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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.