提高对非药物干预措施的认识和认识:参与性和共识性研究对公共卫生的影响。

IF 0.3 4区 医学 Q4 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Grégory Ninot, Emeline Descamps, Ghislaine Achalid, Sébastien Abad, Pierre-Louis Bernard, François Carbonnel, Patrizia Carrieri, Patrizia Dargent-Molina, Fréderic Fiteni, Aude-Marie Foucaut, Alice Guyon, Béatrice Lognos, Nicolas Molinari, Arnaud Legout, Julien Nizard, Michel Nogues, Pierrick Poisbeau, Lise Rochaix, Bruno Falissard
{"title":"提高对非药物干预措施的认识和认识:参与性和共识性研究对公共卫生的影响。","authors":"Grégory Ninot, Emeline Descamps, Ghislaine Achalid, Sébastien Abad, Pierre-Louis Bernard, François Carbonnel, Patrizia Carrieri, Patrizia Dargent-Molina, Fréderic Fiteni, Aude-Marie Foucaut, Alice Guyon, Béatrice Lognos, Nicolas Molinari, Arnaud Legout, Julien Nizard, Michel Nogues, Pierrick Poisbeau, Lise Rochaix, Bruno Falissard","doi":"10.3917/spub.pr2.0078","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>In the absence of a consensus on the definition and evaluation of non-pharmacological interventions (NPI)-despite the use of the concept by the World Health Organization, the French Health Authority, the Ministry of Health, and the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control-this study has co-constructed a consensus-based paradigm aligned with international health research standards. This article outlines its relevance and limitations for public health.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Over a two-year period, the study engaged all stakeholders, i.e., more than 1,000 participants. Participatory workshops based on international health research recommendations and experiential knowledge, and consensus sessions were conducted under the guidance of a multidisciplinary committee and with the logistical support of the Non-Pharmacological Intervention Society. These efforts helped to identify the key descriptive and evaluative invariants specific to NPIs. Four phases followed: development, improvement, voting, and consultation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The term NPI refers to prevention or care protocols with a physical, nutritional, or psychosocial focus, targeting a health issue and personalized by a qualified professional. The evaluation framework comprises 77 invariants-14 ethical and 63 methodological-distributed across five types of study: mechanistic, observational, prototypical, interventional, and implementation. The NPIS Model paradigm was endorsed by 31 learned societies and three French health authorities.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The term NPI should be reserved for prevention and care protocols that are described, explainable, effective, safe, and implementable. The consensual framework for co-constructed evaluation should promote the transfer of NPIs from research to practice, their interprofessional coordination, contextual adaptation, continuous improvement, training, and, finally, their recognition. This scientific paradigm strengthens the role of public health professionals in developing targeted, efficient, and potentially fundable interventions for at-risk or ill populations. It paves the way for the development of an open registry of intangible health care practices that can be codified, shared, traced, and improved, informed by user feedback. This paradigm does not, however, cover all areas of public health.</p>","PeriodicalId":49575,"journal":{"name":"Sante Publique","volume":"37 3","pages":"113-132"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Améliorer la connaissance et la reconnaissance des interventions non médicamenteuses : implications pour la santé publique d’une étude participative et de consensus.\",\"authors\":\"Grégory Ninot, Emeline Descamps, Ghislaine Achalid, Sébastien Abad, Pierre-Louis Bernard, François Carbonnel, Patrizia Carrieri, Patrizia Dargent-Molina, Fréderic Fiteni, Aude-Marie Foucaut, Alice Guyon, Béatrice Lognos, Nicolas Molinari, Arnaud Legout, Julien Nizard, Michel Nogues, Pierrick Poisbeau, Lise Rochaix, Bruno Falissard\",\"doi\":\"10.3917/spub.pr2.0078\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>In the absence of a consensus on the definition and evaluation of non-pharmacological interventions (NPI)-despite the use of the concept by the World Health Organization, the French Health Authority, the Ministry of Health, and the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control-this study has co-constructed a consensus-based paradigm aligned with international health research standards. This article outlines its relevance and limitations for public health.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Over a two-year period, the study engaged all stakeholders, i.e., more than 1,000 participants. Participatory workshops based on international health research recommendations and experiential knowledge, and consensus sessions were conducted under the guidance of a multidisciplinary committee and with the logistical support of the Non-Pharmacological Intervention Society. These efforts helped to identify the key descriptive and evaluative invariants specific to NPIs. Four phases followed: development, improvement, voting, and consultation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The term NPI refers to prevention or care protocols with a physical, nutritional, or psychosocial focus, targeting a health issue and personalized by a qualified professional. The evaluation framework comprises 77 invariants-14 ethical and 63 methodological-distributed across five types of study: mechanistic, observational, prototypical, interventional, and implementation. The NPIS Model paradigm was endorsed by 31 learned societies and three French health authorities.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The term NPI should be reserved for prevention and care protocols that are described, explainable, effective, safe, and implementable. The consensual framework for co-constructed evaluation should promote the transfer of NPIs from research to practice, their interprofessional coordination, contextual adaptation, continuous improvement, training, and, finally, their recognition. This scientific paradigm strengthens the role of public health professionals in developing targeted, efficient, and potentially fundable interventions for at-risk or ill populations. It paves the way for the development of an open registry of intangible health care practices that can be codified, shared, traced, and improved, informed by user feedback. This paradigm does not, however, cover all areas of public health.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49575,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Sante Publique\",\"volume\":\"37 3\",\"pages\":\"113-132\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Sante Publique\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3917/spub.pr2.0078\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sante Publique","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3917/spub.pr2.0078","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在对非药物干预(NPI)的定义和评价缺乏共识的情况下——尽管世界卫生组织、法国卫生当局、卫生部和欧洲疾病预防和控制中心使用了这一概念——本研究共同构建了一个基于共识的范式,与国际卫生研究标准保持一致。本文概述了其对公共卫生的相关性和局限性。方法:在两年的时间里,研究涉及所有利益相关者,即1000多名参与者。在一个多学科委员会的指导下,在非药物干预学会的后勤支持下,根据国际卫生研究建议和经验知识举办了参与性讲习班和协商一致会议。这些努力有助于确定npi特有的关键描述性和评估性不变量。接下来是四个阶段:开发、改进、投票和咨询。结果:术语NPI是指以身体、营养或心理社会为重点的预防或护理协议,针对健康问题,并由合格的专业人员个性化。评估框架包括77个不变量——14个伦理变量和63个方法学变量——分布在五种类型的研究中:机械性、观察性、原型性、干预性和实施性。31个学术团体和3个法国卫生当局核准了国家卫生服务系统模式范例。结论:术语NPI应用于描述、可解释、有效、安全和可实施的预防和护理方案。共同构建评价的共识框架应促进国家倡议从研究向实践的转移,促进它们的专业间协调、环境适应、持续改进、培训,并最终促进它们的认可。这一科学范式加强了公共卫生专业人员在为高危或患病人群制定有针对性、有效和可能有资金支持的干预措施方面的作用。它为开发一个开放的无形卫生保健实践注册表铺平了道路,可以编纂、共享、跟踪和改进,并根据用户反馈进行通报。然而,这种模式并不涵盖公共卫生的所有领域。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Améliorer la connaissance et la reconnaissance des interventions non médicamenteuses : implications pour la santé publique d’une étude participative et de consensus.

Introduction: In the absence of a consensus on the definition and evaluation of non-pharmacological interventions (NPI)-despite the use of the concept by the World Health Organization, the French Health Authority, the Ministry of Health, and the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control-this study has co-constructed a consensus-based paradigm aligned with international health research standards. This article outlines its relevance and limitations for public health.

Method: Over a two-year period, the study engaged all stakeholders, i.e., more than 1,000 participants. Participatory workshops based on international health research recommendations and experiential knowledge, and consensus sessions were conducted under the guidance of a multidisciplinary committee and with the logistical support of the Non-Pharmacological Intervention Society. These efforts helped to identify the key descriptive and evaluative invariants specific to NPIs. Four phases followed: development, improvement, voting, and consultation.

Results: The term NPI refers to prevention or care protocols with a physical, nutritional, or psychosocial focus, targeting a health issue and personalized by a qualified professional. The evaluation framework comprises 77 invariants-14 ethical and 63 methodological-distributed across five types of study: mechanistic, observational, prototypical, interventional, and implementation. The NPIS Model paradigm was endorsed by 31 learned societies and three French health authorities.

Conclusion: The term NPI should be reserved for prevention and care protocols that are described, explainable, effective, safe, and implementable. The consensual framework for co-constructed evaluation should promote the transfer of NPIs from research to practice, their interprofessional coordination, contextual adaptation, continuous improvement, training, and, finally, their recognition. This scientific paradigm strengthens the role of public health professionals in developing targeted, efficient, and potentially fundable interventions for at-risk or ill populations. It paves the way for the development of an open registry of intangible health care practices that can be codified, shared, traced, and improved, informed by user feedback. This paradigm does not, however, cover all areas of public health.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Sante Publique
Sante Publique PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
33.30%
发文量
252
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: La revue Santé Publique s’adresse à l’ensemble des acteurs de santé publique qu’ils soient décideurs, professionnels de santé, acteurs de terrain, chercheurs, enseignants ou formateurs, etc. Elle publie des travaux de recherche, des évaluations, des analyses d’action, des réflexions sur des interventions de santé, des opinions, relevant des champs de la santé publique et de l’analyse des services de soins, des sciences sociales et de l’action sociale. Santé publique est une revue à comité de lecture, multidisciplinaire et généraliste, qui publie sur l’ensemble des thèmes de la santé publique parmi lesquels : accès et recours aux soins, déterminants et inégalités sociales de santé, prévention, éducation pour la santé, promotion de la santé, organisation des soins, environnement, formation des professionnels de santé, nutrition, politiques de santé, pratiques professionnelles, qualité des soins, gestion des risques sanitaires, représentation et santé perçue, santé scolaire, santé et travail, systèmes de santé, systèmes d’information, veille sanitaire, déterminants de la consommation de soins, organisation et économie des différents secteurs de production de soins (hôpital, médicament, etc.), évaluation médico-économique d’activités de soins ou de prévention et de programmes de santé, planification des ressources, politiques de régulation et de financement, etc
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信