Interest in whole-person, integrative care continues to rise across health systems, with many leaders reporting benefits for patients, providers and population health. A recent global survey of clinicians, clinical leaders and executives indicates that most organisations now offer at least some integrative services and that demand aligns closely with offerings centred on mental health, nutrition and exercise. Yet momentum is uneven: reported gains in experience and outcomes sit alongside static reimbursement, limited training provision and insufficient staffing capacity. Respondents also point to variations between regions in both availability of services and preferred measures of success. The overall picture is one of steady adoption, clear perceived value and persistent structural barriers that constrain scale and consistency.
Adoption Patterns and Services in Demand
Integrative medicine and health, defined as whole-person care informed by evidence and inclusive of complementary therapeutic and lifestyle approaches, is now common in many settings. Globally, 60% of respondents surveyed describe integrative care within their organisation as prevalent, very prevalent or extremely prevalent. Services offered most widely mirror what patients request most: mental health support, nutrition programmes and exercise programmes. Patient support groups and lifestyle medicine also feature strongly in the mix.
Must Read: Barriers to Medical Care in the EU
Personal commitment among professionals remains strong. Fully 71% say it is very or extremely important that integrative care is offered to patients, a pattern consistent with prior findings. Over the past two years, usage within organisations has remained steady or nudged upward for many: 48% report no noticeable change, while 34% report a small increase and 14% a large increase. These trajectories suggest gradual growth rather than rapid expansion, with adoption shaped by local context, capability and incentives.
Reported Impact, Outcomes and Measures of Success
Respondents see integrative care as improving several dimensions of delivery. Eight in ten say patient health outcomes are better or significantly better for those receiving integrative care when compared with the general patient population. Patient experience is the most frequently cited area of improvement, with 93% reporting it as improved or greatly improved. Gains are also reported for the health of patient populations at 78%, provider experience at 70%, health equity at 64% and cost of care at 54%.
When asked which metrics best demonstrate efficacy, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) lead overall at 71%, followed by functional and behavioural improvements at 64%. Traditional trial evidence, citizen science and assessments rooted in specific traditional medicine frameworks are cited far less frequently as primary proofs of effectiveness.
Trust emerges as a salient benefit. Nearly 85% indicate that offering integrative services increases patients’ trust in health care providers. This perceived enhancement of trust complements the reported gains in experience and outcomes, reinforcing integrative care’s role in strengthening relationships and engagement. Taken together, the pattern suggests that organisations view integrative approaches as contributing not only to clinical endpoints but also to the broader experience of care and confidence in providers.
Structural Barriers in Payment, Training and Capacity
Despite interest and perceived benefits, payment mechanisms remain largely unchanged. Over the past two years, 71% report no change in reimbursement for integrative care, with only 16% seeing increases and 13% noting decreases. Respondents underscore that many of the most in-demand services, such as mental health support, nutrition and exercise programmes, are not meaningfully reimbursed, limiting the ability to embed them at scale and sustain them over time. This persistent misalignment between value and payment is a recurring theme across regions.
Workforce readiness is another constraint. Only 23% say their organisations provide integrative care training to clinicians, 17% plan to do so in the next two years and 47% have no plans. Capacity mirrors this gap: just 38% describe their clinician numbers for integrative care as sufficient, while 62% report insufficiency. These figures are largely unchanged from two years earlier, signalling stalled progress in building the teams and competencies required for comprehensive delivery. Respondents also highlight the importance of cross-disciplinary collaboration, with a need for professionals from different backgrounds to work in coordinated ways.
Equity remains a concern. Many report that inequities in care delivery, including access and implicit bias, have a meaningful impact on providing integrative care. While there are indications of some improvement over the past two years, the effect of inequities is still characterised as moderate to major in many organisations. The combined weight of static reimbursement, limited training provision, staffing shortfalls and inequities helps explain why overall adoption has advanced slowly and why reported improvements may not be uniformly distributed across populations or settings.
Integrative care is increasingly embedded in health systems and resonates with both patients and professionals, with reported gains in experience, outcomes, trust and population health. Yet growth remains constrained by reimbursement that has largely stood still, lagging training infrastructure and inadequate staffing capacity. Organisations also continue to grapple with inequities that shape access and impact. For leaders focused on whole-person health, the implications are clear: sustaining progress will depend on aligning incentives with valued services, investing in workforce development and addressing barriers that limit equitable access. The survey insights point to steady appetite and tangible benefits, but they also underline the need for structural support to move from pockets of practice to consistent, scalable delivery.
Source: NEJM Catalyst
Image Credit: Freepik
