A shift has occurred in the provision of health care to include a focus not just on biology and disease but also on the whole person, preventative care, and an array of healing modalities based on systems of beliefs and values not typically included within biomedical practice. This approach to health care, termed integrative medicine (IM), blends biomedicine with a broader understanding of patients and their illnesses, including elements of mind, body, and spirit that may be contributing to an ailment. While the use of integrative medicine has increased and centers for integrative medicine have proliferated within conventional health care organizations, distinct tensions arise from this amalgamation. The tensions between IM and biomedical clinicians often center on their differing training and philosophies, as well as on a larger system of health care that privileges biomedicine. As a result, this research is designed to explore the challenges IM clinicians face in collaborating with conventional practitioners to provide patient care. Analysis of interviews with 14 clinicians at one center for integrative medicine revealed four specific challenges they face in their attempt to co-practice IM with conventional medicine. The four challenges include (a) challenges to collaboration, (b) challenges to legitimacy, (c) challenges to consistency, and (d) challenges to unification. Future research should investigate the ways in which these challenges can be addressed so that collaboration throughout the system is facilitated. The professional training of clinicians, the structuring and institutionalization of integrative medicine, and enhanced systems for communicating patient information all play a significant role in this transformation.

Integrative medicine (IM) is a holistic health care option that blends complementary, alternative medicine with biomedical models of care. Many medical care facilities do not offer IM treatment for patients, yet the demand for IM is growing. Therefore, IM providers are in the position of educating and promoting IM to patients and other medical practitioners. There is limited research literature focusing on how IM providers communicate advocacy for IM. Therefore, this research is designed to explore the perspectives of providers about the ways that they communicate advocacy for IM in their lives and their medical practice. Interview data we collected at The Center reveals the ways that IM providers continuously advocate for IM through their resonance with IM philosophy, by negotiating systemic tensions that revolve around IM, and by forming communities of practice with patients and other providers. Results of this investigation offer insight about IM, communication, and advocacy.