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.

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).

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.

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.