Indeed, the NPI Registry contributes to the development of precision medicine. For example, how can we advance this field in the non-pharmacological treatment of pain without confusing patients when a prestigious medical school like Stanford publishes such a vague, incomplete, and unranked list on its website?

• Physical activity
• Acupressure
• Acupuncture
• Application of heat or cold
• Aquatherapy
• Art therapy
• Biofeedback
• Family coaching
• Individual coaching
• Psychological conditioning
• Desensitization
• Therapeutic education
• Occupational therapy
• Horticultural therapy
• Hypnosis
• Physiotherapy
• Massage lotions
• Meditation
• Music therapy
• Posturology
• Companion presence
• Psychosocial support
• Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS)
• Comfort therapy
• Theatre therapy
• Psychosocial therapy
• Tonification and strengthening
• Yoga

How many hopes dashed? How much time wasted? How many futile efforts? How much money squandered? How many unnecessary carbon emissions from transport? This subtly highlights pharmacological treatments and pain surgeries, which have precise contents and proven effects. The NPIS and its partners propose a solution to break this deadlock in favor of those affected by health issues. The goal is to provide reliable information on the most relevant NPI. It is also about no longer opposing pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapies, but rather associating them wisely and at the right time.

Interoperability between the information systems of healthcare providers and funders is crucial for the efficiency of NPI. Assigning a unique code to an NPI enhances information sharing, decision-making, implementation quality, traceability, monetization, and impact analysis. This way, an NPI becomes an identifiable act within an institutional nomenclature. The characteristics of an NPI are described and justified by studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals that meet international health research standards. They must conform to the NPIS Model. Innovative practices, through a process of standardization and independent expertise, become NPI labeled as NPIS©. They can be integrated into personalized health pathways by a professional, a multidisciplinary team, a health center, a care facility, a medico-social organization, a health network, a digital platform, or any other organization authorized to provide health solutions. With a unique coding system for each NPI that is interoperable with insurance and professional nomenclatures, authorities in a country and insurance systems can implement monitoring and feedback procedures regarding the use of NPI according to their risk management levels. Data from user experiences, professionals, healthcare providers, and institutions can lead to new research questions. Research can foster innovations, such as isolating more specific, effective, implementable, and efficient NPI within local platforms and organizations.

Moving, eating, drinking, sleeping, talking, reading, writing, painting, listening to music, watching a movie, dancing, laughing, walking, singing, meditating, gardening, socializing, etc., are all activities of daily life. Some of these can generate joy, pleasure, personal growth, and well-being. In a democratic country, everyone is free to interpret and experience these activities in their own way. This relates to life philosophy, lifestyle, the art of living, and personal development. In other words, a daily activity is not an intervention, even if it can occasionally and randomly contribute to the health of certain individuals. Occupational activities and treatments for health problems identified by medicine are different.

The following products are not considered NPI:

• Hygiene and beauty products (shampoo, toothpaste, brush, body cream, etc.)
• Natural products (plants, food, mushrooms, essential oils, etc.)
• Health products (medications, implantable biological materials, dietary supplements, etc.)
• Medical devices (artificial organs, prosthetics, orthotics, digital applications, monitoring systems, etc.)

The following goods and services are not considered NPI:

• Cultural products or services (video games, books, podcasts, artistic practices, museum visits, theater, writing, etc.)
• Everyday consumer products or services (haircuts, aesthetic treatments, dining out, etc.)

The following actions are not considered NPI:

• Public health promotion activities (communication campaigns, videos, posters, booklets, websites, social media posts, etc.)
• Architectural adaptations (creating access ramps, etc.)
• Environmental adaptations (reforestation of a park, creation of a sports workshop, etc.)

The following approaches are not considered NPI:

• Professional disciplines (physiotherapy, psychology, dietetics, public health, etc.)
• Educational approaches (personal development, etc.)
• Esoteric practices (spiritual practices, religious worship, divination, witchcraft, etc.)

The following organizations are not considered NPI :

• Health organizations (networks, platforms, clinics, health centers, healthcare establishments, etc.)
• Health systems (digital platforms, etc.)

The following measures are not considered NPI :

• Health policies (strategies, plans, programs, etc.)
• Regulations (decrees, laws, etc.)
• Judicial decisions (warnings, convictions, etc.)

As of April 2019, there were 46 evaluation models for NPI in the scientific literature (Carbonnel and Ninot, 2019). These models were constructed by researchers for researchers, often from a monodisciplinary perspective and rarely from a patient-centered approach. This led to significant heterogeneity in study protocols and the way NPI were conceived (approach, method, technique, or materials). The results were scattered, debatable, poorly transferable, and rarely reproducible. Consequently, these practices were not widely recognized outside the study context (dependent on the establishment and/or practitioner). This situation raised doubts about their effectiveness (e.g., efficacy, safety, relevance, utility, cost-effectiveness), their content (e.g., heterogeneity in doses, procedures, ingredients, techniques, contexts, target populations), their approval (e.g., ethics committees), their dissemination (e.g., conflicting reviewer opinions), their teaching (e.g., protocols, best practices), and their recognition (e.g., authorization, integration into official classifications, reimbursement). This lack of a consensual evaluation model for NPI suggested that each professional had to reinvent their program for every new patient, given the wide or contradictory recommendations from authorities, agencies, and scientific societies. It also implied that only the patient-provider relationship mattered in the health effects induced (Ninot, 2020). Moreover, it left the door open for pseudoscientific practices and, more broadly, parallel medicine, along with all the obscurantist, health-related, sectarian, political, and judicial issues that are known in France (Miviludes, 2022; CNOI, 2023; CNOM, 2023) and around the world (Ernst and Smith, 2018). This idea was also gaining traction in the United States in the field of oncology, aiming to juxtapose two medical offerings: one based on experimental science, primarily focused on surgery, medication, radiotherapy, and medical devices, and the other described as "complementary, integrative, or traditional," based on individual experience, opinions, and traditions (Mao et al., 2022). This second offering claimed exclusivity in the domains of prevention and care, emphasizing care for the person versus cure for the disease. Thus, the NPIS Model was co-constructed with the idea that experimental science could demonstrate the existence of effective, safe, and reproducible prevention and care protocols. This work was supported by seed funding for participatory research from INSERM and involved over 1,000 participants under the guidance of a committee of 22 multidisciplinary experts, including two user representatives. This transdisciplinary innovation is currently supported by 30 French scientific societies, the National Center for Palliative Care and End of Life, INCa, and the French Platform for Clinical Research Networks.

An evidence-based data point is a theoretical or practical knowledge acquired through rigorous and integrated scientific methods and reasoning. The NPIS Model follows this logic in the health field (see Figure 3). It provides specific methodological and ethical recommendations for NPI for studies focusing on their mechanisms and explanatory processes (mechanistic study), their content (prototypical study), their evolution over time (observational study), their benefits and risks (interventional study), and their application and personalization modalities (implementation study).

The term non-pharmacological intervention (NPI) was not chosen by the scientific society NPIS but has become necessary. It has been used by scientists since 1975. Various authorities and agencies have adopted it, including the World Health Organization since 2003, the French National Authority for Health since 2011, the National Solidarity Fund for Autonomy since 2014, the Ministry of Health since 2018, the High Council for Public Health since 2019, the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control since 2020, the General Inspectorate of Social Affairs since 2022, the Economic, Social and Environmental Council since 2023, and Health Insurance since 2024. Many national and supranational scientific societies use the term NPI in their recommendations. These health solutions are often "squeezed" between health products and public health measures, despite efforts by professionals to raise awareness and recognition of them. They represent an underestimated area of intangible services situated between goods (e.g., medications, medical devices) and general public health recommendations (e.g., dietary rules, hygiene measures, environmental actions).

They can be lost in compilations of health solutions that mix health promotion actions with targeted programs or confuse methods for identifying a health problem with methods for resolving it. The challenge is to improve the traceability of practices for continuous enhancement of their quality, safety, implementation, and training. These practices can be easily shared from one country to another. The term NPI does not imply "anti-medication" or "alternative medicine" (parallel medicine). Instead, it draws from the rigor of the globally standardized drug validation process to establish good scientific and clinical practices. Over time, we believe that the abbreviation NPI will come to be more widely recognized than its full title, similar to WHO, IBM, SEAT, and many others.

Registers of non-pharmacological practices with imprecise criteria and boundaries.
Catalogs compile various health practices among which NPI may be submerged. Some target the general population, while others are more specific. The selection criteria are heterogeneous, and objectives and practical modalities vary widely. Three examples include two from the United States (EBCCP and Mindtools) and one from France (Capitalisation Santé).