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.

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.

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.

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).

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.