Community Asset Mapping for Social Prescribing in Viet Nam: How Can We Build a Living Resource Directory That Stays Accurate, Accessible and Useful?

Community Asset Mapping for Social Prescribing in Viet Nam: How Can We Build a Living Resource Directory That Stays Accurate, Accessible and Useful?

Category: Implementation & Practice

Social prescribing depends on knowing what exists beyond the walls of healthcare. A navigator may have an excellent conversation about what matters to a person, but that conversation has limited value if the next step depends on an outdated spreadsheet, an activity that stopped months ago, a service that no longer accepts new participants or a community resource that was never suitable for the person's needs in the first place.

This makes community asset mapping more than an administrative exercise. It is part of the infrastructure of community-connected care. The challenge is not simply to create a long list of organizations. It is to understand what resources and strengths exist, who they may be useful for, how people can reach them, whether they remain available, what barriers may prevent access, how different community actors are connected, and how that knowledge stays trustworthy over time.

For Viet Nam, this is particularly important. Formal, structured social prescribing is still emerging, and the published evidence captured to date remains very limited. A Western Pacific scoping review published in 2026 included 42 peer-reviewed studies and 13 grey-literature sources, but only one peer-reviewed study came from Viet Nam. Its literature searches were completed in November 2024, so the review should not be interpreted as a complete picture of everything that may have developed since then. Across the evidence it captured, social-prescribing and related models varied substantially in structure, funding and referral arrangements, while limited resources and fragmented referral processes were recurring implementation challenges.

A Vietnamese approach should therefore not begin by importing somebody else's directory. It should begin by understanding the communities that people actually live in.

Asset mapping is broader than a service directory

The terms community asset and community resource are often used loosely, but distinguishing them can be useful.

A community asset can be much broader than a formal service. It may include organizations, associations, activities, public spaces, volunteer networks, community leaders, cultural resources, people's skills and knowledge, local businesses or informal forms of mutual support. WHO describes community mapping as a systematic approach to understanding the people, places and resources within a community and the relationships among them.

That last point matters. A useful asset map should reveal more than what exists. It can help identify which organizations already work together, which local actors connect different parts of the community, where strong relationships already exist and where important gaps remain.

Methodological work published in Health Policy and Planning in 2026 takes a similar approach. Chen and colleagues describe asset mapping as a community-partnership process that combines structured desk research with local qualitative knowledge. Their five-step approach also emphasizes identifying super-connectors — people or organizations that can help locate other assets and connect different parts of a community.

A social-prescribing resource directory, however, needs to be more operational. A navigator needs to know not only that an asset exists, but whether it can realistically support the person considering that connection.

What does the resource actually offer? Who is it intended for? Are there eligibility criteria? Is there a fee? Where and when does it operate? Is it physically accessible? Does participation require digital access? Can someone attend with a caregiver or family member? Does the person make contact directly, or is a referral expected? Is the resource currently accepting new participants?

This is why asset map, resource directory and referral network are related but not identical concepts.

A park may be a community asset. An informal walking group may also be an asset. A clinically delivered rehabilitation service may appear on a broader local resource map, but clinically indicated rehabilitation should not be reframed as a social-prescribing activity. The information, professional responsibilities and referral arrangements associated with these different resources are not the same.

What new 2026 evidence adds

Community-resource mapping in social prescribing has historically been highly local and inconsistent. Two studies published in 2026 help make the field more structured.

The first is COMPASS™, the Community Resource Mapping Tool for Social Prescribing. The original instrument contained 36 items and was refined through a two-round modified Delphi process to 21 items covering resource identification, target population, implementation characteristics, accessibility, costs, referral and coordination mechanisms, and evaluation.

The Portuguese version was subsequently field-tested on 16 community resources in one Lisbon-area municipality. Overall item completion was 95.5%, and average completion time was 14.8 minutes. The tool was also rated highly for perceived completeness and usefulness.

These are promising findings, but COMPASS™ should not yet be treated as an international standard. Only five experts completed both Delphi rounds, and the initial field testing took place in one municipality. The authors explicitly describe this as an early stage in the validation pathway and call for further testing in larger, more diverse and operational social-prescribing settings.

COMPASS™ is also not a software platform. It is a structured information framework that can be completed on paper, electronically or potentially embedded in a digital directory. That distinction is useful for Viet Nam because the first question should not be:

Which app should we build?

It should be:

What information do we actually need to support a responsible community connection?

The tool is also the intellectual property of its developers. Formal translation, adaptation or commercial use would need to follow the relevant permission arrangements rather than simply reproducing its 21 items.

The second important example is Singapore's Living Asset Map Project, or LAMP. A 2026 participatory-action-research study examined a controlled-crowdsourcing platform intended to improve the visibility of community assets relevant to social prescribing. Social-prescribing practitioners contributed through interviews, field validation and community walks. The approach helped surface informal community resources that formal lists could overlook, while also revealing challenges involving data categorization, quality assurance, organizational incentives, engagement and sustainability.

LAMP was primarily practitioner-led rather than a broad community co-design process, so its findings should not be extended further than the study supports. Its practical lesson is still important: a living directory is an ongoing governance and relationship process, not simply a technology product.

What should a living resource directory contain?

Viet Nam does not currently have a national social-prescribing framework specifying a minimum dataset for a community resource directory. For an early pilot, however, a practical minimum information set could include several core elements.

The first is a clear description of what the resource actually does. A name such as “community club” or “support center” tells a navigator very little.

The directory should also describe the intended users and any eligibility requirements. Some activities may be open to everyone. Others may serve older adults, caregivers, people experiencing financial hardship, particular geographic communities or people with specific support needs. These categories should guide appropriate connections without becoming a reason to stereotype individuals.

Practical access information matters just as much: location, operating hours, transportation, physical accessibility, language, participation cost, digital requirements and whether a person can attend with a caregiver or family member may all determine whether a resource is actually usable.

The entry should also explain how first contact happens. Can the person call or attend directly? Is registration required? Does the organization accept structured referrals? Is there a waiting list? Who should be contacted when a referral is unclear?

Where relevant, information may also be useful about staff or volunteer roles, limits of the service, basic safety arrangements and how concerns are escalated when someone's needs exceed what the resource can provide.

Finally, every operational directory should record something that static directories often overlook:

when the information was last verified.

Without that, a navigator cannot easily distinguish an entry checked last week from information that has not been reviewed for two years.

A living directory needs ownership, relationships and continuous verification

Community information changes. Funding ends. Staff leave. Activities move. Fees change. Waiting lists appear. Volunteer-led programs pause. New groups emerge, while others change eligibility or disappear.

A resource directory therefore needs clear ownership.

Someone needs responsibility for deciding who can create or edit records, how duplicate entries are handled, how errors are reported, how outdated resources are archived and how community partners communicate changes.

The 2026 asset-mapping methodology by Chen and colleagues emphasizes data stewardship, community partnership, systematic documentation and combining formal information with local knowledge rather than treating asset mapping as a one-time exercise. Singapore's LAMP reaches a similar conclusion from a digital implementation perspective: sustained usefulness depends on data quality, governance, organizational incentives and continuing participation.

Relationships themselves are also assets. A directory may record that an organization exists, but a functioning community-connected pathway may also need to understand that the organization already has a trusted relationship with a local community, that one local actor links several smaller groups, or that two organizations already work closely together.

This is where asset mapping becomes more useful than inventory.

A sophisticated digital platform with no ownership, relationships or maintenance process will eventually become an attractive but unreliable database. A simple spreadsheet with clear responsibility, active partnerships and disciplined verification may initially be more useful.

Capacity creates a particular challenge because it can change quickly. A group that accepts new participants this month may be full next month. A counseling service may develop a waiting list. A volunteer-based activity may temporarily stop when a coordinator leaves.

A living directory should therefore distinguish relatively stable information — such as the broad purpose or location of a resource — from dynamic information such as current availability, waiting time or whether new connections are temporarily paused.

Not every community organization will be able to update a digital platform every week. Requiring that level of administration could exclude smaller organizations with strong local relationships.

Verification therefore needs to be proportionate. Larger formal referral partners may be able to maintain electronic status updates. Smaller groups may be checked periodically by telephone or through a named contact. Stable, low-risk public assets may require much lighter maintenance.

There is no single update interval that will be appropriate for every resource. A more useful question is:

How quickly could incorrect information make this resource unusable, inappropriate or unsafe?

Map broadly, but verify proportionately before referral

For implementation purposes, an early Vietnamese pilot may find it useful to distinguish three levels.

A mapped asset is something the project knows exists and that may be relevant to health or well-being.

A verified resource is an asset for which enough important information has been checked recently to support informed navigation.

A referral partner is a resource with a more established working relationship with the pathway, including clearer expectations about access, capacity, communication and escalation.

This is not an international taxonomy or regulatory classification. It is a practical implementation framework that can help avoid two opposite mistakes.

The first is mapping too narrowly and recognizing only highly formal organizations, thereby missing informal groups, locally trusted activities and other community strengths.

The second is mapping too broadly and treating everything discovered as automatically appropriate for structured referral.

Broad mapping combined with proportionate verification allows a pathway to recognize the richness of community life without turning every community group into a healthcare provider.

It also clarifies the difference between information, navigation and referral. A navigator may tell someone about a local activity without the healthcare organization creating a formal referral partnership with that activity.

Build with communities and existing Vietnamese assets

Asset mapping should not depend entirely on internet searches, institutional databases or healthcare professionals.

People who live and work locally often know about activities, places and networks that formal systems do not see. WHO's broader community-mapping work emphasizes community participation because residents, local organizations, businesses and other stakeholders may identify meaningful assets differently from institutions.

The 2026 public-health asset-mapping methodology similarly recommends combining desk-based identification with local qualitative knowledge and working through community partnerships and connectors.

For Viet Nam, mapping could therefore combine existing administrative information with input from healthcare professionals, social workers, community organizations, local stakeholders and community members. In some settings, field visits or neighborhood walks may reveal resources that would never appear in an online search.

This is particularly important where formal organizations are less dense. A rural or geographically isolated community may look relatively empty in an institutional directory while still containing important local networks, trusted leaders, meeting spaces, associations and informal sources of support.

Participation does not mean that every suggested resource automatically becomes a verified referral option.

It means broadening what the system is able to see.

Viet Nam also already has community infrastructure that should be understood on its own terms rather than relabeled. One example is the network of Intergenerational Self-Help Clubs. Decision No. 1648/QĐ-TTg, issued on 1 August 2025, approved expansion of the model through 2035.

These clubs are not social-prescribing services simply because they might appear on a community asset map.

The same principle applies to associations, cultural activities, exercise groups, peer-support initiatives, social-work services, volunteer networks, rehabilitation resources and other existing organizations. Their original functions, professional boundaries and legal identities should remain clear.

Asset mapping should reveal what Viet Nam already has, not rename the community to fit a social-prescribing vocabulary.

Accessibility, choice and equity need to be visible

A resource can exist, be open and still be inaccessible.

A person may be unable to climb stairs. Public transportation may not reach the location. Participation may require a smartphone. A seemingly modest fee may still be unaffordable. An activity may technically accept older adults but take place at a time when transportation from family members is unavailable.

COMPASS™ explicitly includes domains relating to accessibility, participation barriers, costs and referral or coordination mechanisms. For a Vietnamese directory, accessibility should therefore not be reduced to one yes-or-no field.

A navigator needs enough information to answer a more practical question:

Can this particular person realistically use this resource?

That is different from asking whether the resource exists.

Equity also matters at the level of the map itself. A directory may become rich in urban resources while remaining sparse in rural or underserved communities. It may contain many fee-based activities and few affordable options. Informal but important resources may be missing simply because they have little online presence.

The map should therefore be examined for gaps in representation, not only growth in the number of entries.

People using the pathway should also have meaningful choices. A directory designed only for professionals may be technically detailed but difficult for community members to understand.

Where appropriate, descriptions should explain in plain language what happens at the resource, what participation involves, whether there is a cost, how first contact works and whether a family member or caregiver can join.

The purpose is not for the system to identify a single “correct” community activity and prescribe it.

It is to support an informed conversation about options that may fit what matters to the person.

Governance, boundaries and data protection need to remain proportionate

A community resource directory and a personal referral record are not the same thing.

A directory can usually contain mainly organizational information: the name of the resource, what it offers, location, hours, participation criteria, cost and generic contact information. Keeping this information layer separate from identifiable referral data can reduce unnecessary complexity and data exposure.

Personal-data obligations can still arise. A named individual's direct contact information may itself be personal data. And once a directory is integrated with a system that records who was referred, why they were referred or what health or social needs they have, the governance requirements become considerably greater.

Viet Nam's Law No. 91/2025/QH15 on Personal Data Protection and Decree No. 356/2025/ND-CP have both been in force since 1 January 2026. Health information receives specific protection under the Law. Where identifiable health information is collected, processed or shared, applicable requirements — including consent provisions subject to statutory exceptions — need to be considered.

An early resource directory should therefore avoid collecting personal or clinical information merely because the technology makes it possible.

A resource directory should not quietly become a database of people's social and health problems.

Governance also needs to clarify what inclusion in a directory means. Being listed should not automatically imply accreditation, certification, endorsement or a formal referral relationship.

A resource may simply be known to exist. It may have been recently verified. It may be suitable for certain forms of navigation. Or it may be part of a more formal referral partnership.

These are not necessarily the same thing.

Higher-risk services or resources supporting people with greater vulnerability may require more structured assurance than low-risk community participation. A walking group should not automatically be expected to meet the same governance requirements as a professional service.

Hospital-based mapping should also build on existing Vietnamese structures rather than duplicate them. Circular No. 51/2024/TT-BYT, effective from 1 March 2025, regulates social-work implementation in medical examination and treatment establishments and applies to establishments licensed to operate as hospitals. Circular No. 29/2026/TT-BYT, effective from 25 August 2026, regulates social-work practice and the updating of social-work knowledge.

These regulations do not establish social prescribing. But hospital social-work teams may already hold valuable knowledge about external services, referral relationships and community resources. A new social-prescribing initiative should understand and build on this knowledge rather than create a competing directory simply because it uses a different label.

Start locally, maintain continuously and learn from use

Viet Nam does not need a national social-prescribing database before an organization can test community asset mapping responsibly.

A practical pilot could begin with one population, one geographic area and one manageable set of needs.

A hospital discharge pathway might initially map resources related to mobility, social connection, caregiver support and practical assistance. A community-based pathway for people living with long-term conditions might focus on physical activity, peer support, social participation and selected practical needs.

The first stage is discovery: combine existing records, desk research, healthcare and social-work knowledge, community organizations and local stakeholder input.

The second is characterization: document what resources actually provide, whom they may serve, accessibility, participation requirements, costs and contact pathways. Structured tools such as COMPASS™ can inform this work, but they should be adapted thoughtfully rather than treated as universal standards.

The third is verification: confirm important information with the resource itself or another reliable source rather than relying solely on historical records or websites.

The fourth is operational classification: distinguish resources that have merely been identified from those sufficiently verified for navigation or included in more formal referral relationships.

The fifth is maintenance: assign responsibility for the information, record verification dates, give community partners a practical way to report changes and archive resources that are no longer available.

This broadly aligns with emerging 2026 asset-mapping methodology, which emphasizes systematic identification, local qualitative knowledge, community partnership, structured documentation and stewardship rather than one-off inventory creation.

Most importantly, the directory should learn from actual use.

Which resources do navigators repeatedly search for? Which information is commonly missing? Which connections fail because a phone number, schedule or eligibility criterion was wrong? Which resources repeatedly have no capacity? Which needs have few or no suitable local options?

Those answers should feed back into the map.

Measure the quality of the directory itself

If a living directory is part of implementation infrastructure, its performance should also be evaluated.

The number of resources listed is one of the easiest measures — and one of the least useful on its own. A directory containing 2,000 outdated entries may be less valuable than one containing 100 well-characterized resources that are actively maintained.

More meaningful indicators could include the proportion of active entries recently verified, completeness of critical information, inactive or duplicate records, failed connections attributable to incorrect directory information, time required to identify a suitable resource, coverage across geographic areas and types of need, and feedback from navigators, community partners and people using the pathway.

Equity should also be assessed. Are free or low-cost resources visible? Are accessible options represented? Are particular neighborhoods rich in mapped resources while others are almost blank? Are informal but valuable assets consistently missed because they have no website or administrative staff?

These measures turn asset mapping from an inventory exercise into an implementation-learning process.

From a static list to living community knowledge

The greatest risk in community asset mapping is not failing to discover enough resources.

It is creating a directory once, celebrating its completion and then allowing it to become obsolete.

Community organizations change. Capacity changes. People's needs change. New assets emerge. Others disappear. Relationships develop. The pathway itself learns which connections work, which fail and where important gaps remain.

For Viet Nam, the purpose of community asset mapping should therefore not be to create the largest possible database.

It should be to build trusted, usable and continuously maintained knowledge about local community resources and relationships that helps people make appropriate connections.

That requires more than software. It requires local knowledge, relationships, ownership, verification, community participation, proportionate governance and continuous feedback from real navigation and referrals.

The goal is not simply to know what exists in the community.

It is to know enough, and to keep that knowledge current enough — to help the right person reach the right support at the right time.

That is what turns community asset mapping from a static inventory into part of a functioning system of community-connected care.

References

1. Chen X, Ye E, Fong N, et al. How to do (or not to do)… asset mapping in community health. Health Policy and Planning. 2026;41(3):513–526. doi:10.1093/heapol/czag006.

2. de Sul S, Santos-Costa P, Costa A. A standardised instrument for community resource mapping in social prescribing: development and content validation of the COMPASS™ tool. Archives of Public Health. 2026;84:172. doi:10.1186/s13690-026-01982-4.

3. Nah JQH, Leong DQX, Wong MSJ, Lee KH. Enhancing social prescribing through controlled-crowdsourcing: participatory action research of a community asset-mapping platform in Singapore. Health Policy and Technology. 2026;15(6):101220. doi:10.1016/j.hlpt.2026.101220.

4. Lwin KS, Wong MSJ, Tan MH, et al. Organization and implementation of social prescribing in the Western Pacific Region: a scoping review. The Lancet Regional Health – Western Pacific. 2026;67:101714. doi:10.1016/j.lanwpc.2025.101714.

5. World Health Organization Regional Office for the Western Pacific. A toolkit on how to implement social prescribing. Manila: WHO Regional Office for the Western Pacific; 2022.

6. World Health Organization. Connecting generations: planning and implementing interventions for intergenerational contact. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2023.

7. Prime Minister of Viet Nam. Decision No. 1648/QĐ-TTg approving the project to expand Intergenerational Self-Help Clubs through 2035. 1 August 2025.

8. 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.

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

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

11. 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.