Public health guidelines advise eating regular meals without defining “regular.” This study constructed a meaning for “regular” meals congruent with dietary quality. Parents of 4th grade youth in a school-based intervention (Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02491294) completed three, ASA24 online 24-h dietary recalls. Differences in time of intake across days for breakfasts, lunches, dinners were categorized with consistency denoted as always, often/sometimes or rarely/never and assigned values of 3, 2 or 1, respectively. Meal-specific values were summed to form mealtime regularity scores (mReg) ranging from 3 (low) to 9. Healthy eating index (HEI) scores were compared to mReg controlling for weekday/weekend recall pattern. Linear regression predicted HEI scores from mReg. Parents (n = 142) were non-Hispanic white (92%), female (88%) and educated (73%). One mReg version, mReg1 was significantly associated with total HEI, total fruit, whole fruit, tended to correlate with total protein, seafood/plant protein subcomponents. mReg1 predicted total HEI (p = 0.001) and was inversely related to BMI (p = 0.04). A score of three (always) was awarded to breakfasts, lunches or dinners with day-to-day differences of 0–60 min; also, lunches/dinners with one interval of 60–120 min when two meals were ≤60 min apart. More rigid mReg versions were not associated with dietary quality.

Objectives Design and evaluate a Facebook (FB) campaign to recruit a select sample with metabolic syndrome (MetS) to participate in a telephone screening for inclusion in a randomized controlled trial of the efficacy of a lifestyle medicine intervention to reverse MetS. Methods Inclusion and exclusion criteria for participation in the Enhanced Lifestyles for Metabolic Syndrome (ELM) study informed development of a FB ad, utilizing FB guidelines. After clicking a FB ad, co-morbidity and contact information to schedule a screening call were captured via survey using a Qualtrics platform. Phone screen eligibility was defined as having no listed co-morbidities. Providing contact information in addition was deemed to be complete and phone screen-ready. Phone screen eligibility and readiness frequencies were compared to FB campaign performance data on reach, link clicks, demographics and costing using the Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES) system. Participation was not incentivized. Results The 14-day FB campaign, driven by 11 phrases pertinent to MetS, had a potential reach of 690,000 with ad impressions on 33,243 unique FB accounts resulting in 1160 ad clicks. Ad impressions appeared mostly in female accounts; 90% of ad clickers were female from 18 to 65y or higher; the majority were >45y. Costs ranged from $.47 to $.83/click (averaged $0.61). Total campaign costs were $708.57. Of the 1160 ad clicks, 422 moved past survey page 1, 114 were eligible for phone screening and 85 were phone screen-ready. Of the 85 that provided contact details, 51 completed the phone screen and 21 were deemed eligible for the ELM baseline assessment. CHERRIES response rates were: View 3.5%; Survey participation 36.4%; Phone screen eligible 27% and Completion 74.6%. Of those who clicked on the ad, 7.3% were Phone screen-ready and 20.1% starting the survey were Phone screen-ready. Costs were $6.216 to recruit a phone screen eligible person; $8.336/phone screen-ready person; $13.894/phone screen completion and $33.741/ELM baseline screen eligible subject. Personnel time was <4 h for the FB campaign. Conclusions FB was a cost-effective strategy, requiring minimal personnel investment, to recruit subjects to a MetS clinical trial with demanding inclusion/exclusion criteria. Funding Sources William G. McGowan Charitable Fund, Wegmans School of Health & Nutrition, RIT.