Accessible Protocols in Consultation

• Enhanced the quality and safety of existing practices through formalization and harmonization.
• Integration of NPI into healthcare management softwares.
• Access to documentation from computers, tablets, or smartphones for ease of use.
• Quick and easy access to information at critical decision-making moments for prevention and care.
• Simplifies the follow-up and implementation of NPI (e.g., identifying barriers, professional leadership, availability of training and support).

Quality Control and Adherence to Protocols

• Improves traceability by using unique coded protocols.
• Strengthened the relationship between care givers and patients.
• Provides tools for tracking key performance indicators.
• Serves as an educational resource for ongoing professional development.
• Incorporates regular updates based on user feedback.

Means of Valuation

• Addresses problems identified by healthcare teams in a specific territory.
• Expands the roles of many professionals, particularly non-physicians.
• Phases out protocols that are ineffective, hazardous, or expensive.
• Decreases the need for multiple meetings focused on intervention planning.
• Boosting professionals' confidence to experiment new practices.
• Ensures appropriate financial and resources allocation for effective implementation.

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).

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.

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.

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 growing 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 32 French and European scientific societies and multiple health-related institutions and research networks. 

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 and long-term economy (World Economic Forum, 2024). The NPIS Prospective Pole documents these initiatives in books (Noguès, 2022; Noguès, 2024). The NPIS Forums invite all innovators to share their experiences.