ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2025
A Randomized Controlled Trial of a Culinary Medicine Intervention in a Virtual Teaching Kitchen for Primary Care Residents.
Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- How does culinary medicine training impact the diet-related knowledge, skills and attitudes of undergraduate medical students in Germany?-A systematic review.BMC medical education · 2026Pooled it
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFor decades, physicians have received inadequate nutrition education. "Culinary medicine," an emerging pedagogy in medical education, seeks to address this by integrating hands-on cooking to enhance nutrition training. While cohort and cross-sectional studies have demonstrated culinary medicine's efficacy, no randomized controlled trials to date have been conducted among medical trainees.
objectiveTo evaluate the efficacy of a hands-on culinary medicine curriculum compared to didactics-only nutrition education.
designTwo versions of a nutrition education curriculum were developed: a culinary medicine curriculum (intervention) and a didactics-only curriculum (control). The curricula were assessed using a non-inferiority randomized controlled trial design.
participantsAll active Yale Primary Care residents were randomized to receive either the intervention curriculum or the control curriculum. MAIN MEASURES: Residents completed surveys at baseline, immediately post-session, and 8 weeks post-session assessing nutrition knowledge, attitudes regarding providing dietary counseling, and behavior in providing nutrition resources to patients. KEY
resultsNutrition knowledge increased from baseline to immediately post-session in both groups (control (mean percent correct 54% to 94%, P = 0.001), intervention (60% to 92%, P = 0.001)). Compared to the control group, the intervention group gained more confidence in counseling patients on a plant-forward diet (F = 5.44, P = 0.03). Residents in the intervention group reported providing nutrition resources to their patients significantly more frequently at 8 weeks post-session than at baseline (mean frequency per week 0.1 to 0.9, P = 0.002), a change that was not demonstrated among control group participants (0.1 to 0.5, P = 0.35).
conclusionsBoth culinary medicine and didactics-only pedagogies can be effective approaches to teaching nutrition. Culinary medicine was found in this trial to be non-inferior to a didactics-only approach and may be superior in improving participants' confidence in providing dietary counseling to patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.