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}
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.
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