Introduction

As a discipline, nutrition education has undergone a profound transformation over the last five decades, closely mirroring the evolution of societal values, technological innovation, and global health perspectives. From its nascent stages in the 1970s, where the focus was squarely on basic dietary knowledge to combat prevalent health issues, to the current era’s emphasis on personalised nutrition and sustainability, this field has not just expanded in scope. Still, it has fundamentally shifted in its approach and methodologies.

Beginning in the 1970s, an era that set the foundational stones with a primary focus on basic nutritional knowledge aimed at enhancing public health, this review meticulously traces the evolution of nutrition education against the backdrop of shifting societal perspectives on health, wellness, and dietary habits.

As we traverse through the decades, the review illuminates the field’s progression from simple dietary fundamentals to the intricate interplay of micronutrients, balanced diets, and their preventive roles against chronic diseases recognised in the 1980s. The 1990s further unravelled the psychological underpinnings of dietary choices, marking a deeper comprehension of human behaviour’s impact on nutrition and initiating dialogues around food security for marginalised communities. The onset of the 21st century heralded a new era, with technology’s integration into nutrition education through digital platforms and tools reflecting the digital revolution’s influence.

Historical Context and Evolution (1970-2023)

The period from 1970 to 2023 marks a significant era in nutrition education, mirroring broader societal shifts in attitudes toward health, wellness, and dietary habits. In the 1970s, the focus was on imparting basic nutritional knowledge to improve public health outcomes. ¹ This era was characterised by an emphasis on diet fundamentals and its impact on health, reflecting the limited understanding and resources available. As we progressed into the 1980s, there was a gradual shift towards more nuanced aspects of nutrition, including the role of micronutrients and the importance of balanced diets in preventing chronic diseases.

By the 1990s, the field had evolved to explore the psychological dimensions of dietary choices, indicating a deeper understanding of the complexities of human behaviour and its influence on nutrition.² This period also began discussions around food security and its impact on nutritional status, especially in underprivileged communities. The early 21st century was marked by a significant turning point, with a surge in studies examining the integration of technology in nutrition education. This period, influenced by the digital revolution, saw the emergence of online platforms and digital tools as mediums for disseminating nutritional knowledge.³

The most recent developments, particularly in the past decade, have been characterised by a growing emphasis on personalised nutrition and sustainable dietary practices. This shift reflects a more holistic approach, considering individual genetic profiles, environmental sustainability, and the long-term impact of dietary choices on both health and the planet.⁴

Methodological Shifts and Technological Advancements

This review traces the evolution of research methodologies in nutrition education. Initially, studies predominantly employed observational and survey-based methods, providing foundational insights into dietary behaviours and nutritional knowledge.⁵ More exacting and sophisticated study designs, such as randomised controlled trials, longitudinal investigations, and intricate statistical modelling, gradually became more prevalent as the field developed. A more accurate and sophisticated understanding of the results of nutrition education initiatives was made possible by these methodological developments.⁶

The advent and subsequent proliferation of digital technology have revolutionised nutrition education research and practice. Integrating the internet, mobile applications, and later, machine learning and big data analytics have opened new avenues for delivering personalised nutrition education and conducting large-scale, real-time data analysis.⁷ These technological advancements have enhanced the reach and efficacy of nutrition education programs and enabled researchers to explore novel aspects of dietary behaviours and preferences.

Interdisciplinary Integration and Global Perspectives

Nutrition education has evolved from a specialised field to one that intersects with various disciplines, including psychology, technology, environmental studies, and political science.⁸ This interdisciplinary approach has enriched the field, offering comprehensive insights and solutions to complex nutritional challenges. Moreover, the field has increasingly adopted a global perspective, moving beyond a Western-centric view. This shift has led to a recognition and appreciation of diverse dietary patterns, cultural influences, and nutritional challenges faced by different populations across the globe. Such a global approach has been instrumental in developing more inclusive and culturally sensitive nutrition education strategies.⁹

Future Directions and Emerging Themes

As we look towards the future, several emerging trends and themes are shaping the trajectory of nutrition education research. One of the most critical areas is the exploration of the implications of climate change on global food systems. This includes understanding how shifting weather patterns and environmental degradation impact food production, availability, and nutritional quality.¹⁰ The use of machine learning and artificial intelligence in creating customised nutrition plans is another emerging field. These technologies could completely transform how dietary advice is customised to meet each individual’s needs, interests, and health objectives.

Additionally, there is an increasing recognition of the need for more inclusive and equitable nutrition education practices. This includes addressing disparities in access to nutritional resources, confronting systemic biases in nutritional guidelines, and ensuring that nutrition education is relevant and accessible to diverse populations. Such efforts are crucial in making nutrition education a tool for promoting individual health, social equity, and justice.

In summary, this scientometric review chronicles the historical development of nutrition education and highlights its evolving, multifaceted nature. It underscores the need for ongoing adaptation to societal changes, technological advancements, and emerging global challenges, ensuring that nutrition education is vital in promoting health and well-being in an ever-changing world.

Materials and Methods

Survey methodology

Identification of search terms

The process began with identifying search terms, focusing on “nutrition education” as the primary term. This choice reflects the study’s aim to explore the broad and multifaceted educational approach encompassing basic nutrition, food systems, and the relationship between diet, health, and disease prevention. Nutrition education is understood as a process that disseminates knowledge and motivates individuals to adopt healthier eating behaviours and food choices.

Sources of data, search for articles, and qualifying requirement

For data sourcing and the search for relevant articles, the Web of Science Core Collection (WOSCC) by Thomson Reuters was selected as the primary database. The WOSCC is renowned for its comprehensive coverage of various sectors, making it an ideal choice for accessing a wide range of peer-reviewed, high-quality academic research articles. This decision underscores the importance of utilising reputable sources that can provide reliable and authoritative information on the evolution of nutrition education.

The search strategy involved a systematic screening of records from the inception of the WOSCC database in 1970 through to the end of 2023, allowing for an extensive review of the literature over this period. The inclusion criteria were strictly limited to academic research articles, ensuring the focus remained on original research contributions to the field. This approach was taken to guarantee the scientific rigour and relevance of the selected studies. Consequently, non-article sources such as conference papers, book chapters, review articles, abstracts, letters, data papers, and correction papers were excluded from the review. This exclusion criterion was applied to maintain a clear focus on empirical research findings and theoretical contributions that could provide insights into the evolution and impact of nutrition education.

Additionally, the review was confined to publications in English, a decision driven by the study’s scope, timeline, and funding constraints. This language limitation was deemed necessary to manage the feasibility of conducting the review within the available resources, despite its potential to exclude relevant studies published in other languages.

The literature search and selection process for this scientometric review was thus characterised by a targeted approach to identifying relevant search terms, a commitment to sourcing high-quality data from a reputable database, and a clear inclusion and exclusion criteria. These methodological choices reflect the study’s aim to systematically map the development of nutrition education as a scientific field, providing a thorough and nuanced understanding of its historical context, methodological shifts, technological advancements, interdisciplinary integration, global perspectives, and future directions.

Statistical examination and interpretation of data

A detailed bibliometric methodology leveraging the capabilities of CiteSpace software (version 6.1.R2) to conduct a comprehensive scientometric analysis of the scientific publication network within the field of nutrition education. This approach is instrumental in uncovering trends, patterns, and the most influential works and authors in the domain, offering a panoramic view of the field’s evolution over more than five decades.

CiteSpace Software Application

CiteSpace is a powerful tool for visualizing and analyzing trends and patterns in scientific literature. It facilitates the examination of the development of research fields, the identification of key nodes and clusters within scientific networks, and the understanding of the dynamics of scholarly communications. For this study, CiteSpace was utilized to conduct a scientometric analysis, focusing on identifying significant trends and shifts within the realm of nutrition education research.

Data Source and Input

The Web of Science Core Collection (WOSCC) served as the primary data source for this analysis. The WOSCC is recognised for its comprehensive, multidisciplinary coverage of high-quality, peer-reviewed publications. The search strategy was tailored to extract articles from 1970 to the end of 2023, using “nutrition education” as the principal search term. This wide temporal range was chosen to capture the field’s evolution from its early stages to its current state.

Analysis Features in CiteSpace

The analysis conducted with CiteSpace focused on several key bibliometric indicators:

Sigma Measures: Sigma measures combine centrality and burstiness scores to highlight the influence of a particular article within the network and the sudden spikes in its citation over time. This metric is crucial for identifying groundbreaking works that have rapidly gained attention within the scientific community.

Degree Centrality: This metric quantifies the total number of citations linking one article to another within the network, providing insights into the most referenced and influential articles in nutrition education. A high degree of centrality indicates a pivotal work that has significantly impacted the domain.

Centrality: Centrality measures an article’s importance in the context of the entire citation network. Articles with high centrality scores are considered key nodes that contribute to developing and disseminating knowledge within the field. They often represent seminal works or pivotal research findings.

Term Sources and Text Processing

CiteSpace analysed a comprehensive set of term sources in processing the literature data, including titles, abstracts, author keywords, and Keywords Plus. This broad spectrum of term sources ensured a thorough semantic analysis, capturing the full breadth of topics, concepts, and thematic areas covered in nutrition education literature. By examining these diverse term sources, the analysis identified the core themes, emerging topics, and shifts in research focus over time.

Figure 1 displays the research framework that was employed for this investigation.

Figure 1: Methodological framework for the current study Click here to view Figure

Results

Countries distribution

Figure 2 presents a comprehensive summary of the global landscape in nutrition education research, highlighting the top ten countries by their respective contributions in terms of publication volume. Leading the chart is the USA, with a remarkable 3,214 records, underscoring its dominant role in the field. Australia follows distantly, contributing 448 publications, which, while significantly lower than the USA, signifies a substantial investment in nutrition education. With 314, 297, and 173 publications, respectively, Canada, England, and Brazil continue to occupy the middle places, demonstrating their active participation in this field of study. Notably, with over 140 articles apiece, the People’s Republic of China, South Korea, the Netherlands, India, and South Africa also make the list.. This diversity in the top ten underscores the global interest and varied contributions towards understanding and enhancing nutrition education. This table not only reflects the volume of research produced by each nation but also implicitly points to the prioritization of nutrition education in these countries’ public health and academic agendas.

Figure 2: Total publications by country for research on nutrition education; darker blue indicates the most articles (n = 3,214), while lighter hues indicate fewer publications. Click here to view Figure

Table 1 provides a clear picture of the top 10 journals based on their sigma values for co-citation scores.The sigma value, a statistical measure, reflects how much a journal is co-cited with others in the field, indicating its influence and relevance within academic circles. At the pinnacle of this table is ‘J Nutr Educ’, boasting an exceptionally high sigma score of 889879.7, suggesting its pivotal role in nutrition education research. Following closely is ‘J Am Diet Assoc’ with a sigma score of 945.53, underscoring its significant impact in dietetics and nutrition. Other notable journals include ‘Am J Public Health’ and ‘Am J Clin Nutr’, with scores of 267.11 and 256.63, respectively, highlighting their influence in public health and clinical nutrition research. The table also features journals with more specialised focuses, such as ‘Health Educ Quart’ and ‘Am J Epidemiol’, indicating their specific but crucial roles in health education and epidemiology. Towards the lower end, we find ‘Jama-J Am Med Assoc’, ‘Public Health Rep’, ‘Prev Med’, and ‘Brit Med J’, each with scores below 6, reflecting a more modest, yet still noteworthy, level of co-citation in the broader medical and public health research community.

Table 1: Top 10 sigma-value-based journal co-citation scores

Figure 3 presents an insightful analysis of the most impactful journals in nutrition education based on their citation bursts—a metric indicating a sudden and significant increase in citations over a specific period. The journal “J Nutr Educ” leads the list with an impressive burst score of 235.1, highlighting its pivotal role in advancing nutrition education research. Following closely are “Nutrients” and “J Am Diet Assoc,” with burst scores of 172.21 and 140.91, respectively, underlining their substantial contributions to disseminating nutritional knowledge. Notably, “Am J Public Health” and “Int J Env Res Pub Health” also feature prominently, with scores of 95.76 and 90.59, showcasing their influence in the intersection of public health and nutrition. Other notable journals such as “PLOS One,” “Health Educ Quart,” “JAMA-J Am Med Assoc,” “Am J Epidemiol,” and “Prev Med” also demonstrate significant citation bursts, ranging from 71.94 to 57.72. This table underscores the dynamic nature of nutritional education research and highlights the key publications driving the discourse and understanding in this essential field.

Figure 3: The top ten journals with the strongest citation bursts Click here to view Figure

Evolved landscape

Figure 3 presents a study of nutrition education research over the last 50 years, offering a thorough picture of how this area has changed over time. From 1970 to 2023, the time span has been segmented into five discrete phases, each distinguished by a particular pattern of research endeavours and advancements. This field division into phases makes it possible to see how the field has grown and changed over time.

Initial Phase (1970-1980): This decade marked the inception of structured nutrition education research. During this time, the field was nascent, with a foundational establishment of theories and principles. The research was primarily exploratory, laying the groundwork for future studies. The burst articles (red dots) in this phase were relatively few, reflecting the emerging nature of the field.

Development Phase (1981-1990): The subsequent decade witnessed a significant increase in research activities. This phase was marked by the development and refinement of methodologies and an expansion in the scope of nutrition education research. The burst articles increased, increasing interest and investment in the field.

Expansion Phase (1991-2000): The third phase saw a further escalation in research activities, with a notable diversification in topics and approaches. This period was characterised by a broader application of nutrition education principles across different demographics and a deeper exploration of the impact of nutritional knowledge on public health. The increase in burst articles during this phase signified the expanding reach and influence of the field.

Phase of Integration (2001–2010): During this time, there was a greater intersection between nutrition education and other fields like psychology, sociology, and public health policy. A more comprehensive approach to nutrition education was reflected in the research’s increasingly interdisciplinary nature. The increase in burst papers persisted, demonstrating the field’s increasing importance and complexity.

Advanced Phase (2011-2023): The most recent phase demonstrates advanced development in nutrition education research. Incorporating cutting-edge technologies, data analytics, and innovative educational strategies has been prominent. This phase is characterised by a high density of burst articles, indicating a peak in research activities and a robust engagement with contemporary nutrition and public health education issues.

Figure 4: Top 10 clusters of nutrition education research Click here to view Figure

Table 2 thoroughly summarises the top 10 clusters found by document co-citation analysis, emphasising their importance in health and nutrition. The study’s foundation is the sigma value, a cluster strength and significance gauge. Cluster ID 0, with 249 documents, shows a high silhouette value of 0.875 and is labelled as “nutrition literacy,” indicating a strong, cohesive research area, predominantly from 2017. This suggests a recent and concentrated interest in this topic. Cluster ID 1, labelled “vegetable consumption” from 1995, comprises 150 documents and has the highest silhouette value of 0.951, pointing to a well-defined and significant research area from earlier.

Table 2: The top 10 clusters that the document co-citation analysis revealed.

Similarly, clusters 2 and 3, focusing on “nutrition program” and “healthy food”, respectively, both from 2013, reflect substantial research interest with high silhouette values (0.887 and 0.907). These clusters hint at a growing academic focus on programmatic and food-specific aspects of nutrition in the early 2010s. The cluster labelled “rationale conceptualisation” from 2002, despite its smaller size (99 documents), shows a high silhouette value (0.956), indicating a strong, distinct research focus during that period.

Notably, clusters dealing with “diabetes mellitus” (1999), “overweight children” (2004), and “chronic health condition” (2006) each show high silhouette values and moderate sizes, reflecting focused research interests in these specific health challenges at different times. The cluster labelled “Michigan student” from 1990, with a silhouette value of 0.991, suggests a highly specific and cohesive body of research from this period, possibly focusing on a localised study or demographic. Lastly, the “Vietnamese health” cluster from 2013, though smaller in size, exhibits a high silhouette value, indicating a strong, distinct research interest in health issues about the Vietnamese population at that time. Overall, Figure 5 effectively highlights the evolving and varied research interests in nutrition and health over time and the cohesiveness and distinctiveness of these research clusters.

Figure 5: Top 10 clusters’ lifetimes (solid lines) Click here to view Figure

Table 3 presents a compelling overview of the most influential research in nutrition education, as measured by citation counts. Notably, the table reveals a strong emphasis on studies related to obesity, both in children and adults, underscoring the global concern over this health issue. With 83 citations, the most cited article is “Prevalence of childhood and adult obesity in the United States, 2011-2012,” highlighting the increased interest in obesity research and treatment among academics and public health professionals. Cluster ID 2, including this article, seems to focus heavily on nutrition programs, highlighting the importance of educational interventions.

Several high-impact articles, including “Health effects of dietary risks in 195 countries, 1990-2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017” and “Nutrition in Medical Education: A Systematic Review,” both from Cluster ID 0, represent nutrition literacy as another important theme. These articles, with citations of 62 and 40, respectively, suggest a growing recognition of the need for comprehensive education on dietary risks and nutrition principles, not just among the public but also within the medical community.

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses highlight the academic pursuit of evidence-based strategies to address diet-related issues, such as “Systematic review and meta-analysis of school-based interventions to improve daily fruit and vegetable intake in children aged 5 to 12 years.” The table also reflects a trend towards community-based and school-based interventions, indicating a shift towards more localised and practical approaches in nutrition education.

Table 3. The top 10 articles with the most citations in the nutrition education research area

Table 4 highlights the most impactful publications in nutrition education research from 1970 to 2023, focusing on those with the strongest citation bursts. An article’s importance and relevance in the field are demonstrated by the number of times it is mentioned, represented by a citation burst. With a maximum strength of 36.29, the 2014 paper “Prevalence of Childhood and Adult Obesity in the United States, 2011-2012” leads the table and indicates its significance in the academic community from 2015 to 2019. The publication “Health Effects of Dietary Risks in 195 Countries, 1990–2017,” released in 2019, comes next. It displays a strength of 28.51 and a sustained surge from 2020 to 2023. The list includes articles on obesity prevalence in different demographics and periods in the United States, systematic reviews on nutrition education, and broader analyses of dietary risks and sustainable food systems. The duration of citation bursts varies, but notably, several articles from 2019 show ongoing influence up to 2023, underscoring the evolving nature of nutrition education research. This table reflects the historical significance of these publications and indicates current trends and focal areas in the field.

Table 4: Top 10 papers in nutrition education research between 1970 and 2023 with the highest citation burst (strength).

Based on their sigma score, Table 5 offers a persuasive summary of the ten most important studies in nutrition education research. This metric is a sophisticated blend of the study’s degree (reflecting the number of times it’s been cited in other research) and centrality (indicating its importance within the network of related research), culminating in the sigma score that denotes overall influence.

At the apex of this list is ¹³ publications in JAMA focused on obesity prevalence in the U.S. during 2011-2012. Its towering sigma score of 100.69 and a degree of 16 underscore its monumental impact in the field. Following this, 23 research studies, with a significant sigma score of 34.41, published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, explore computer-tailored nutrition education’s development and future possibilities.

Other notable publications include ²⁴ studies in JAMA on U.S. adult obesity trends and 19 explorations of U.S. obesity prevalence, each contributing uniquely to our understanding of nutritional trends and public health challenges. The diversity of topics, ranging from obesity trends to the effectiveness of nutritional interventions, illustrates the multifaceted nature of nutrition education research. This table highlights seminal works in the field and guides emerging researchers to understand pivotal studies shaping contemporary nutrition discourse.

Table 5: The ten most significant papers in nutrition education research, arranged in descending order of sigma score

Table 6 presents a fascinating insight into the evolving landscape of nutrition education research from 1970 to 2023, highlighting the top 10 keywords that experienced significant citation bursts. A citation burst represents a period when a keyword gained notable prominence in academic literature.

The keyword “fat” tops the list, with a burst strength of 24.28, spanning from 1992 to 2011. This indicates a heightened focus on fat in nutrition during these years, likely correlating with increased research into dietary fats and their health implications. Following closely, “coronary heart disease” and “cholesterol” had bursts starting in the early 1990s, reflecting growing concern and research in heart health and its dietary connections.

Interestingly, the focus on specific demographic groups is evident with the keywords “women” and “pregnant women.” The burst for “women” began in 1996 and ended in 2004. In contrast, the burst for “pregnant women” is more recent, starting in 2020 and continuing through 2023, suggesting a growing recognition of the unique nutritional needs of these groups.

The rise of “food insecurity” and “food security” as major research topics in the 21st century, with bursts starting in the late 2000s and continuing through 2023, underscores the increasing attention to global food challenges. The keyword “behaviour,” peaking between 1994 and 2001, indicates a period when behavioural aspects of nutrition were a key focus.

Finally, the keywords “growth” and “cooking,” with citation bursts in the 2000s and 2010s, reflect an evolving interest in the developmental aspects of nutrition and the practicalities of food preparation, respectively. These trends provide valuable insights into the shifting priorities and areas of interest within nutrition education research over the past five decades.

Table 6: Top 10 terms in nutrition education research published between 1970 and 2023 with the largest citation burst.

Figure 6 presents a comprehensive summary of the most frequently cited keywords in nutrition education research spanning over half a century, from 1970 to 2023. At the forefront is “nutrition education,” amassing an impressive 1842 citations, underscoring its central role in this field. Following this, “health” appears as a significant focus with 761 citations, indicating its intertwined relationship with nutrition education. The keyword “children” with 676 citations reflects the emphasis on early-life nutrition and its long-term effects. The close citation counts of “obesity” (673) and “physical activity” (528) highlight the growing concern and focus on these areas, particularly in addressing lifestyle-related health issues. “Consumption” and “fruit” are also key areas of interest, garnering 443 and 434 citations respectively, suggesting a focus on dietary patterns and choices. The terms “intervention,” “knowledge,” and “impact,” with citations ranging from 403 to 428, indicate a strong research interest in the practical application of nutrition education and its effects on various populations. This table not only illustrates the evolving landscape of nutrition education research but also underscores the multifaceted approach required to address the complex issues within this field.

Figure 6: Most cited keywords in nutrition education research within half-century (1970-2023). Click here to view Figure

Discussion

Dominance of Specific Journals

“J Nutr Edu and Behav” and “J of Nutr Edu”: The preeminence of these journals, with 413 and 284 records respectively, is a testament to their central role in shaping nutrition education discourse. As outlined by ²⁸, these journals have historically been the bedrock for disseminating cutting-edge research and innovative educational strategies in nutrition. Their dominance reflects continuity and depth in the field, as they offer a platform for both foundational and emerging research themes.

“Nutrients” and “J Am Diet Assoc”: With 246 and 240 records, these journals underscore the interdisciplinary nature of nutrition education, bridging the gap between clinical nutrition, dietetics, and public health. As suggested by ²⁹, such journals facilitate the translation of complex nutritional science into practical dietary advice, which is crucial for both healthcare professionals and the public.

Co-citation Scores and Their Significance

Influence of “J Nutr Educ” and “J Am Diet Assoc”: The high sigma scores of these journals (889879.7 and 945.53, respectively) illustrate their influential status in the academic community. Co-citation analysis, as discussed by ³⁰, provides insight into the intellectual structure of a field, indicating that these journals are central nodes in the network of nutrition education research.

Specialized Focus of Journals: The presence of journals such as “Health Educ Quart” and “Am J Epidemiol” with notable sigma scores reflects the integration of nutrition education into broader health and epidemiological studies. This aligns with the trend towards a more holistic understanding of health education, as articulated by ³¹.

Citation Bursts as Indicators of Emerging Trends

Leading Role of “J Nutr Educ”: With a burst score of 235.1, this journal’s significant impact can be attributed to its role in introducing and disseminating new concepts and methodologies in nutrition education, as suggested by ³².

Diverse Contributions Across Journals: The varying burst scores of journals like “Nutrients,” “Am J Public Health,” and “Int J Env Res Pub Health” highlight the dynamic nature of the field. These scores indicate periods of heightened scholarly attention, often aligning with the introduction of innovative research or paradigm shifts, as noted by ³³.

The prolific nature of these journals and their varied impact, as measured through record counts, co-citation scores, and citation bursts, underscore the richness and diversity of nutrition education research. This analysis not only serves as a roadmap for researchers in identifying key sources and trends but also reflects the evolving priorities and methodologies within the field. The prominence of these journals in disseminating critical research underscores their role in shaping the future directions of nutrition education, public health policy, and clinical practice.

“Fat” (1992-2011): The prominence of “fat” as a keyword with the highest burst strength (24.28) aligns with pivotal research during this period. Studies like those by ³⁴ significantly contributed to understanding the diverse roles of dietary fats in health, particularly their association with cardiovascular diseases and obesity). This era marked a paradigm shift from generalised fat reduction to differentiating between types of fats, emphasising the health implications of saturated and unsaturated fats.

“Cholesterol” and “Coronary Heart Disease” (early 1990s): The concomitant surges in citations for these terms are indicative of the increasing amount of research that links heart health with dietary practises. Prominent investigations, like those conducted by 35, examined the correlation between cholesterol levels, dietary consumption, and the likelihood of coronary heart disease, impacting dietary guidelines and public health advice.³⁵

Demographic Focus – “Women” and “Pregnant Women” (1996-2004; 2020-2023): The focused attention on “women” and “pregnant women” during these periods reflects an increasing recognition of gender-specific nutritional needs. Research by³⁶ emphasised the unique dietary requirements of women and pregnant women, including micronutrient needs and caloric adjustments, to support maternal health and fetal development.³⁷

“Food Insecurity” and “Food Security” (Late 2000s-2023): The sustained interest in these topics underscores the growing global concern over access to adequate and nutritious food. The work of ³⁸ brought attention to the complex interplay between food security, socio-economic factors, and health outcomes, particularly in developing countries.³⁹

“Behaviour” (1994-2001): The peak in research on behavioural aspects of nutrition highlights the era’s focus on understanding how individual choices and habits impact nutritional health. Studies by ⁴⁰ examined factors influencing dietary behaviours, contributing to developing more effective nutrition education strategies. ⁴¹

“Growth” and “Cooking” (2000s-2010s): These keywords reflect an expanded scope of nutrition research, encompassing developmental nutrition and practical aspects of food preparation. The works of ⁴² on growth and nutrition in early childhood and ⁴³ on cooking and its impact on dietary habits illustrate the diversification of research topics during this period.

Obesity Research

A greater emphasis on obesity in academia and public health is indicated by the popularity of studies on the topic, especially the 2014 publication “Prevalence of Childhood and Adult Obesity in the United States, 2011-2012,” which has 83 citations and a burst strength of 36.29. This emphasis is not surprising, given the alarming rise in obesity rates globally. The study’s significant citation count and burst strength indicate its critical role in shaping public health policies and education programs to combat obesity. This trend is consistent with literature such as ⁴⁴, which highlights the increasing prevalence of obesity and its implications for public health.

Nutrition Literacy

The high-impact publications “Health Consequences of Dietary Hazards in 195 Countries, 1990-2017” and “Nutrition in Medical Education: A Systematic Review” demonstrate how nutrition literacy is becoming increasingly important. These articles highlight this trend. This trend is in line with the findings of ⁴⁵, who argue for the integration of nutrition education in medical curricula to improve health outcomes. The significance of these articles, as evidenced by their citation counts, underscores the need for a broader and more informed understanding of nutrition among the public and medical professionals.

Evidence-Based Strategies

The inclusion of meta-analyses and systematic reviews in the tables—like the one on children’s intake of fruits and vegetables—indicates that researchers are strongly emphasising evidence-based methods for nutrition education. This aligns with the research of ⁴⁶, who advocate for data-driven approaches to dietary interventions. The focus on such research underscores the academic commitment to identifying and implementing the most effective strategies in nutrition education.

Community-Based and School-Based Interventions

The cited literature suggests a trend towards community-based and school-based interventions, suggesting a shift towards more localized and practical approaches in nutrition education. Studies like 47 demonstrate the effectiveness of school-based nutrition programs. These approaches are increasingly recognised for their potential to create sustainable changes in dietary habits and health outcomes at a community level.

Evolving Nature of the Field

The ongoing influence of several articles from 2019 up to 2023, as seen in Table 4, highlights nutrition education research’s dynamic and evolving nature. The varied duration of citation bursts and the diverse topics covered, from obesity prevalence to sustainable food systems, suggest a field continually adapting to new challenges and discoveries. This observation aligns with scholars like ⁴⁸, who note the necessity of adaptive research strategies in changing dietary patterns and health challenges.

Conclusion

In conclusion, nutrition education has evolved significantly over the past fifty years, driven by themes such as obesity, nutrition literacy, evidence-based strategies, and localised interventions. These themes, far more than mere academic topics, have actively guided efforts to tackle complex nutritional challenges, reflecting the field’s commitment to individual health literacy and global health policies. The frequent citation of these keywords underscores the vibrancy and adaptability of the discipline, demonstrating its ability to stay abreast of emerging health challenges and societal shifts. The review traces this evolution from foundational principles to a modern, interdisciplinary approach incorporating advanced technologies, emphasising the field’s resilience and dedication to improving public health through informed strategies. Ultimately, this scientometric review serves as both a retrospective analysis and a forward-looking guide, illuminating critical focus areas for future research to enhance global nutritional health and well-being.

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge team support from the PTAR Library, Universiti Teknologi MARA.

Funding Sources

This research has been funded by Universiti Teknologi MARA under DUCS 3.0 Research Grant no: 600-UITMSEL (PI. 5/4) (015/2021).

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

References

1. Smith HM, Justice CL. Effects of nutrition programs on third grade students. J Nutr Educ. 1979;11(2):92-95. doi:10.1016/S0022-3182(79)80094-1
   CrossRef
2. Ashley B, Hollows J, Jones S, Taylor B. Food and Cultural Studies. Routledge; 2004. doi:10.4324/9780203646915
   CrossRef
3. Miller EA, West DM. Where’s the Revolution? Digital Technology and Health Care in the Internet Age. J Health Polit Policy Law. 2009;34(2):261-284. doi:10.1215/03616878-2008-046
   CrossRef
4. Adams SH, Anthony JC, Carvajal R, et al. Perspective: Guiding Principles for the Implementation of Personalized Nutrition Approaches That Benefit Health and Function. Advances in Nutrition. 2020;11(1):25-34. doi:10.1093/advances/nmz086
   CrossRef
5. Goldberg JP, Sliwa SA. Communicating actionable nutrition messages: challenges and opportunities. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society. 2011;70(1):26-37. doi:10.1017/S0029665110004714
   CrossRef
6. Hussey J, Nguyen QC, Whitsel EA, et al. The reliability of in-home measures of height and weight in large cohort studies. Demogr Res. 2015;32:1081-1098. doi:10.4054/DemRes.2015.32.39
   CrossRef
7. Cho J, Park YS, Park DJ, et al. Bridging Policy and Service Performance of Hospital-Based Nutrition Support by Healthcare Information Technology. Nutrients. 2021;13(2):595. doi:10.3390/nu13020595
   CrossRef
8. Rose D, Heller MC, Roberto CA. Position of the Society for Nutrition Education and Behavior: The Importance of Including Environmental Sustainability in Dietary Guidance. J Nutr Educ Behav. 2019;51(1):3-15.e1. doi:10.1016/j.jneb.2018.07.006
   CrossRef
9. Vettori V, Lorini C, Milani C, Bonaccorsi G. Towards the Implementation of a Conceptual Framework of Food and Nutrition Literacy: Providing Healthy Eating for the Population. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16(24):5041. doi:10.3390/ijerph16245041
   CrossRef
10. Reckien D, Creutzig F, Fernandez B, et al. Climate change, equity and the Sustainable Development Goals: an urban perspective. Environ Urban. 2017;29(1):159-182. doi:10.1177/0956247816677778
    CrossRef
11. Aryadoust V, Ang BH. Exploring the frontiers of eye tracking research in language studies: a novel co-citation scientometric review. Comput Assist Lang Learn. 2021;34(7):898-933. doi:10.1080/09588221.2019. 1647251
    CrossRef
12. Chen C. CiteSpace II: Detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature. J Am Soc Inf Sci. 2006;57(3):359-377. doi:10.1002/asi.20317
    CrossRef
13. Ogden CL, Carroll MD, Kit BK, Flegal KM. Prevalence of Childhood and Adult Obesity in the United States, 2011-2012. JAMA. 2014;311(8):806. doi:10.1001/jama.2014.732
    CrossRef
14. Afshin A, Sur PJ, Fay KA, et al. Health effects of dietary risks in 195 countries, 1990–2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. The Lancet. 2019;393(10184):1958-1972. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(19)30041-8
    CrossRef
15. Ogden CL. Prevalence of High Body Mass Index in US Children and Adolescents, 2007-2008. JAMA. 2010;303(3):242. doi:10.1001/jama.2009.2012
    CrossRef
16. Crowley J, Ball L, Hiddink GJ. Nutrition in medical education: a systematic review. Lancet Planet Health. 2019;3(9):e379-e389. doi:10.1016/S2542-5196(19)30171-8
    CrossRef
17. Willett W, Rockström J, Loken B, et al. Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. The Lancet. 2019;393(10170):447-492. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31788-4
    CrossRef
18. Ogden CL, Carroll MD, Kit BK, Flegal KM. Prevalence of Obesity and Trends in Body Mass Index Among US Children and Adolescents, 1999-2010. JAMA. 2012;307(5):483. doi:10.1001/jama.2012.40
    CrossRef
19. Ogden CL, Carroll MD, Curtin LR, McDowell MA, Tabak CJ, Flegal KM. Prevalence of Overweight and Obesity in the United States, 1999-2004. JAMA. 2006;295(13):1549. doi:10.1001/jama.295.13.1549
    CrossRef
20. Evans C EL, Christian MS, Cleghorn CL, Greenwood DC, Cade JE. Systematic review and meta-analysis of school-based interventions to improve daily fruit and vegetable intake in children aged 5 to 12 y. Am J Clin Nutr. 2012;96(4):889-901. doi:10.3945/ajcn.111.030270
    CrossRef
21. Hedley AA. Prevalence of Overweight and Obesity Among US Children, Adolescents, and Adults, 1999-2002. JAMA. 2004;291(23):2847. doi:10.1001/jama.291.23.2847
    CrossRef
22. Kroeze W, Werkman A, Brug J. A systematic review of randomized trials on the effectiveness of computer-tailored education on physical activity and dietary behaviors. Annals of Behavioral Medicine. 2006;31(3):205-223. doi:10.1207/s15324796abm3103_2
    CrossRef
23. Brug J, Oenema A, Campbell M. Past, present, and future of computer-tailored nutrition education. Am J Clin Nutr. 2003;77(4):1028S-1034S. doi:10.1093/ajcn/77.4.1028S
    CrossRef
24. Flegal KM. Prevalence and Trends in Obesity Among US Adults, 1999-2008. JAMA. 2010;303(3):235. doi:10.1001/jama.2009.2014
    CrossRef
25. Casagrande SS, Wang Y, Anderson C, Gary TL. Have Americans Increased Their Fruit and Vegetable Intake?The Trends Between 1988 and 2002. Am J Prev Med. 2007;32(4):257-263. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2006.12.002
    CrossRef
26. Brug J, Glanz K, Van Assema P, Kok G, van Breukelen GJP. The Impact of Computer-Tailored Feedback and Iterative Feedback on Fat, Fruit, and Vegetable Intake. Health Education & Behavior. 1998;25(4):517-531. doi:10.1177/109019819802500409
    CrossRef
27. Ogden CL, Carroll MD, Lawman HG, et al. Trends in Obesity Prevalence Among Children and Adolescents in the United States, 1988-1994 Through 2013-2014. JAMA. 2016;315(21):2292. doi:10.1001/jama.2016.6361
    CrossRef
28. Isobel R. Contento. Nutrition Education: Linking Research, Theory, and Practice. Jones and Bartlett Publishers; 2007.
29. Aruoma OI, Hausman-Cohen S, Pizano J, et al. Personalized Nutrition: Translating the Science of NutriGenomics Into Practice: Proceedings From the 2018 American College of Nutrition Meeting. J Am Coll Nutr. 2019;38(4):287-301. doi:10.1080/07315724.2019.1582980
    CrossRef
30. Small H. Co‐citation in the scientific literature: A new measure of the relationship between two documents. Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 1973;24(4):265-269. doi:10.1002/asi.4630240406
    CrossRef
31. Glanz K, Bishop DB. The Role of Behavioral Science Theory in Development and Implementation of Public Health Interventions. Annu Rev Public Health. 2010;31(1):399-418. doi:10.1146/annurev.publhealth.012809.103604
    CrossRef
32. DiMaria-Ghalili RA, Mirtallo JM, Tobin BW, Hark L, Van Horn L, Palmer CA. Challenges and opportunities for nutrition education and training in the health care professions: intraprofessional and interprofessional call to action. Am J Clin Nutr. 2014;99(5):1184S-1193S. doi:10.3945/ajcn.113.073536
    CrossRef
33. Guo H, Weingart S, Börner K. Mixed-indicators model for identifying emerging research areas. Scientometrics. 2011;89(1):421-435. doi:10.1007/s11192-011-0433-7
    CrossRef
34. Hu FB, Manson JE, Willett WC. Types of Dietary Fat and Risk of Coronary Heart Disease: A Critical Review. J Am Coll Nutr. 2001;20(1):5-19. doi:10.1080/07315724.2001.10719008
    CrossRef
35. Grundy S, Denke M. Dietary influences on serum lipids and lipoproteins. J Lipid Res. 1990;31(7):1149-1172. doi:10.1016/S0022-2275(20)42625-2
    CrossRef
36. Lee A, Muggli E, Halliday J, Lewis S, Gasparini E, Forster D. What do pregnant women eat, and are they meeting the recommended dietary requirements for pregnancy? Midwifery. 2018;67:70-76. doi:10.1016/j.midw.2018.09.005
    CrossRef
37. Ortega RM. Dietary guidelines for pregnant women. Public Health Nutr. 2001;4(6a):1343-1346. doi:10.1079/PHN2001215
    CrossRef
38. Barrett CB. Measuring Food Insecurity. Science (1979). 2010;327(5967):825-828. doi:10.1126/science.1182768
    CrossRef
39. Maxwell S. Food Security in Developing Countries: Issues and Options for the 1990s. IDS Bull. 1990;21(3):2-13. doi:10.1111/j.1759-5436.1990.mp21003002.x
    CrossRef
40. Pérez-Rodrigo C, Aranceta J. School-based nutrition education: lessons learned and new perspectives. Public Health Nutr. 2001;4(1a):131-139. doi:10.1079/PHN2000108
    CrossRef
41. Nepper MJ. Associations of the Home Food Environment with Eating Behaviors and Weight Status among Children and Adolescents. J Nutr Food Sci. 2015;s12. doi:10.4172/2155-9600.S12-004
    CrossRef
42. Black RE, Allen LH, Bhutta ZA, et al. Maternal and child undernutrition: global and regional exposures and health consequences. The Lancet. 2008;371(9608):243-260. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61690-0
    CrossRef
43. Nicklas TA, Baranowski T, Cullen KW, Berenson G. Eating Patterns, Dietary Quality and Obesity. J Am Coll Nutr. 2001;20(6):599-608. doi:10.1080/07315724.2001.10719064
    CrossRef
44. Wang YC, McPherson K, Marsh T, Gortmaker SL, Brown M. Health and economic burden of the projected obesity trends in the USA and the UK. The Lancet. 2011;378(9793):815-825. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60814-3
    CrossRef
45. Mogre V, Stevens FCJ, Aryee PA, Amalba A, Scherpbier AJJA. Why nutrition education is inadequate in the medical curriculum: a qualitative study of students’ perspectives on barriers and strategies. BMC Med Educ. 2018;18(1):26. doi:10.1186/s12909-018-1130-5
    CrossRef
46. Thompson FE, Midthune D, Subar AF, Kahle LL, Schatzkin A, Kipnis V. Performance of a short tool to assess dietary intakes of fruits and vegetables, percentage energy from fat and fibre. Public Health Nutr. 2004;7(8):1097-1106. doi:10.1079/PHN2004642
    CrossRef
47. Bundy D, Shaeffer S, Jukes M, et al. School-Based Health and Nutrition Programs.; 2006.
48. Reinhardt SL, Boehm R, Blackstone NT, et al. Systematic Review of Dietary Patterns and Sustainability in the United States. Advances in Nutrition. 2020;11(4):1016-1031. doi:10.1093/advances/nmaa026
    CrossRef