Arts and Cultural Prescribing in Viet Nam: What Does the Evidence Support, and Where Could Community Partnerships Add Value?

Arts and Cultural Prescribing in Viet Nam: What Does the Evidence Support, and Where Could Community Partnerships Add Value?

Category: Evidence & Evaluation

A person recovering from a prolonged illness has become increasingly disconnected from everyday life. Medical treatment is continuing as planned, but the person rarely meets friends, has stopped participating in familiar activities and feels uncertain about returning to the community. During a conversation, a healthcare professional learns that the individual once enjoyed music and local cultural events but has not attended either for a long time.

Would helping this person reconnect with a suitable arts or cultural activity make a meaningful difference?

The question sounds simple, but answering it responsibly requires more than recommending a museum visit, music class or creative workshop. The activity needs to reflect the person's interests, be accessible in practice and be delivered by an organization capable of providing an appropriate experience. Healthcare professionals also need to recognize where community participation may complement care and where clinical or other professional services remain necessary.

This is where Arts and Cultural Prescribing deserves consideration as a particular application of social prescribing. Rather than treating artistic participation as a medical intervention in itself, the approach seeks to connect people with creative and cultural opportunities that may support well-being, meaningful participation and relationships with others.

For Viet Nam, this opens up possibilities for collaboration beyond healthcare. Museums, libraries, cultural centers, artists, community groups and other cultural institutions may have resources that could complement healthcare and social support. However, the existence of these resources does not mean that an arts-prescribing program is already operating or that its benefits have been demonstrated.

The more useful question is therefore what the evidence actually supports, how healthcare and cultural organizations could work together responsibly, and what would make participation meaningful, accessible and appropriate for the people involved.

Arts and Cultural Prescribing: What are we actually talking about?

Arts and Cultural Prescribing sits at the intersection of healthcare, community participation and the cultural sector, but the terminology is not consistently defined internationally.

Arts on Prescription generally refers to a structured approach in which people are referred by healthcare or other appropriate professionals to community-based artistic activities intended to support health and well-being. Activities may include visual arts, music, singing, creative writing, crafts, theater, movement or other forms of creative expression.

Cultural Prescribing is often used more broadly to describe supported access to cultural experiences, practices and places. These may include museums, galleries, libraries, heritage activities, cultural performances and other forms of participation connected with cultural life.

The two approaches overlap, but they are not necessarily identical. Arts on Prescription often emphasizes participation in a defined artistic program, while Cultural Prescribing may include a wider range of cultural resources and experiences.

A critical narrative review by Son, published in Yonago Acta Medica in August 2026, examined these distinctions. The review described cultural prescribing as an emerging approach connecting people with arts, heritage, cultural practices and meaningful places through referral, facilitation, partnership or co-creation. It also emphasized that definitions and intervention models remain inconsistent.

That uncertainty matters when interpreting evidence. A structured series of creative workshops referred through healthcare is not necessarily comparable to independent museum attendance, community arts participation or a broader cultural inclusion initiative.

Attending an arts activity is not automatically social prescribing. Someone who independently joins a music group or visits a museum may benefit from the experience without participating in a referral or navigation pathway.

Arts and Cultural Prescribing should also be distinguished from art therapy and other professionally delivered therapeutic interventions. Art therapy uses artistic processes within a defined therapeutic relationship and professional framework. Community arts activities are generally organized around creative expression, learning, enjoyment or participation rather than clinical treatment. The professional and legal requirements depend on the actual activities and services provided.

An artist facilitating a workshop does not automatically become a healthcare professional. Equally, a clinician recommending a cultural activity does not make that activity a medically validated treatment.

This distinction does not diminish the importance of cultural participation. Creativity, enjoyment, learning, cultural identity and connection with others can matter to people without needing to be described as therapy.

What does the international evidence actually tell us?

Research on the relationship between arts, culture and health has expanded considerably over the past two decades.

In 2019, the World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe published a major scoping review by Fancourt and Finn examining the role of arts in health and well-being. The report identified more than 900 publications, including over 200 reviews covering more than 3,000 studies, alongside over 700 additional individual studies.

The evidence covered a wide range of artistic activities, populations, settings and outcomes. It identified potential contributions of arts engagement to health promotion, prevention, care and well-being across the life course.

However, this broad body of research should not be interpreted as evidence that thousands of studies have established the effectiveness of Arts on Prescription. The WHO review included therapeutic interventions, ordinary cultural participation, community programs and other forms of artistic engagement that do not necessarily involve structured referral or navigation.

A more directly relevant systematic review and meta-analysis was published by Jensen and colleagues in Frontiers in Public Health in July 2024. The review included 25 research records concerning Arts on Prescription and related approaches from Australia, Denmark, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States.

The authors identified qualitative themes involving social connection, psychological experiences and opportunities for continued participation. Seven studies contributed to a meta-analysis that found a statistically significant improvement in self-reported mental well-being from before to after participation.

These findings were encouraging, but they did not establish that Arts on Prescription caused the observed improvements. Programs differed in duration, activities, participant characteristics and evaluation methods, and much of the research lacked strong comparison groups.

A more recent systematic review by Sá and colleagues, published in Frontiers in Public Health in June 2026, examined eight distinct studies of Arts on Prescription for adults, reported across nine publications.

Five studies were classified as quasi-experimental and three as observational. The programs varied considerably in size, artistic activities, participant characteristics and duration. All eight studies reported improvements in well-being following participation.

However, none had a control group. This means the observed improvements could not confidently be attributed to Arts on Prescription alone. Changes over time, social interaction, participant expectations and the characteristics of those who chose to participate may have influenced the results.

Evidence concerning depression and anxiety was particularly limited. Only one included study reported statistically significant reductions in both outcomes, and those changes did not reach the thresholds for a minimum clinically important difference.

The authors also identified differences in participation and outcomes according to participant characteristics, suggesting that the freedom to choose activities and locations may influence engagement.

An important detail is that the review's literature search ended in November 2024, although the article was published in 2026. Its findings therefore provide a recent synthesis of the studies meeting its criteria, not a complete assessment of every intervention conducted up to October 2026.

The 2024 and 2026 reviews also used different inclusion criteria and may include overlapping primary research. Their findings should not simply be added together as though they represented entirely independent evidence.

Additional research published in 2026 illustrates both the potential and the continuing limitations of the field. In April, Bailey and DiMilia published a longitudinal study of Art Pharmacy, a U.S. arts-based social-prescribing program, examining changes in self-reported mental well-being during participation.

In the baseline-adjusted analysis involving 239 participants, WHO-5 Well-Being Index scores improved significantly over successive follow-up assessments. The findings suggest a positive association between program participation and mental well-being, but the study used a single-group observational design without a concurrent control group. It therefore cannot establish that the arts-prescribing program caused the improvements.

These newer findings are consistent with the broader literature: participants may report meaningful improvements, but stronger comparative research is still needed to establish effectiveness and understand which components contribute to the outcomes observed.

Overall, the evidence available in 2026 provides promising but methodologically limited support for improvements in well-being. Questions remain about causal effectiveness, long-term outcomes, which participants benefit, the most appropriate activities and the contribution of referral or navigation itself.

Arts on Prescription should not be presented as an established treatment for depression, anxiety or other clinical conditions.

What have museum-based prescribing programs shown?

Research involving museums and cultural institutions offers another perspective on how cultural prescribing might work.

The Museums on Prescription project in the United Kingdom connected socially isolated older adults with structured museum-based activities. Researchers from University College London and Canterbury Christ Church University worked with seven partner museums in London and Kent.

The project involved 115 older adults, aged 65–94, referred through relevant health, social-care and voluntary-sector services. Participants attended ten-week programs involving museum collections, creative activities and opportunities for social interaction.

An evaluation published by Thomson and colleagues in 2018 reported improvements in measures of psychological well-being during participation. The findings illustrated how museums might provide opportunities for learning, creative engagement and connection with others.

However, the study did not establish that museum participation caused those improvements. Its eligibility criteria also excluded some people who could not travel to the venue, participate in group activities or meet other requirements. This limits how far the findings can be generalized to people facing greater access barriers.

A later example comes from Barcelona, Spain. In 2024, Mouriño-Ruiz and colleagues published a quasi-experimental evaluation of ArtGran, a museum-based arts intervention designed for older adults experiencing loneliness.

The study involved 138 participants, including 63 in the intervention group and 75 in a comparison group. Participants were recruited through primary care centers, social services and community health services.

At the end of the program, participants in the intervention group were more likely than those in the comparison group to report being able to perform their usual daily activities without problems. Among those attending more than half of the sessions, the researchers also reported more favorable findings concerning loneliness, daily activities and happiness.

These results are relevant because they show how healthcare, social services and cultural institutions can collaborate around a defined community program.

However, the study was not randomized. Findings concerning participants with higher attendance require particular caution because people who attend more sessions may differ in motivation, health, mobility or other characteristics from those who attend fewer.

The study therefore provides encouraging evidence about a specific cultural program, but it does not establish that museum prescribing reliably reduces loneliness or improves health outcomes across different settings and populations.

Both examples suggest that museums can offer more than a physical venue. Collections, shared learning, conversations and creative experiences may create opportunities for participation that differ from conventional healthcare encounters.

The potential benefit, however, depends on what actually happens during the activity, who participates, how the experience is facilitated and whether the environment is appropriate for the individual.

Why might cultural participation matter?

There are several plausible ways arts and cultural experiences may contribute to well-being.

Creative activities can offer opportunities for enjoyment, concentration, emotional expression and learning. Participating with others may create repeated opportunities for conversation and shared experience. Familiar cultural practices may also support personal identity, connection with memories and a sense of belonging.

Son's 2026 review highlighted possible processes involving emotional regulation, meaning-making, identity, learning, social connection and attachment to place.

These processes are useful for understanding why cultural participation may matter, but they should not be treated as mechanisms conclusively established for every Arts and Cultural Prescribing program.

A person may enjoy a music group primarily because they like singing. Another may value the opportunity to meet others regularly. Someone visiting a museum may appreciate discovering something new without wanting extensive social interaction.

The benefits people value may therefore differ from the outcomes a healthcare organization initially expects.

The review by Son also introduced an important perspective from socially engaged art, where participation, dialogue and shared creation are central to the artistic process. This perspective challenges the idea that people should always be passive recipients of an activity selected by professionals.

Some individuals may want to help shape the program, contribute their experience or collaborate in producing something meaningful. Others may simply want to attend a concert, enjoy an exhibition or join a workshop without taking on additional responsibilities.

Neither approach is automatically superior.

Socially engaged art is not synonymous with cultural prescribing, and participation does not need to begin with a clinical referral. Its relevance lies partly in showing that cultural experiences may involve relationships, identity and shared authorship rather than only the delivery of a predefined activity.

For Viet Nam, this offers a useful principle: cultural participation should be considered in terms of what it means to the individual, not only whether it produces a measurable change in a health score.

The choice of activity should begin with the person

One limitation of a standardized arts-prescribing approach is that people do not all enjoy the same forms of cultural participation.

Someone who loves traditional music may have little interest in painting. A person who enjoys reading may prefer a library group to a performance. Someone who has never considered themselves artistic may feel uncomfortable joining a creative workshop if they believe their artistic ability will be judged.

An appropriate connection should therefore begin with the person's interests rather than a predetermined menu.

In Viet Nam, potential cultural opportunities are diverse. Depending on the locality, these might include music, reading groups, creative writing, traditional crafts, visual arts, performances, museum visits or activities involving local cultural heritage.

These are potential community resources, not evidence that structured Arts and Cultural Prescribing programs have already been established through them.

Cultural familiarity may be meaningful for some people. Traditional activities can evoke memories, relationships and identity. Others may prefer contemporary art, photography, theater or learning something entirely new.

Cultural adaptation should not become stereotyping. Someone's age, ethnicity, education or place of residence does not determine which artistic experiences they will enjoy.

It is also important to distinguish between attending as an audience member and actively creating something. Some people may prefer listening to music or observing an exhibition, while others may enjoy making, performing or contributing to a shared project.

The appropriate choice depends on what the individual values and feels comfortable doing. Someone who initially expresses interest may later find the activity unsuitable or simply decide that they do not enjoy it.

A referral should create an opportunity, not an obligation to participate.

Arts and Cultural Prescribing should expand people's choices rather than introduce another expectation they must meet to be considered engaged in their healthcare.

How could healthcare and cultural organizations connect people?

International experience suggests several possible ways to organize referrals and supported participation.

One approach is a direct referral or introduction, where a healthcare or other appropriate professional recognizes a relevant non-clinical need and introduces an interested person to an established cultural activity.

This may be appropriate when the program is clearly defined, the receiving organization understands its responsibilities and the person requires little additional assistance.

For example, a healthcare professional might introduce someone who wants greater social participation to an accessible community arts program operated by a known partner. The individual could then decide whether the activity suits their interests and circumstances.

A second approach involves care navigation or link-worker support. In this model, a navigator helps the person consider different opportunities, understand practical barriers and make a connection that might otherwise be difficult.

Someone who previously enjoyed cultural activities but has lost confidence after illness may need help identifying suitable options, learning what a program involves or arranging an introduction.

Navigation may be useful when information alone is insufficient. However, it should not add unnecessary complexity when the person can comfortably participate independently.

A third approach involves an organized partnership between healthcare, social-work services and cultural institutions. Rather than making occasional referrals, the participating organizations establish a defined process for introducing people to an agreed program.

For Viet Nam, such an arrangement might involve a hospital's existing social-work service, an appropriate care-navigation function and a museum, library or community arts organization willing to develop a suitable activity.

This would require the partners to understand the people they intend to support, the activities available, the receiving organization's capacity and the responsibilities of each participant.

These are possible models for local exploration, not established national Arts and Cultural Prescribing pathways in Viet Nam.

The key distinction is that the referral process should reflect the support people actually need. More stages, more forms or a more elaborate navigation system do not necessarily produce a better connection.

What makes a cultural organization ready to receive referrals?

A museum, library, cultural center, gallery or community arts group may have extensive experience delivering public activities without previous experience receiving referrals from healthcare.

That does not automatically make it unsuitable. However, participation in a structured referral pathway may create expectations different from those associated with ordinary public programming.

The first consideration is whether the activity is clearly understood. What will participants actually do? Is the program intended for beginners? Does it require particular physical, communication or artistic abilities? Is attendance flexible, or are participants expected to attend a series of sessions?

The second is accessibility. A workshop may be appealing but difficult to reach because of transportation costs, stairs, unsuitable seating, limited restroom facilities or inconvenient scheduling.

Sensory conditions may also matter. A noisy performance, crowded exhibition or visually demanding activity may not be appropriate for everyone.

The third is the experience of the facilitator. A skilled artist may be highly competent in their creative discipline without having specific experience supporting participants with disabilities, communication difficulties or particular healthcare-related needs.

Equally, healthcare professionals may have extensive clinical expertise without the skills needed to design or facilitate cultural activities.

These forms of expertise should complement rather than replace one another.

Healthcare organizations should also understand what the cultural partner actually provides. A painting workshop is not psychological treatment. A museum visit is not rehabilitation. A community music group may offer enjoyment and social contact without being a clinical therapeutic service.

Where someone has a significant clinical or psychological concern, appropriate professional assessment may be necessary before or alongside community participation.

The receiving organization needs to consider group size, staffing, materials, participation costs, continuity and what happens when someone's needs exceed the support available.

A cultural partner should not be expected to absorb unlimited referrals or provide extensive individualized assistance simply because the activity is considered beneficial.

An appropriate partnership therefore depends not only on the value of the cultural resource, but also on whether the organization can reliably and responsibly offer the experience being proposed.

Healthcare and cultural organizations should be genuine partners

There is a risk that Arts and Cultural Prescribing becomes a healthcare-led approach in which cultural organizations are treated simply as destinations for referrals.

That would overlook the knowledge and purpose of the cultural sector.

Artists and cultural professionals understand creative processes, cultural meaning, facilitation and how people engage with different forms of expression. Museums and libraries also have their own public missions, staffing arrangements, operating requirements and resource limitations.

A healthcare organization may recognize that someone would welcome greater social participation, but it may not know how to create a meaningful artistic experience.

The most useful partnership therefore involves shared planning rather than healthcare professionals selecting an activity and expecting a cultural organization to deliver it without further discussion.

Recent implementation research supports this perspective. In February 2026, Hinrichsen and colleagues published a realist-informed scoping review in Arts & Health, combining a literature review with stakeholder workshops to identify strategies relevant to implementing Arts on Prescription.

The researchers identified 48 implementation strategies across five broad areas: awareness of Arts on Prescription; relevant knowledge and competencies; organizational arrangements, collaboration and infrastructure; facilitation of the participant experience; and evaluation and feedback.

These strategies offer a structured way to think about implementation, but the review did not establish that all 48 strategies are effective or necessary in every setting.

Its importance lies in showing that implementation depends on more than finding a suitable activity. Organizations need to understand one another's responsibilities, prepare participants appropriately and ensure that the program can be maintained.

An additional lesson comes from a U.S. study published by Krause and colleagues in June 2026 examining ArtsRx, an arts-prescribing program organized through a cultural institution in New Jersey. The researchers analyzed administrative records concerning 498 individuals referred to the program between 2023 and 2025.

At the time of analysis, 21.9% had completed the program, 45.7% had withdrawn, and the remaining individuals were still enrolled or had not completed enrollment. The study also found that engagement varied according to referral source and program year.

These figures should not be interpreted as universal completion rates for Arts and Cultural Prescribing. They describe one program, and the research was observational rather than an effectiveness trial. However, they illustrate an important implementation problem: introducing people to an activity does not ensure that they will attend or remain engaged.

The study also highlights why collaboration between referring organizations and cultural partners matters. People may need clear information, an accessible introduction and support appropriate to their circumstances before a cultural opportunity becomes a meaningful experience.

For Viet Nam, this suggests that healthcare and cultural partners should be involved together from the beginning. Artists, facilitators, healthcare professionals, social-work personnel, navigators and prospective participants bring different forms of knowledge.

A partnership should also acknowledge the work involved in delivering a program. Artistic preparation, materials, facilitation, accessibility adjustments and coordination all require time and resources.

Cultural organizations should not be expected to provide these contributions without appropriate arrangements or compensation simply because the project has a healthcare-related purpose.

The principle is straightforward: a partnership should respect the expertise and responsibilities of both sectors while creating opportunities that matter to participants.

Viet Nam has cultural resources worth exploring, but availability is not the same as readiness

Viet Nam has a rich and varied cultural landscape, including museums, libraries, performance spaces, cultural institutions, traditional crafts and many forms of community artistic activity.

These resources create opportunities to explore connections between healthcare and cultural participation.

However, the existence of a museum, library or cultural center does not establish that it currently operates an appropriate Arts or Cultural Prescribing program.

A public exhibition may be designed for general visitors rather than a group requiring additional assistance. A community arts workshop may operate intermittently. A library may provide useful activities but lack the staff or arrangements needed to receive referrals. A museum may be accessible to some visitors but difficult for others to reach or navigate.

These distinctions are particularly important when considering whether a potential partnership can move beyond a promising idea.

The legal environment also needs to be understood accurately.

Viet Nam's Law No. 45/2024/QH15 on Cultural Heritage, effective from 1 July 2025, establishes an important framework for the protection, management and promotion of cultural heritage. Law No. 46/2019/QH14 on Libraries, effective from 1 July 2020, regulates library organization and activities.

These laws are relevant to particular cultural institutions that may become partners. They do not establish Arts and Cultural Prescribing as a nationally recognized healthcare service or automatically authorize cultural institutions to provide clinical treatment.

The legal requirements for a specific cultural program depend on its actual activities, organizer, location and services. A museum education session, public performance, creative workshop and professional therapeutic intervention may involve different obligations.

On the healthcare side, Circular No. 51/2024/TT-BYT, effective from 1 March 2025, regulates social-work services in medical examination and treatment establishments licensed to operate as hospitals.

These services include assessment of psychosocial needs and appropriate coordination with external organizations and community resources. This creates a relevant professional context for exploring hospital–community partnerships, but it does not establish a dedicated national Arts on Prescription pathway.

Where navigation activities fall within regulated professional social-work practice, Decree No. 110/2024/ND-CP on Social Work and Circular No. 29/2026/TT-BYT also need to be considered.

The opportunity for Viet Nam is therefore to investigate whether existing healthcare and cultural institutions could develop clearly defined, lawful and feasible forms of collaboration.

It should not be assumed that a standardized national program already exists or that an international model can be adopted without adaptation.

Safety and privacy need attention without turning culture into clinical care

Arts and cultural activities may appear relatively low-risk, but not every program will be suitable for every participant.

Some involve physical movement, tools, materials, prolonged sitting or standing, or environments that may be difficult for people with particular mobility or sensory limitations.

Creative activities can also involve emotional experiences. Writing about personal memories, discussing sensitive artwork or participating in activities involving illness, loss or family relationships may be meaningful for some people but distressing for others.

An arts facilitator should not be expected to provide psychological treatment when someone becomes distressed or discloses a serious mental-health concern. Appropriate professional boundaries and routes to qualified support should be understood in advance.

Privacy also matters. Someone referred through healthcare should not automatically have their diagnosis or personal circumstances disclosed to artists, volunteers or other participants.

Photographs of workshops, recordings of performances and publication of participants' creative work require appropriate consideration of consent, personal data protection and applicable intellectual property rights.

Viet Nam's Law No. 91/2025/QH15 on Personal Data Protection and Decree No. 356/2025/ND-CP, both effective from 1 January 2026, are relevant where participating organizations collect, process or share personal information.

Agreement to participate in a cultural activity should not be treated as automatic permission to publish someone's health condition, personal story, image or creative work.

These safeguards are important, but they should remain proportionate. The purpose is not to make a museum visit or creative workshop resemble a clinical appointment.

It is to ensure that participants can enjoy the activity, understand what is expected and receive appropriate assistance if a relevant concern arises.

What could an initial Vietnamese partnership look like?

An early Arts and Cultural Prescribing initiative in Viet Nam would be more credible if it began with a clearly defined purpose and a small number of partners capable of delivering suitable activities.

For example, a healthcare organization might explore a partnership with a cultural institution offering accessible creative workshops for adults who wish to reconnect with meaningful activities after a period of illness.

Another setting might consider collaboration with a library or museum for people interested in learning, cultural participation or rebuilding social relationships.

These are possible approaches, not descriptions of programs already validated in Viet Nam.

Before implementation, the participating organizations should understand whether the proposed activity addresses a need that people themselves consider important.

The cultural partner would need to confirm what it can provide, whether participation is accessible and whether additional support can reasonably be accommodated.

The referral arrangement should then reflect the individual's actual needs. Some people may require only information and an introduction. Others may benefit from assistance selecting an activity, overcoming transportation barriers or becoming familiar with an unfamiliar venue.

The partners should agree on responsibilities without asking cultural facilitators to perform clinical assessments or healthcare professionals to direct artistic practice beyond their expertise.

A particularly useful question is whether supported navigation makes a meaningful difference compared with ordinary public access to the same activity.

If someone can comfortably attend independently, a formal healthcare referral may add little value. If the person would otherwise remain excluded because of uncertainty, lack of information or practical barriers, an appropriate introduction or navigation support may make participation more realistic.

An initial partnership should therefore test the connection between people and cultural resources, rather than assuming in advance that the activity will produce a clinical benefit.

Evaluation should ask whether participation mattered

Evaluation of Arts and Cultural Prescribing should not stop at the number of referrals made, workshops organized or people attending.

These measures describe program activity, but they do not establish whether participation was meaningful or whether the connection improved someone's experience of everyday life.

A person may attend several sessions without enjoying them. Another may participate once and discover a cultural space they want to revisit independently. Someone may value meeting other participants more than the artistic activity itself, while another may prefer the creative experience without wanting extensive social interaction.

These differences matter when selecting outcomes.

For an early Vietnamese initiative, evaluation could examine whether the activity was acceptable, whether participants could access it, whether the experience matched their interests and whether the cultural partner could deliver the program as intended.

Participant-reported outcomes might include well-being, enjoyment, social connection, confidence in participating, a sense of belonging or engagement in personally valued activities.

Where standardized measures developed internationally are used, their suitability for Vietnamese language and cultural contexts should be assessed rather than assumed.

The experiences of people who decline or discontinue participation also deserve attention. Transportation difficulties, costs, discomfort, lack of interest or unsuitable scheduling may explain why an otherwise promising activity is not accessible or appealing.

The cultural organization's experience matters as well. Were referrals appropriate? Did staff have sufficient time and resources? Could the activity accommodate participants' needs without requiring facilitators to undertake work outside their competence?

A more rigorous evaluation would also distinguish the contribution of the artistic activity from that of social interaction, facilitator support and the referral or navigation process. These elements may be difficult to separate in a small pilot, but the limitation should be acknowledged.

Most importantly, improvement after participation does not automatically mean improvement because of participation.

An uncontrolled pilot may identify promising changes in well-being or social connection, but it cannot establish that Arts and Cultural Prescribing caused those changes. Claims about reductions in depression, improved clinical outcomes, reduced healthcare use or financial savings require evidence and research designs capable of supporting those conclusions.

At the same time, evaluation should not reduce the value of culture to health scores alone. Learning something new, enjoying a performance, expressing creativity or feeling connected to a place may be personally meaningful even when no measurable clinical change occurs.

A responsible evaluation should recognize these experiences while remaining clear about what they do and do not demonstrate.

Cultural participation could become a meaningful bridge between healthcare and community life

Arts and Cultural Prescribing offers an opportunity to explore relationships between sectors that do not always work closely together.

Healthcare organizations may recognize that people face difficulties involving isolation, reduced confidence or the loss of meaningful activities. Cultural organizations may have spaces, expertise and programs that offer opportunities for creativity, learning and participation.

Care navigation could help connect these two worlds when people need additional support to reach opportunities that matter to them.

However, the potential lies not simply in creating more referrals to cultural activities. It lies in developing partnerships where individual choice remains central, the experience is appropriate and each organization understands its contribution.

The evidence available in 2026 provides encouraging reasons to explore Arts and Cultural Prescribing, particularly in relation to well-being and meaningful participation. Important uncertainties remain concerning causal effectiveness, long-term outcomes, implementation, sustainability and the contribution of navigation itself.

For Viet Nam, the question should therefore not be how to prescribe more museum visits, music classes or creative workshops. It should be where arts and cultural participation could offer meaningful opportunities for people whose social needs extend beyond clinical care, and how healthcare and cultural partners could make those opportunities accessible without presenting them as treatments they have not been shown to be.

A responsible approach would begin with modest, well-defined partnerships, respect the expertise and autonomy of the cultural sector, and evaluate what participants actually experience.

If developed in this way, Arts and Cultural Prescribing could become a useful area of collaboration within Social Prescribing & Community-Connected Care in Viet Nam, not by turning culture into medicine, but by helping people reconnect with meaningful parts of life that healthcare alone may not be able to provide.

References

1. Sá ÉF, Monteiro-Soares M, Ribas MJ, Banzi A, Henriques JS, Loureiro D, Monteiro L, Baptista S. Arts on prescription for wellbeing in adults: systematic review. Frontiers in Public Health. 2026;14:1833798. doi:10.3389/fpubh.2026.1833798.

2. Jensen A, Holt N, Honda S, Bungay H. The impact of arts on prescription on individual health and wellbeing: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Frontiers in Public Health. 2024;12:1412306. doi:10.3389/fpubh.2024.1412306.

3. Son D. Cultural Prescribing: Concepts, Evidence, Implementation, and the Contribution of Socially Engaged Art. Yonago Acta Medica. 2026;69(3):248–260. doi:10.33160/yam.2026.08.006.

4. Hinrichsen C, Hassing HR, Mairey IP, Broholm-Jørgensen M. Identifying and defining implementation strategies for arts on prescription programs – a realist informed scoping review. Arts & Health. Published online 19 February 2026. doi:10.1080/17533015.2026.2631581.

5. Fancourt D, Finn S. What is the evidence on the role of the arts in improving health and well-being? A scoping review. Health Evidence Network Synthesis Report 67. Copenhagen: World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe; 2019.

6. Thomson LJ, Lockyer B, Camic PM, Chatterjee HJ. Effects of a museum-based social prescription intervention on quantitative measures of psychological wellbeing in older adults. Perspectives in Public Health. 2018;138(1):28–38. doi:10.1177/1757913917737563.

7. Mouriño-Ruiz R, Serral G, Continente X, López MJ, Lapena C, Puigpinós-Riera R. Evaluation of effectiveness of an art-based museum intervention in reducing loneliness among older adults (ArtGran): a quasi-experimental study. Public Health. 2024;230:149–156. doi:10.1016/j.puhe.2024.02.024.

8. Bailey LR, DiMilia PR. Changes in mental health during participation in Art Pharmacy: a longitudinal study of a U.S. arts-based social prescribing program. Frontiers in Public Health. 2026;14:1799519. doi:10.3389/fpubh.2026.1799519.

9. Krause KD, Kairios R, Masamitsu T, Lyra K, Lokuta AM. ArtsRx as an arts prescribing model: leveraging CRM data to understand participation and engagement. Frontiers in Public Health. 2026;14:1800466. doi:10.3389/fpubh.2026.1800466.

10. World Health Organization Regional Office for the Western Pacific. A Toolkit on How to Implement Social Prescribing. Manila: World Health Organization Regional Office for the Western Pacific; 2022.

11. National Assembly of Viet Nam. Law No. 45/2024/QH15 on Cultural Heritage. Enacted 23 November 2024. Effective 1 July 2025.

12. National Assembly of Viet Nam. Law No. 46/2019/QH14 on Libraries. Enacted 21 November 2019. Effective 1 July 2020.

13. Ministry of Health of Viet Nam. Circular No. 51/2024/TT-BYT on the implementation of social work in medical examination and treatment establishments. Effective 1 March 2025.

14. Government of Viet Nam. Decree No. 110/2024/ND-CP on Social Work. Effective 15 October 2024.

15. Ministry of Health of Viet Nam. Circular No. 29/2026/TT-BYT on social-work practice and updating professional social-work knowledge. Effective 25 August 2026.

16. National Assembly of Viet Nam. Law No. 91/2025/QH15 on Personal Data Protection. Effective 1 January 2026.

17. Government of Viet Nam. Decree No. 356/2025/ND-CP detailing certain articles and measures for implementation of the Law on Personal Data Protection. Effective 1 January 2026.

This article provides an educational and evidence-focused discussion of Arts and Cultural Prescribing in Viet Nam. It does not establish that a particular arts- or culture-based social-prescribing model has been validated or implemented nationally in Viet Nam, nor does it constitute medical or legal advice. The suitability of activities, professional responsibilities, organizational arrangements and applicable legal requirements should be assessed according to the circumstances of each proposed program and the people it intends to support.