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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.