not gained traction in improving BF duration, there appears to be elements missing from lactation support initiatives that need further exploration. The field of Implementation Science, in explaining organizational behavior, provides an opportunity to inform a better model for workplace BF support. Materials and Methods: To inform a new model for workplace lactation support, data from the Breastfeeding and Employment Study (BESt) were combined with Implementation Climate theory. BESt surveyed companies on their BF supports, and used hierarchical linear modeling to determine the association of those supports with company employee perceptions of and manager attitudes toward BF supports. Results: Employee scores were not associated with any company scores. Total company scores were associated with more positive manager attitudes (p < 0.01), due to structural supports, or those supports most visible to managers. Considering these results along with other studies, it is proposed that employees and managers are influenced by tangible (physical) as well as intangible (people) workplace lactation supports. Furthermore, strategies are needed to design and implement approaches to these components to increase workplace lactation support and improve BF durations. Conclusions: Implementation strategies will vary with the diversity of workplaces and how they function. A better understanding of the application of implementation climate for workplace lactation support will help tailor programs and their implementation to improve BF duration in employed women.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate feasibility of initiating continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) through telehealth as a means of expanding access. Adults with type 1 diabetes (N = 27) or type 2 diabetes using insulin (N = 7) and interest in starting CGM selected a CGM system (Dexcom G6 or Abbott FreeStyle Libre), which they received by mail. CGM was initiated with a certified diabetes care and education specialist providing instruction via videoconference or phone. The primary outcome was days per week of CCM use during the last 4 weeks. Hemoglobin A(1c), (HbA(1c)) was measured at baseline and 12 weeks. Participant self-reported outcome measures were also evaluated. All 34 participants (mean age, 46 +/- 18 years; 53% female, 85% white) were using CGM at 12 weeks, with 94% using CGM at least 6 days per week during weeks 9 to 12. Mean HbA(1c) decreased from 8.3 +/- 1.6 at baseline to 7.2 +/- 1.3 at 12 weeks (P< .001) and mean time in range (70-180 mg/dL, 3.9-10.0 mmol/L) increased from an estimated 48% +/- 18% to 59% +/- 20% (P< .001), an increase of approximately 2.7 hours/day. Substantial benefits of CGM to quality of life were observed, with reduced diabetes distress, increased satisfaction with glucose monitoring, and fewer perceived technology barriers to management. Remote CGM initiation was successful in achieving sustained use and improving glycemic control after 12 weeks as well as improving quality-of-life indicators. If widely implemented, this telehealth approach could substantially increase the adoption of CGM and potentially improve glycemic control for people with diabetes using insulin. (C) Endocrine Society 2020.

OBJECTIVE:To provide a snapshot of the profile of adults and youth with type 1 diabetes (T1D) in the United States and assessment of longitudinal changes in T1D management and clinical outcomes in the T1D Exchange registry. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS:Data on diabetes management and outcomes from 22,697 registry participants (age 1-93 years) were collected between 2016 and 2018 and compared with data collected in 2010-2012 for 25,529 registry participants. RESULTS:Mean HbA1c in 2016-2018 increased from 65 mmol/mol at the age of 5 years to 78 mmol/mol between ages 15 and 18, with a decrease to 64 mmol/mol by age 28 and 58-63 mmol/mol beyond age 30. The American Diabetes Association (ADA) HbA1c goal of <58 mmol/mol for youth was achieved by only 17% and the goal of <53 mmol/mol for adults by only 21%. Mean HbA1c levels changed little between 2010-2012 and 2016-2018, except in adolescents who had a higher mean HbA1c in 2016-2018. Insulin pump use increased from 57% in 2010-2012 to 63% in 2016-2018. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) increased from 7% in 2010-2012 to 30% in 2016-2018, rising >10-fold in children <12 years old. HbA1c levels were lower in CGM users than nonusers. Severe hypoglycemia was most frequent in participants ≥50 years old and diabetic ketoacidosis was most common in adolescents and young adults. Racial differences were evident in use of pumps and CGM and HbA1c levels. CONCLUSIONS:Data from the T1D Exchange registry demonstrate that only a minority of adults and youth with T1D in the United States achieve ADA goals for HbA1c.

Objective: Explore current maternal and infant nutrition education practices and family medicine primary care providers' views on a group care model to deliver nutrition education to mother-infant dyads. Design: In-depth interviews. Participants: Family medicine primary care providers (n = 17) who regularly see infants during well-baby visits. Phenomenon of Interest: Current maternal and infant nutrition education practices; views on ideal way to deliver nutrition education to mother-infant dyads; feedback on group care model to deliver nutrition education to mother-infant dyads. Analysis: Audio recordings transcribed verbatim and coded using conventional content analysis. Results: Family medicine primary care providers are limited in the ability to provide maternal and infant nutrition education and desire a different approach. Group care was the preferred method; it was shared most frequently as the ideal approach to nutrition education delivery and participants reacted favorably when presented with this model. However, there were many concerns with group care (eg, moderating difficult conversations, program implementation logistics, sufficient group volume, and interruption in patient-provider relationship). Conclusion and Implications: Family medicine primary care providers desire a different approach to deliver nutrition education to mother-infant dyads in clinic. A group care model may be well-accepted among family medicine primary care providers but issues must be resolved before implementation. These results could inform future group care implementation studies and influence provider buy-in.

Background: Breastfeeding support offered by trained professionals can increase breastfeeding success. The Outpatient Breastfeeding Champion (OBC) program creates a network of Breastfeeding Champions (typically nurses) who are trained to identify and resolve common breastfeeding issues and refer to lactation professionals as needed. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact the OBC program on nurses' attitudes toward breastfeeding and self-confidence in providing breastfeeding care. Materials and Methods: The OBC program was implemented in 11 medical offices within a health care system. Nurses were surveyed before (n = 9) and immediately after (n = 9) participating in OBC training sessions, and 6 months following the implementation of the OBC training (n = 15). Data were collected on their breastfeeding attitude and self-confidence in providing breastfeeding care, and the responses at the different time points were compared using Wilcoxon Rank-Sum tests. Results: Nurses' attitudes toward breastfeeding (p = 0.049) and self-confidence in managing breastfeeding position and attachment (p = 0.09) were higher immediately after completion of the OBC training than they were before training. There was no significant difference in either response between immediately after completion and 6 months following training. Conclusion: This study presents a model of breastfeeding care that extends the reach of an International Board Certified Lactation Consultant to improve breastfeeding support in the primary care setting. Nurses' more positive breastfeeding attitudes and self-confidence in providing breastfeeding care following training suggest that the use of a breastfeeding training program may improve the breastfeeding support provided by nurses, which could be sustained over time.

Objective: Design, implement, and evaluate the effectiveness of a video-based online training addressing prenatal nutrition for paraprofessional peer educators. Methods: Quasi-experimental pre-posttest study with 2 groups of paraprofessionals working for the Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program in 17 states and US territories: intervention (n = 67) and delayed intervention comparison group (n = 64). An online training was systematically developed using Smith and Ragan's instructional design model, the Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning, principles of adult learning, and selected constructs of the Social Cognitive Theory. Changes in knowledge, identification of inappropriate teaching practices, and self-efficacy, were assessed. Within- and between-group comparisons were done using ANCOVA. Results: The intervention group scored significantly higher (P < .05) in all evaluations compared with preassessments and the comparison group. After delayed intervention, the comparison group scored significantly higher (P < .05) than in preassessments. Paraprofessionals reacted positively to future online trainings and were interested in them. Conclusions and Implications: A video-based online training is an effective method to complement in-person trainings to prepare paraprofessionals to teach nutrition lessons.

Background: Postpartum weight retention is often a significant contributor to overweight and obesity. Lactation is typically not sufficient for mothers to return to pre-pregnancy weight. Modifiable health behaviors (e.g., healthy eating and exercise) are important for postpartum weight loss; however, engagement among mothers, especially those who are resource-limited, is low. A deeper understanding of low-income breastfeeding mothers’ healthy-eating and exercise experience, a population that may have unique motivators for health-behavior change, may facilitate creation of effective intervention strategies for these women. Research Aim: To describe the healthy-eating and exercise experiences of low-income postpartum women who choose to breastfeed. Methods: Focus group discussions were conducted with low-income mothers ( N = 21) who breastfed and had a child who was 3 years old or younger. Transcript analysis employed integrated grounded analysis using both a priori codes informed by the theory of planned behavior and grounded codes. Results: Three major themes were identified from five focus groups: (a) Mothers were unable to focus on their own diet and exercise due to preoccupation with infant needs and more perceived barriers than facilitators; (b) mothers became motivated to eat healthfully if it benefited the infant; and (c) mothers did not seek out information on maternal nutrition or exercise but used the Internet for infant-health information and health professionals for breastfeeding information. Conclusion: Low-income breastfeeding mothers may be more receptive to nutrition education or interventions that focus on the mother-infant dyad rather than solely on maternal health.

A majority of mothers with infants less than 1 year old participate in the labor force. Employers can modify the physical and social environments at work to accommodate breastfeeding employees and enable continued participation in the labor force. The purpose of our article is to (1) characterize breastfeeding policies and programs currently offered at workplaces in two Pennsylvania cities and (2) identify improvement areas to support breastfeeding employees in the workplace. We partnered with two business groups on health in Pennsylvania and electronically administered a survey to their employer members. Responses were aggregated into a workplace lactation support score based on physical space, time, policy, and resources. Higher scores indicate that employers offered a large number of workplace lactation supports. We conclude by offering specific improvement opportunities that include a written policy communicated to all employees and the formal communication of lactation services. Employers can utilize workplace lactation support scores to elect interventions that are feasible for implementation in their organizations.

Objective: Develop and evaluate the Infant Feeding Education Questionnaire (IFEQ) to measure the impact of the Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program (EFNEP) infant-feeding education on knowledge, attitudes, and behavioral intent. Methods: Evaluation included content validity testing through expert reviews and cognitive interviews with low-income mothers (n = 37); construct validity using the known-groups technique (n = 679); convergent validity testing using the Infant Feeding Practices Study II questionnaire (n = 66); and test-retest reliability (n = 66). Results: The IFEQ had strong construct validity for knowledge and attitudes; IFEQ scores were significantly higher for the high-knowledge/attitude group (29.6 +/- 3.08) than the low-knowledge/attitude group (14.5 +/- 5.81; P < .001). The IFEQ failed to show convergent validity. The percent agreement between baseline and retest questions was moderate to high, indicating reliability over time. Conclusions and Implications: This study represents the first steps in the development of the IFEQ. There's a need to perform further testing to establish convergent validity and pilot-test the questions following EFNEP infant-feeding education.

Objectives To explore factors that shape decisions made regarding employee benefits and compare the decision-making process for workplace breastfeeding support to that of other benefits. Methods Sixteen semi-structured, in-depth interviews were conducted with Human Resource Managers (HRMs) who had previously participated in a breastfeeding-support survey. A priori codes were used, which were based on a theoretical model informed by organizational behavior theories, followed by grounded codes from emergent themes. Results The major themes that emerged from analysis of the interviews included: (1) HRMs' primary concern was meeting the needs of their employees, regardless of type of benefit; (2) offering general benefits standard for the majority of employees (e.g. health insurance) was viewed as essential to recruitment and retention, whereas breastfeeding benefits were viewed as discretionary; (3) providing additional breastfeeding supports (versus only the supports mandated by the Affordable Care Act) was strongly influenced by HRMs' perception of employee need. Conclusions for Practice Advocates for improved workplace breastfeeding-support benefits should focus on HRMs' perception of employee need. To achieve this, advocates could encourage HRMs to perform objective breastfeeding-support needs assessments and highlight how breastfeeding support benefits all employees (e.g., reduced absenteeism and enhanced productivity of breastfeeding employee). Additionally, framing breastfeeding-support benefits in terms of their impact on recruitment and retention could be effective in improving adoption.