Nutrition and Culinary Education in Food is Medicine Interventions. A Scoping Review

Lizbeth Moreno, Food is Medicine Institute, Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy, Tufts University, Boston, MA. Electronic address: lizbeth.loaeza_moreno@tufts.edu.
Ronit Ridberg, Food is Medicine Institute, Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy, Tufts University, Boston, MA.
Sydney Yearley, Food is Medicine Institute, Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy, Tufts University, Boston, MA.
Julia R. Sharib, Food is Medicine Institute, Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy, Tufts University, Boston, MA.
Narmeen Rehman, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Department of Health Policy and Management.
Francesca Piccolo, MaineHealth Institute for Research, Scarborough ME.
Fang Fang Zhang, Food is Medicine Institute, Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy, Tufts University, Boston, MA.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Food is Medicine (FIM) interventions leverage food-based therapies to address diet-related conditions and disparities. Although nutrition and/or culinary education are recommended, the details and extent of these activities remain unclear. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate five key educational characteristics within FIM interventions: components, delivery format, setting, frequency, and educators. METHODS: Using PRISMA guidelines, a scoping review was conducted of FIM interventions (medically tailored meals, groceries, or produce) that included an educational component. CENTRAL, CINAHL, Embase, PubMed, and SIREN were searched from January 2010 to May 2025. Two investigators independently assessed texts for inclusion and extracted data using standardized methods. Descriptive analysis and narrative synthesis identified patterns and strategies related to educational methods. RESULTS: Of 5,703 articles reviewed, 100 met inclusion criteria, mostly from the U.S. (n=91) and focused on adults (n=84). 41.0% of studies provided one educational component, 49.0% provided 2-3, and 10.0% provided 4+. Among ten major educational components, printed materials (43.0%), cooking classes (35.0%), and individual counseling (32.0%) were most common. Most were delivered in person (55.3%), followed by virtual (23.9%). Educational settings included virtual platforms (24.0%), clinics/hospitals (22.4%), and community locations (10.4%). Frequency of activities varied from one-time to available on-demand; weekly (18.6%) and monthly (17.5%) were most common. Educators were most often RDNs (23.6%), followed by clinicians (11.3%) and community-health workers (7.7%); 42.6% were unspecified. CONCLUSIONS: These novel results provide a comprehensive characterization of educational components of FIM interventions. Findings highlight common patterns, structural gaps, and opportunities to strengthen the design, implementation, evaluation, and reporting of nutritional and culinary education within FIM.