NPI are a field in which many amalgamations occur between scientific knowledge and opinion, due to their objective—human health—and their operational mode, which involves immaterial protocols. However, it is essential to learn to distinguish science from research amidst the multiplication of tools and information channels (Klein, 2020), particularly on the subject of NPI. The same communication channels transmit both scientific knowledge and beliefs, opinions, comments... Information of different statuses becomes intertwined. Knowledge can turn into the belief of a particular community, and vice versa.

Research, on the other hand, pertains to questions for which we do not yet have answers. These well-defined questions still have no answer. A researcher works on the subject using various methods and strategies. Research fosters doubt. Scientific societies work to advance research within a specific territory and theme.

Given that NPI are universal health protocols centered on individuals and administered by humans, an international multidisciplinary scientific society needed to be created. This has been achieved since 2021. This society is called the Non-Pharmacological Intervention Society (NPIS).

Each NPI file in the NPI Registry has been submitted by a practitioner or researcher through the dedicated platform hosted by the NPIS. Each file undergoes review by an independent and integrated scientific committee. This committee invites relevant scientific societies and health authorities to validate the NPI files and/or to oversee the decisions made. Each validated file is then reviewed by a committee of users and professionals. Once labeled NPIS©, the file is translated into at least English and French and integrated into the NPI Registry.

The file contains standardized content supported by scientific studies that align with the NPIS definition of NPI, the expected specifications (Table 2), and the consensual evaluation framework for NPI, known as the NPIS Model. It includes a manual for professionals, an information notice for users, a section on funding options, and an area for anonymous user feedback. This ensures the file remains dynamic and part of a virtuous cycle of continuous improvement for the NPI.

A minimum of one prototypical study, one mechanistic study, two interventional studies, and one implementation study published in a peer-reviewed journal is required for an NPI proposal to be accepted by the expert committee tasked with validating the NPI file and awarding the NPIS© label. Specifically, experts must have evidence to anonymously vote on each criterion of the NPI file proposed to the NPIS by a submitter:

• Described (≥ 1 prototypical study)
• Explainable (≥ 1 mechanistic study)
• Effective (≥ 2 interventional studies)
• Safe (≥ 2 interventional studies)
• Implementable (≥ 1 implementation study in the country)

A professional must understand all the specifics of the NPI, the criteria justifying its use, how to implement its protocol, whom to contact, useful tips, required materials, and any prerequisite training needed.

The connection between mechanistic, interventional, and implementation studies forms the backbone of the epistemological positioning of the NPIS Model regarding the evaluation of NPI. This does not mean that an interventional study, for example, cannot explore biological mechanisms or psychosocial processes. Instead, this backbone provides coherence to the studies and structures the validation process of NPI for integration into a standardized practice framework.

The term NPI has been used by scientists working in the health field since 1975. However, it is not the only term; other similar terms are used synonymously, especially in PubMed. There are ten English terms to describe non-pharmacological processes and twenty-eight to describe methods of operation. An exhaustive inventory of NPI on a scientific article search engine is currently impossible due to the variety of terms researchers use, each with distinct meanings: rehabilitation intervention, psychosocial intervention, mental intervention, cognitive intervention, psychological intervention, behavioral intervention, psychosomatic intervention, nutrition intervention, dietary intervention, food intervention, physical intervention, body intervention, exercise intervention, manual intervention, salutogenic intervention, natural intervention, self-help intervention, nursing intervention, therapy intervention, care intervention, disease management intervention, multimodal intervention...

A search on PubMed from August 15, 2024, indicates 55,689 articles citing the term "non-pharmacological" or its equivalent up to 2023. While these figures do not challenge the trend, they are likely underestimated due to the database's focus on health products rather than services, biological treatments over psychosocial ones, studies on North American populations, and journals published by North American organizations. This aligns with an official U.S. government site managed by the National Center for Biotechnology Information and hosted by the National Library of Medicine, part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

A search on PubMed from August 15, 2024, also reveals 11,642 articles citing the term "non-pharmacological intervention" or its equivalent up to 2023. Both curves demonstrate an increase since 2000, with a notable acceleration since 2010.

The French National Authority for Health has been encouraging the use of the term NPI in health since 2011.

Immaterial practices of prevention and care have existed since ancient times. However, the diversification of practices, the multiplication of professions at the intersection of prevention, care, and social assistance, and the globalization of information systems have leveled these services and obscured them at a time when medicine has made significant advances in the early detection and diagnosis of health issues. The interdisciplinary and multisectoral approach of the NPIS generates a value chain, from the design of practices to their implementation, regulation, and financing.

Innovative economic model initiatives are emerging worldwide, including fee-for-service, bundled payments, social economy provisions, offers promoting sustainable development, e-health economy, human innovation bundles, and long-term economy (World Economic Forum, 2024). The NPIS Prospective Pole, led by Michel Noguès, documents these initiatives in books (Noguès, 2022; Noguès, 2024). The NPIS Forums invite all innovators to share their experiences.

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.)

Before evaluating an NPI, it is essential to describe it. Sometimes, health practices may involve a combination of diagnostic methods and treatments, as seen in osteopathy. An NPI is not intended to identify or diagnose a health problem; rather, it serves as a preventive or therapeutic solution to address it, sometimes in conjunction with other treatments. A common confusion lies in distinguishing between an NPI and an approach or technique. An approach is too vague and does not accurately describe the content of the NPI, while a technique is too specific, representing only one ingredient of an NPI. A prototypical study allows for the comprehensive description of all characteristics of an NPI, including its health objectives, target population, mechanisms of action, content, implementation context, and the prerequisites for the professional involved.

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.

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.

PSYCHOSOCIAL DOMINANCE

Psychotherapies:

• Cognitive Stimulation Therapy for memory strategies in Alzheimer’s disease in 14 sessions by a psychologist in a healthcare facility, health center, or private practice.
• Mindfulness Based Stress Reduction (MBSR-BC) program against anxiety during cancer treatments in 8 group sessions by a clinical psychologist, psychiatrist, or physician in an oncology department, a patient association, a private practice, a health center, or a healthcare facility.
• Acceptance and Commitment Therapy for chronic pain in 9 group sessions by a clinical psychologist or psychiatrist in a healthcare facility, health center, or private practice.
• Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Insomnia (CBT-I) in 6-8 individual sessions, either remote or in-person, by a neuropsychologist, clinical psychologist, psychiatrist, or neurologist in a healthcare facility, health center, or private practice.
• Now I Can Do Heights program using virtual reality to treat acrophobia (fear of heights) by a clinical psychologist or psychiatrist in a private practice or health center.

Health Prevention Programs:

• Living Well with COPD therapeutic education program against symptoms and exacerbations of COPD over 2 months with 4 sessions, in-person or remote, by a nurse, physician, or pharmacist in a healthcare facility, health center, or private practice.
• CHESS Method (Chronic Headache Education and Self-management) for migraine self-management by a nurse or physician in a healthcare facility, health center, or private practice.
• MyFriend Youth Program for preventing anxiety and depression among students aged 12 to 15 years, 10 sessions by a school psychologist or school nurse in an educational institution.
• Spiegel Hypnotherapy Method specialized in smoking cessation in 3 sessions by a psychologist, nurse, physician, or hypnotherapist in a private practice, healthcare facility, health center, or private practice.
• Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Depression (CBT-d) by a clinical psychologist or psychiatrist in a healthcare facility, health center, or private practice.

CORPOREAL DOMINANCE

Physiotherapy Protocols:

• McKenzie Method for back pain by a physiotherapist in a healthcare facility, health center, or private practice.
• Pelvic Floor Muscle Training (PFMT) program by a midwife or physiotherapist in a health center or private practice.
• Rehabilitation program following hip prosthesis in 6 to 10 sessions by a physiotherapist in a healthcare facility, health center, or private practice.

Adapted Physical Activity Programs:

• Dance Therapy for Parkinson’s Disease addressing psychological symptoms of Parkinson’s by a physical activity instructor in a healthcare facility, health center, or private practice.
• Re-exercise program at ventilatory threshold against dyspnea caused by COPD by a physical activity instructor or physiotherapist in a healthcare facility, health center, or private practice.
• Anti-fatigue APA program during treatments for breast, prostate, or colon cancer by a physical activity instructor in a healthcare facility, health center, or private practice.

Thermal Treatments:

• Specialized thermal cure for gonarthrosis by a physiotherapist or thermal agent in a thermal facility.

NUTRITIONAL DOMINANCE

• Gluten-free diet for celiac disease by a dietitian in a healthcare facility, health center, or private practice.
• FODMAP diet for gastrointestinal disorders by a dietitian in a healthcare facility, health center, or private practice.

The NPIS has outlined a roadmap from 2021 to 2030 aligned with the strategies of European and international health institutions. To this end, it has initiated discussions with the European Public Health Association (EUPHA), involved in health service innovation, the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC), which is planning to create a registry, the European Commission, which aims to promote "health, nutrition, mental health, and psychosocial support to communities," and WHO Europe, which intends to identify the "most effective health interventions" by 2030. The NPIS submitted several European projects in 2024.

The NPIS is also engaging with WHO, which has advocated for "self-care interventions" since 2022, included NPI in its Global Action Plan for Mental Health published in 2022, and identified "the most effective and feasible interventions in a national context" in a report published in 2021. Additionally, it is collaborating with other international organizations such as UNESCO, which has promoted "specific health and well-being education interventions" since 2016, UNICEF, which has advocated for sharing "effective health interventions" since 2016 and developing "primary healthcare" since 2018, the UN, which has called for "accelerating essential health services" since 2023, and the Coalition of Partnerships for Universal Health Coverage and Global Health, advocating for "people-centered, comprehensive, and integrated services" since 2021.

Thus, an ecosystem for NPI, from research to practice through training and delivery, is being constructed, with NPIS actively participating. It involves all stakeholders, both academic and non-academic, to create a true value chain benefiting personalized and precision medicine based on science, sustainable health, and equitable longevity. With over 2.1 billion people aged over 60 by 2050, multistakeholder collaborations will be the foundation of a sustainable and equitable longevity economy.

This is why forums on NPI have been organized since 2024 in France and Europe, called NPIS Forum. An international summit titled NPIS Summit takes place every year in October, and regional events called NPIS Satellite gather professionals and users around a health theme.

If a clinical trial demonstrates the effectiveness of an NPI in one country, it does not necessarily mean that the health prevention or care protocol is equally relevant, feasible, or acceptable in another. Therefore, the NPIS Model recommends conducting an implementation study to identify the conditions for implementing the NPI in a specific health territory or country, ensuring that best practices respect local culture, habits, customs, and individual preferences.

In France, the term "professional" is broader than the term "practitioner," which is limited to the 24 healthcare professionals defined in the Public Health Code (CSP). For example, a clinical psychologist and a teacher in adapted physical activity (APA) are professionals who work for the health of individuals by offering NPI for preventive or therapeutic purposes, but they are not considered "health professionals" in the strict sense of the CSP. Some professions fall under the Social Action and Families Code (e.g., specialized educator) or the Sports Code. In Europe and worldwide, the issue becomes more complex because health-related professions do not share the same designations. For instance, "masseur-kinésithérapeute" in France is referred to as "physiotherapist" in most other countries. NPI can serve as common denominators across countries, as they will have a unique code and specification sheet.

This criterion was established for the scientific validation of medications. It is impossible to think that psychotherapy led by a psychologist or a diet plan supervised by a dietitian can be concealed from a study participant. Every effort has been made to establish the best causal link between the proposal of a practice and its effects on health, taking into account the specificities of NPI without compromising the expected rigor and ethics of health research. Our recommendations aim to minimize biases and enhance validity and reproducibility. However, this will never prevent some individuals or promoters from committing fraud. Given the lower health risks of NPI compared to rapid-action health products (such as surgery, fast-acting medications, or implantable medical devices) and their potential interest in prevention, pragmatic real-world trials or effectiveness studies best address the consideration of risks. Additionally, the evaluation of an NPI has justified conducting an implementation study within the specific country to avoid extrapolating results from one cultural context to another.

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).

A scientific validation model for medications has existed since the 1960s, with specific regulations recognized worldwide (e.g., FDA, EMA, ANSM). A similar procedure has recently been implemented for medical devices in Europe. However, until now, no consensual model existed for nutritional, bodily, and psychosocial health services due to confusions between approach, protocol, and technique/ingredient. A participatory, pragmatic, and multidisciplinary consensus work followed international scientific health recommendations to address this for NPI (Ninot et al., 2023).

This work took into account the specificities of NPI, health risks, the balance between internal and external validity, the justification of explanatory mechanisms, ethical considerations in health, and respect for contexts of use. The NPIS Model accelerates research through the harmonization of methodological and ethical expectations in NPI. It also enhances the identification, referencing, transferability, and implementation of NPI for the benefit of user health and safety, improving the quality of training.

Ultimately, the NPIS Model distinguishes between individualized, science-based services aimed at addressing known health issues in Western medicine and occupational practices (lifestyle, art of living, work, sociocultural activity, personal development, pursuit of happiness, spiritual practice, etc.). In this sense, the model does not impede individuals' freedom to choose a particular lifestyle. It aims to address a specific health issue for an individual or a group of people within a limited timeframe and a framework regulated by the health sector. The NPIS Model encourages innovations across all other health sectors, particularly in health organizations and early identification actions for health problems.

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.

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).

NPI are protocols to be implemented with a target population, but they are merely specifications. They must be contextualized and personalized. The NPI Registry offers best practices and tips for optimal implementation. Furthermore, the NPIS recommends interdisciplinary training in health ethics for their application. The scientific society works with its partners to develop and recognize this foundational training, which could be conducted particularly in higher education institutions in collaboration with the Ministry of Health. This ethical training includes all the prerequisites of knowledge, skills, and attitudes necessary for interprofessional practice in health. Health professionals with practical experience, such as doctors, will have equivalencies.

An alliance for NPI is essential today in response to siloed proposals from various disciplines (biology, psychology, public health), professions (medical, paramedical, educational, social), sectors (prevention, care, support for autonomy, social services, education, end-of-life care, disability), and currents (traditional or scientific medicine) at both national and supranational levels. The NPIS brings together these scattered and sometimes divided stakeholders to foster better understanding, practice, and recognition of NPI. The scientific society contributes to developing an NPI ecosystem that is often overlooked. It mobilizes hundreds of professionals and users worldwide to address the public health challenges of the 21st century that are widely recognized.

It highlights essential NPI and best practices to be delivered to the right people at the right time in their journey without criticizing other health solutions. Specifically, the NPIS enables:

• Research stakeholders to develop, evaluate, and promote NPI.
• Care, prevention, and social support professionals to enhance their skills and access best practice recommendations and implementation tools for NPI.
• Health operators to choose, organize, track, consolidate, secure, and sustain investments in NPI.
• National and supranational health agencies to improve their knowledge for designing effective strategies regarding NPI.
• Governments, non-governmental organizations, user associations, and health actor federations to establish a common language within a defined scope to create just, equitable, and sustainable policies.

After establishing a standardized evaluation model, the NPIS contributes to an interprofessional, intersectoral, and bipartisan alliance in favor of NPI. Through an annual global summit, it gathers all stakeholders in the ecosystem during the third week of October, known as the NPIS Summit. This significant event discusses the economic and regulatory structuring of the ecosystem with all parties involved. The 2024 edition will take place in a highly symbolic venue, the Cité Universitaire in Paris, a quintessential humanist space open to the world, science, and peace, created between the two world wars last century. Everyone can participate and contribute to this international dynamic aimed solely at legitimizing NPI within health system offerings without disparaging other solutions. This coalition is called the NPIS Alliance.

An independent healthcare professional or a multidisciplinary team from a multi-professional health center, a care network, a hospital, a medico-social establishment, a medico-educational facility, a nursing home, a prevention center, an occupational health service, a school/university service, or a palliative care service can select one or more NPI to integrate into an individual's personalized health pathway. This applies to individuals facing loss of autonomy (e.g., a frail person over 90 years old), at increased risk of illness (e.g., a smoker), living with a disability (e.g., loss of autonomy due to paraplegia), or suffering from an illness (e.g., a neurodegenerative disease). Given that health issues are now multifactorial and complex, the solutions available to improve each person's health are diverse and depend on local availability. Multiple NPI can be offered in prevention, care, and support by a physician, any authorized healthcare professional (e.g., pharmacist, nurse, midwife, physiotherapist), or a team. They are cataloged in a centralized digital platform, the NPI Registry. These NPI complement other health solutions provided at various points in a person's life journey (e.g., medication, medical devices, hospitalization, social assistance). They evolve over time based on the individual's health status, fragility, and needs (Figure 4).

The NPIS Model is part of the French strategy for global health research and innovation for 2023-2027. This strategy aims to address issues of equity and solidarity, increase commitment to disease prevention and health promotion, and better account for the interdependencies between climate change, ecosystem protection, and health (France Government, 2023). France has also established an Agency for Health Innovation and a €7.5 billion investment plan through 2030 (Agency for Health Innovation, 2021). The Agency aims to anticipate the impacts of innovations on the prevention and care system, foster cooperation between public and private actors, and identify research priorities (Agency for Health Innovation, 2021). This development relies on a central institution in France for research and health matters, INSERM (2024). The NPIS Model, which was created with the support of seed funding for participatory research from INSERM, facilitates the effective and rapid transfer of innovations in NPI from fundamental research to practice. The decade-long strategy for supportive care published in 2024 further amplified the need for a standardized evaluation model for NPI (France Government, 2024).

The choice and implementation of an NPI at a given moment in a person's prevention and care journey do not depend on the NPI Registry, nor on the mission of the NPIS. These decisions are influenced by individual health situations, preferences, the availability of professionals, the qualifications of practitioners, accessibility in a given area, and socio-cultural contexts. The art of combining NPI with each other and with other health solutions at the right time lies with professionals, expert systems, interdisciplinary organizations, and the healthcare system in place in a specific country. The NPI Registry highlights essential practices that have proven effective and continue to evolve through research and feedback analysis. The NPIS has no authority to impose a choice of NPI. Each professional is free to follow them, to pursue others, or to create new ones. The same applies to each healthcare organization.

Accessible Protocols in Consultation

• Enhanced Quality and Safety: Strengthens the quality and safety of existing practices through formalization, harmonization, and securitization.
• Integration with Professional Software: Codified NPI can be integrated into healthcare management software.
• Digital Documentation: Access to documentation from computers, tablets, or smartphones for ease of use.
• Broad Validation: Extends validation to all relevant professionals in the region.
• Quick and Easy Access: Facilitates rapid access to information at critical decision-making moments for prevention and care.
• Simplicity in Tracking: Eases the follow-up and evolutionary process of best implementation practices (e.g., identifying barriers, professional leadership, availability of training and support).

Quality Control and Adherence to Protocols

• Traceability: Utilizes unique coded protocols for tracking.
• Strengthened Care Link: Enhances the relationship between care provision and patient support.
• Monitoring Relevant Indicators: Provides tools for tracking key performance indicators.
• Continuous Education Tool: Serves as a resource for ongoing professional development.
• Regular Updates: Incorporates regular updates based on user feedback.

Means of Valuation

• Response to Identified Multidisciplinary Issues: Addresses problems identified by healthcare teams in a specific territory.
• Extended Roles for Various Professionals: Expands the roles of many professionals, particularly non-physicians.
• Elimination of Ineffective Protocols: Phases out protocols that are ineffective, hazardous, or costly.
• Reduction in Meeting Time: Decreases the need for multiple meetings focused on intervention planning.
• Support for Innovation: Encourages professionals to experiment with new practices, boosting their confidence.
• Financial Valuation: Ensures appropriate financial and resource allocation for effective implementation.