Association of hospitals' organizational characteristics and market factors offering integrative medicine services to adult cancer patients.

46 Background: Integrative medicine (IM) plays an important role in cancer symptom management by providing patients with a range of non-pharmacological options to help manage the physical and emotional symptoms associated with cancer and its treatment. More patients are seeking IM services due in part to a more holistic or patient-centered approach to cancer care, alleviating side effects from cancer treatments, improving quality of life, and enhancing cancer treatment effectiveness. Although the demand for IM services is increasing, there is a gap in our knowledge regarding which cancer hospitals are providing IM programs and what services are offered within these programs. As such, the aim of this exploratory cross-sectional study is two-fold: (1) to examine the association of the organizational characteristics and market factors between cancer hospitals that provide IM services and those that do not, and (2) to better understand what services comprise IM programs within these cancer hospitals and how these services are funded. Methods: Bivariate analysis evaluated the relationship between the dependent variable (cancer hospitals offering IM services) and the independent categorical variables. Chi-square tests were performed for categorical variables, and t-tests were used to compare means for continuous variables. An electronic survey was developed and distributed to 150 IM program, gathering data on service offerings, funding, delivery models, and integration with conventional care. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize and describe survey results. Results: Key findings showed statistically significant associations between cancer hospitals providing IM services and those that do not. A higher proportion of cancer hospitals with IM are not-for-profit, larger (bed size 400+), system-affiliated, teaching entities located in metropolitan areas with larger populations and higher per capita income. Survey results reflected most frequently offered IM services are nutrition counseling, acupuncture, massage, yoga, and meditation. Funding relied heavily on philanthropy and out-of-pocket payments. Key facilitators included access to licensed staff, space, and administrative backing. Major barriers were inadequate hospital funding, space limitations, insufficient philanthropy, and poor insurance reimbursement. Conclusions: IM programs are increasingly embedded within cancer centers, offering diverse services to support patients’ symptom management and quality of life. However, variations in funding, staffing, and integration reflect a need for standardized models and best practices. Broader implementation may benefit from institutional investment, integration into clinical workflows, and further research on outcomes and cost-effectiveness.