Exploring culinary medicine as a promising method of nutritional education in medical school: a scoping review

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Background

Dietary modifications are considered a first-line intervention for chronic disease management, yet graduating doctors still report not feeling competent to counsel patients on their diet. Research has focused on methods to address this shortfall in physician competency, including culinary medicine. Culinary medicine is an approach to education that involves hands-on food and cooking learning experiences to equip participants with tools for improving the nutrition behaviour and health of their future patients. Despite positive findings in the efficacy of these interventions, they differ markedly in approach and target, which therefore fails to provide adequate evidence that could serve to guide future culinary medicine interventions.

Objective

A scoping review to synthesize the existing literature on culinary medicine interventions that are offered during medical training.

Methods

Online databases were used to identify literature published prior to April 2022 that involve a hands-on culinary medicine component to nutrition and examine academic impact, feasibility and acceptability.

Results

Twenty-four studies met the eligibility criteria. Despite promising gains in nutrition knowledge, confidence and high acceptability of the programs, large variations exist in delivery method, setting, and course content between programs. There is a lack of program cost reporting and long-term follow up of participants, inconsistent evidence for improved nutrition attitudes amongst participants, as well as geographically limited adoption of such programs.

Conclusions

The findings of this research demonstrate a clear increase in interest in the use of hands-on culinary medicine programs as educational tools, evidence of feasibility in implementation, and improved student nutritional knowledge, skill and counseling compared to a traditional didactic curriculum. The quality of culinary medicine research studies is increasing and the aims of research are narrowing to focus on how culinary medicine can positively impact medical education. The findings from this review will aid in legitimising culinary medicine as an effective delivery method of nutritional education in medical programs.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12909-022-03449-w.

Related collections

Most cited references 61

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

Matthew J L Page, Joanne E. Mckenzie, Patrick Bossuyt … (2021)

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.

0 comments Cited 1494 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Global, regional, and national comparative risk assessment of 79 behavioural, environmental and occupational, and metabolic risks or clusters of risks in 188 countries, 1990–2013: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013

Mohammad Forouzanfar, Lily Alexander, H Ross Anderson … (2015)

The Global Burden of Disease, Injuries, and Risk Factor study 2013 (GBD 2013) is the first of a series of annual updates of the GBD. Risk factor quantification, particularly of modifiable risk factors, can help to identify emerging threats to population health and opportunities for prevention. The GBD 2013 provides a timely opportunity to update the comparative risk assessment with new data for exposure, relative risks, and evidence on the appropriate counterfactual risk distribution.

0 comments Cited 444 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Hierarchy of evidence: a framework for ranking evidence evaluating healthcare interventions.

David J. Evans (2002)

A number of hierarchies of evidence have been developed to enable different research methods to be ranked according to the validity of their findings. However, most have focused on evaluation of the effectiveness of interventions. When the evaluation of healthcare addresses its appropriateness or feasibility, then existing hierarchies are inadequate. This paper reports the development of a hierarchy for ranking of evidence evaluating healthcare interventions. The aims of this hierarchy are twofold. Firstly, it is to provide a means by which the evidence from a range of methodologically different types of research can be graded. Secondly, it is to provide a logical framework that can be used during the development of systematic review protocols to help determine the study designs which can contribute valid evidence when the evaluation extends beyond effectiveness. The proposed hierarchy was developed based on a review of literature, investigation of existing hierarchies and examination of the strengths and limitations of different research methods. The proposed hierarchy of evidence focuses on three dimensions of the evaluation: effectiveness, appropriateness and feasibility. Research that can contribute valid evidence to each is suggested. To address the varying strengths of different research designs, four levels of evidence are proposed: excellent, good, fair and poor. The strength of the proposed hierarchy is that it acknowledges the valid contribution of evidence generated by a range of different types of research. However, hierarchies only provide a guide to the strength of the available evidence and other issues such as the quality of research also have an important influence.

0 comments Cited 126 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Contributors

Jacqueline Tan: jacqueline.tan@griffithuni.edu.au

Levi Atamanchuk: levi.atamanchuk@griffithuni.edu.au

Tanish Rao: tanish.rao@griffithuni.edu.au

Kenichi Sato: kenichi.sato@griffithuni.edu.au

Jennifer Crowley: j.crowley@auckland.ac.nz

Lauren Ball: l.ball@griffith.edu.au

Journal

Journal ID (nlm-ta): BMC Med Educ

Journal ID (iso-abbrev): BMC Med Educ

Title: BMC Medical Education

Publisher: BioMed Central (London )

ISSN (Electronic): 1472-6920

Publication date (Electronic): 7 June 2022

Publication date PMC-release: 7 June 2022

Publication date Collection: 2022

Volume: 22

Electronic Location Identifier: 441

Affiliations

[1 ]GRID grid.1022.1, ISNI 0000 0004 0437 5432, Griffith University, ; Gold Coast, Australia

[2 ]GRID grid.9654.e, ISNI 0000 0004 0372 3343, University of Auckland, ; Auckland, New Zealand

Article

Publisher ID: 3449

DOI: 10.1186/s12909-022-03449-w

PMC ID: 9175378

PubMed ID: 35672843

SO-VID: 0a09ed6b-0c8e-4926-a428-2c12123e29e7

License:

Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

History

Date received : 2 January 2022

Date accepted : 10 May 2022

Custom metadata

ScienceOpen disciplines: Education

Keywords: culinary medicine,nutrition,nutrition care,nutrition education,culinary education,lifestyle education,lifestyle medicine,food as medicine

Data availability:

ScienceOpen disciplines: Education

Keywords: culinary medicine, nutrition, nutrition care, nutrition education, culinary education, lifestyle education, lifestyle medicine, food as medicine

Exploring culinary medicine as a promising method of nutritional education in medical school: a scoping review

Read this article at

Abstract

Background

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Supplementary Information

Related collections

Special feature: Decolonising the School Curriculum

Most cited references 61

The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

Global, regional, and national comparative risk assessment of 79 behavioural, environmental and occupational, and metabolic risks or clusters of risks in 188 countries, 1990–2013: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013

Hierarchy of evidence: a framework for ranking evidence evaluating healthcare interventions.

Author and article information

Contributors

Journal

Affiliations

Article

History

Categories

Custom metadata

Comments

Comment on this article

Similar content 262

Cited by 4

Most referenced authors 1,424