| Literature DB >> 29955728 |
Henna Muzaffar1, Jessica J Metcalfe1,2, Barbara Fiese1,2.
Abstract
Policymakers, scientists, and food and nutrition practitioners suggest that there is a societal decline in culinary skills, which is predictive of poor dietary habits contributing to childhood obesity. A narrative review was conducted to critically evaluate culinary skill interventions for children ages 5-12 y in schools to identify specific programs and programmatic factors associated with improvement in the quality of diet, body mass index (BMI), and positive changes in psychosocial variables. The culinary interventions were implemented in urban and rural areas in the United States, Australia, and England. PubMed and Medline, the Cochrane database, and a hand-search of publications identified 131 articles; 6 articles were selected for further examination on the basis of the inclusion criteria. Study designs included 1 randomized controlled trial and 5 quasi-experimental studies. Three interventions were grounded in behavioral theory, of which 2 incorporated the Social Cognitive Theory framework. The target population and setting included children and early adolescents in schools. The study methodology primarily included cooking classes combined with nutrition education lessons, parent and community components, gardening classes, tasting sessions, school lunchroom components, trips to a farmers market, or visits to a restaurant. Qualitative evaluations of the programs indicated positive findings in terms of program appeal and improvement in cooking skills and healthy eating. Quantitative analysis indicated improvement in food preferences, cooking skills, cooking self-efficacy, cooking behavioral intentions, food-preparation frequency, knowledge, healthy dietary intake, BMI, and blood pressure. The findings from this review support a positive relation between culinary interventions with children in schools and improvement in cooking skills, consumption of a healthy diet, and positive changes in anthropometric assessments. This review also suggests that integration with the academic curriculum and school lunch program may be potential avenues to explore for improving the longevity and success of the cooking programs. Further research should emphasize rigorous methodologic standards, develop theory-based standardized frameworks, and evaluate long-term effects of culinary interventions.Entities:
Keywords: adolescents; children; cooking programs; healthy foods; nutrition education; schools
Year: 2018 PMID: 29955728 PMCID: PMC6016610 DOI: 10.1093/cdn/nzy016
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Curr Dev Nutr ISSN: 2475-2991
FIGURE 1PRISMA flow diagram. PRISMA, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Interventions in schools
| Study (ref), year; study rating; qualitative effect size | Design; theory; location | Study participants; socioeconomic status | Methods | Evaluation measure | Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Liquori et al. ( | Quasi-experiment; social cognitive theory; New York, NY | 590 kindergarten–sixth-grade children; urban; low-income schools | • 10 Sessions | • Pencil-and-paper questionnaire assessing preferences for plant foods, attitudes, knowledge, self-efficacy, and behavioral intentions | + Increased knowledge |
| Davis et al. ( | Quasi-experiment; no theory mentioned; Los Angeles, CA | 104 students in fourth and fifth grades (34 in intervention group and 70 in control group); urban; low-income, primarily Latino, children | • Weekly 90-min lessons for 12 wk | • Pre- and postintervention assessment of demographic characteristics, anthropometric measures, body composition, blood pressure, and dietary intake (Block Food Screeners Questionnaire) | + Increased fiber intake |
| Lukas and Cunningham-Sabo ( | Quasi-experiment; social cognitive theory; Santa Fe, NM | 178 students in fourth grade, 17 teachers, 5 food educators; lower-income public elementary schools | • Five 2-h cooking sessions and five 1-h tasting sessions | • Qualitative evaluation: focus group evaluation of the students’, teachers’, and food educators’ perceptions | + Participants received cooking at home with family, cooking with classmates, integrating CWK into curriculum topics, and nonprogram food experiences positively |
| Cunningham-Sabo and Lohse ( | Randomized controlled trial; no theory mentioned; Fort Collins, CO | 257 students in fourth grade; mixed socioeconomic status (18–28% participants qualified for free/reduced meals at school) | • CWK took place over 10 wk, 3 (2-h) cooking sessions and 3 (1-h) tasting sessions | • A 35-item measure shown to have test-retest reliability was administered before and after the 10-wk intervention to assess the effect of CWK on students’ fruit and vegetable preference and cooking attitude and self-efficacy | + Significant increase in preference for fruit and vegetables |
| Gibbs et al. ( | Quasi-experiment; social ecological theory; Victoria, Australia | 764 children in grades 3–6, 562 parents; rural and metropolitan schools; mixed socioeconomic status | • 45- to 60-min gardening class and 90-min cooking class each week of the school year | • Mixed methods | + Increased willingness to try new foods |
| Caraher et al. ( | Quasi-experiment; no theory mentioned; England | 169 children, ages 9–11 y; urban and rural schools; mixed socioeconomic status | • 3 sessions occurred throughout school year with chefs going into schools | • A pilot-tested questionnaire was administered 2 wk before the intervention and 2 wk afterward to measure changes in food preparation and consumption as well as measuring cooking confidence | + Significant increase in cooking confidence and asking confidence for healthy foods |
CWK, Cooking with Kids; RD, registered dietitian; ref, reference; + , positive result − , negative result.
Program evaluation results
| Study (ref), year | Study title | Study quality rating (0–10; good, 8–10; fair, 5–7; poor, ≤ 4) | Qualitative effect size (minimal, moderate, or substantial) | Quantitative effect size |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Liquori et al. ( | The Cookshop Program: Outcome evaluations of a nutrition education program linking lunchroom food experiences with classroom cooking experiences | 9 points (good); 1 point deducted as the validity of the evaluation measures is not mentioned in the study | Substantial | Data not provided |
| Davis et al. ( | LA Sprouts: a gardening, nutrition, and cooking intervention for Latino youth improves diet and reduces obesity | 8 points (good); 2 points deducted: 1 because no theoretical framework was used for this study and 1 for not establishing validity of the outcome measures | Substantial | Meat, dairy, vegetables, fruit, and whole grains (separate for control and treatment groups) |
| Lukas and Cunningham-Sabo ( | Qualitative investigation of the CWK program: focus group interviews with fourth-grade students, teachers, and food educators | 9 points (good); 1 point deducted as the evaluation of study participants was only done at 1 time point (postintervention) | Substantial | Data not provided |
| Cunningham-Sabo and Lohse ( | CWK positively affects fourth-graders’ vegetable preferences and attitudes and self-efficacy for food and cooking | 9 points (good); 1 point deducted because no theoretical framework is mentioned in the study | Substantial | Fruit preferences, vegetable preferences, attitude toward cooking, and food and cooking self-efficacy |
| Gibbs et al. ( | Expanding children's food experiences: the impact of a school-based kitchen garden program. | 10 points (good) | Substantial | Data not provided |
| Caraher et al. ( | When chefs adopt a school? An evaluation of a cooking intervention in English primary schools | 9 points (good); 1 point deducted because the intervention was not grounded in a theoretical framework | Substantial | Cooking confidence; vegetable consumption |
CWK, Cooking with Kids; ref, reference.