Background:
The World Health Organization (WHO) recognizes integrative medicine (IM) as a novel cost-effective concept in modern healthcare judiciously utilasing all scientifically proven approaches to prevention, prophylaxis and treatment (conventional and complementary/traditional).
The presented educational research was focused on IM and reflected the growing societal and individual needs for holistic and person-centred care and cure. Globally, research and training in integrative and complementary medicine is increasingly focused on enhancing regulations, ensuring evidence-based professional competencies and safety for the consumers. In Europe, education and scientific development in this field reflect both cultural diversity and educational traditions, leading to shared traits and notable differences. Therefore, the aim of the presented educational research to archetype the European IM schools and programs including the Bulgarian traditions in the field, has been challenging and socially significant.

Methods:
The presented educational archetyping is the final fourth phase of a research project which employs exploratory sequential mixed-methods design. The previous results of the study related to IM conceptual modelling and needs-assessment of IM training with quantitative instruments among students and professionals were reported during INTED2022 and EDULEARN22.

Archetyping integrative medicine programmes in Europe and Bulgaria – regulations and archetypes:
The diversity of European centres for IM education and research, both within and outside academic institutions, can be described through ten distinct archetypes. In some, education and research are closely integrated, while others focus solely on research.
The first archetype involves IM departments or research centres within established medical universities (e.g. in Germany and Sweden). The second archetype involves the inclusion of complementary medicine topics, such as acupuncture, within existing medical programs (e.g., neurology, physiotherapy). The third archetype highlights collaborative projects between university hospitals and IM clinics.
The fourth archetype features centres supported by the Ministries of Health, such as Bulgaria’s National Centre for Phytotherapy and Folk Medicine, active from 1988 to 1998. The fifth archetype includes faculties with specialized IM departments, like University of Bern’s Institute of Complementary and IM at the Faculty of Medicine. The sixth type encompasses independent privately financed educational programs in IM.
Joint certified courses between universities and professional organizations form the seventh archetype. The eighth archetype consists of accredited postgraduate courses supported by health financing bodies or health insurance institutions. The ninth archetype involves certified courses from professional organizations. The tenth archetype comprises independent research institutes focused on IM.

Conclusions:
The proposed archetypes of educational and research centers are derived from comprehensive analysis and participatory methodologies, including conferences participation, professional certifications, and teaching experience. In conclusion, there is no universally relevant recipe how to structure and manage an IM educational body. The imperative for regulated education and evidence-based research in IM is a societal necessity, one that must be tailored to align with existing training frameworks and cultural traditions.

Keywords: Integrative medicine, higher education, research, Europe, Bulgaria.