Social Prescribing After Floods and Storms in Viet Nam: Where Could Care Navigation Support Community Reconnection, and When Must Emergency and Specialist Services Lead?
VIET NAM CONTEXTIMPLEMENTATION & PRACTICE
Social Prescribing After Floods and Storms in Viet Nam: Where Could Care Navigation Support Community Reconnection, and When Must Emergency and Specialist Services Lead?
Several weeks after severe flooding, a family returns to its neighborhood. The main road has reopened, electricity has been restored, and some shops are operating again. From the outside, life appears to be returning to normal. But many familiar things are still missing.
The community building where residents used to meet remains closed for repairs. Some neighbors are staying with relatives elsewhere. A weekly activity that brought older residents together has stopped, and nobody knows when it will resume.
One resident would like to see familiar faces again but is unsure which local activities are available. Another family is more concerned about housing, income and medical follow-up. Someone else simply wants time and privacy before joining any community gatherings.
They experienced the same flood, but their needs and priorities are different.
This situation illustrates a possible role for community-connected care during disaster recovery. When conditions are safe and essential needs are being appropriately addressed, some people may welcome help reconnecting with familiar activities, local organizations or other sources of community support.
Social prescribing could potentially contribute to that process. However, it should never be confused with emergency response, humanitarian assistance, medical treatment or specialist psychosocial care.
For Viet Nam, where storms, flooding and landslides can disrupt communities in different ways, the question is how care navigation might support voluntary community reconnection without interfering with established disaster management systems or placing additional burdens on people and organizations already affected by disaster.
Recovery Does Not End When the Floodwaters Recede
Storms, floods and landslides can damage homes, roads, schools, healthcare facilities and places where people regularly gather. Their consequences may continue long after the immediate danger has passed.
A community may regain electricity and transport access while families are still repairing homes, managing financial difficulties or adapting to temporary accommodation. Some residents may return quickly, while others remain displaced or decide to settle elsewhere. These changes can disrupt everyday routines and the relationships that help people feel connected to their communities.
Viet Nam's experience during the 2025 storm and flood season provides an important reminder that recovery takes time.
On December 19, 2025, the United Nations and the Government of Viet Nam announced an addendum to the 2025 Joint Response Plan following severe storms and flooding. The updated plan addressed urgent humanitarian needs while supporting recovery and longer-term resilience in affected communities.[1]
On October 2, 2026, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) reported on continuing recovery efforts in Thái Nguyên and Cao Bằng, approximately one year after Typhoons Bualoi and Matmo caused serious flooding and landslides. The initiatives included safer housing, infrastructure restoration, livelihood support and measures to strengthen local disaster preparedness.[2]
These initiatives are not social prescribing programs. They illustrate the wider recovery environment in which any proposed community connection initiative would need to operate.
Safe housing, clean water, essential healthcare, functioning infrastructure and livelihood recovery remain fundamental concerns. Community participation should not be presented as an alternative to addressing these needs.
At the same time, rebuilding physical infrastructure does not necessarily restore the activities and relationships that were part of everyday life before a disaster.
A local association may have stopped meeting because its venue was damaged. Residents who previously exercised together may now live in different locations. A community group may still exist but lack the resources to resume its activities.
For someone who values these connections, finding out what remains available may be part of returning to a familiar routine.
The potential contribution of care navigation begins with understanding that particular need, rather than assuming that everyone affected by a disaster requires another service.
When Might Social Prescribing Become Relevant?
Social prescribing is generally understood as an approach that connects people with appropriate non-clinical services, groups and activities that may support their health and well-being.
The World Health Organization's 2022 implementation toolkit describes how social prescribing pathways can be developed at the community level and adapted to local circumstances.[3]
Following a disaster, this approach might be useful when someone wants to reconnect with community activities but has difficulty finding out what is available or how to participate.
An older resident may want to know whether a familiar exercise group has resumed. A parent living in temporary accommodation may be looking for suitable recreational activities for a child. Someone who has moved to another neighborhood may wish to discover local groups that share their interests.
These are situations where information or navigation could be helpful. They are not reasons to assume that everyone affected by a disaster needs social prescribing.
More urgent needs must take priority. A person without safe shelter or sufficient food needs appropriate assistance through established services. Someone who cannot obtain essential medication requires timely healthcare support. A family facing immediate protection concerns needs assistance from the relevant competent authorities and services.
Suggesting a community activity would not adequately address these problems.
The timing of support also matters. Disaster response and recovery do not always occur in clearly separated stages. One neighborhood may have resumed ordinary activities while another remains unsafe. A household may have suitable accommodation but still face serious financial or health difficulties.
There is no fixed number of days or weeks after which social prescribing automatically becomes appropriate.
The decision should reflect the person's circumstances, the availability and safety of suitable activities, and whether the individual wants the support being offered.
Someone who is focused on rebuilding a home should not feel pressured to join a community program. Choosing not to participate is not evidence of poor recovery.
Community reconnection should remain an opportunity, not an obligation.
Disasters Affect Community Connections in Different Ways
A flood does not necessarily destroy a person's social relationships.
In some communities, family members, neighbors and local organizations become particularly important sources of support during difficult circumstances. Existing relationships may grow stronger as people help one another recover.
Elsewhere, displacement, damaged meeting places or changes in household responsibilities may make familiar activities harder to maintain.
The distinction matters because losing access to a community activity is not necessarily the same as experiencing social isolation.
A person may remain close to family members but no longer have access to a weekly activity they enjoyed. Another may have relocated and lost regular contact with friends. Someone else may have strong community connections but prefer not to attend gatherings associated with disaster recovery.
These situations call for different responses.
The potential purpose of care navigation is not simply to increase the number of social interactions. It is to help people identify suitable ways to participate in community life according to their interests, priorities and circumstances.
For one person, this might mean returning to a familiar group. For another, it could involve discovering an activity in a new neighborhood. Someone else may already have the connections they need.
That person should not be encouraged to enter a formal referral pathway merely because a disaster has occurred.
A person-centered approach respects both the desire to reconnect and the decision to rely on existing relationships or personal routines.
What Does the Evidence Actually Tell Us?
Research suggests that social relationships and support can be relevant to disaster recovery. However, this evidence should not be confused with proof that social prescribing is an effective post-disaster intervention.
A longitudinal study published in SSM – Population Health in 2021 examined the relationship between early social support and subsequent health among Vietnamese American residents of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.[4]
The study used data from 82 participants, with health and social support assessed at several points before and after the disaster. The researchers found that stronger social support soon after Katrina was associated with better physical and mental health outcomes in 2010, even after accounting for several measured factors.
This finding is relevant because it suggests that social resources may be associated with recovery over time.
However, the study involved a relatively small sample of Vietnamese immigrants in the United States. Although its longitudinal design provided information about changes over time, it was observational and could not establish causation.
It did not evaluate social prescribing, care navigation or community referral programs in Viet Nam.
A separate scoping review published in The Lancet Regional Health – Western Pacific in 2026 identified 55 sources examining social prescribing and related community-connected approaches across the Western Pacific Region. These included 42 peer-reviewed studies and 13 gray-literature sources.[5]
The review found considerable differences in delivery models, funding, target populations and implementation arrangements. Most peer-reviewed studies came from Australia, while only one came from Viet Nam.
The findings highlight the importance of adapting approaches to local systems and community resources. They do not demonstrate the effectiveness of social prescribing after storms or floods in Viet Nam.
Existing research provides reasons to examine how social relationships and community support may contribute to recovery. It does not justify claiming that post-disaster social prescribing reduces post-traumatic stress symptoms, prevents depression, improves clinical outcomes or reduces healthcare expenditure.
Those questions would require appropriately designed studies.
For Viet Nam, the available evidence supports careful exploration and implementation learning rather than treating post-disaster social prescribing as an established intervention.
Community Support Must Not Be Confused with Mental Health Treatment
People may experience a wide range of emotional responses after disasters.
Fear, sadness, grief, anger, uncertainty, fatigue and difficulty sleeping can follow serious losses or disruption. These experiences deserve attention and understanding, but they should not automatically be classified as mental disorders.
The World Health Organization's May 2025 fact sheet on mental health in emergencies explains that psychological distress is common following emergencies and often improves over time. Some individuals, however, develop mental health conditions or experience worsening of existing conditions.[6]
WHO recommends coordinated mental health and psychosocial support, including practical assistance, community-based support, psychological first aid, general healthcare and specialist treatment according to people's needs.
The Inter-Agency Standing Committee's guidelines on mental health and psychosocial support in emergency settings also emphasize coordinated action that builds on existing community resources and provides different levels of support.[7]
These approaches recognize the importance of social relationships without treating every emotional difficulty as a condition requiring specialist treatment.
There may be some overlap between ordinary community support and broader psychosocial support efforts. However, social prescribing, psychological first aid and clinical mental health treatment have different purposes and should not be presented as interchangeable services.
WHO describes psychological first aid as humane, supportive and practical assistance for people experiencing distress after a serious crisis. It emphasizes safety, dignity, respectful listening and access to appropriate information and services.[8]
Social prescribing is not equivalent to psychological first aid. Nor should an ordinary reading group, walking activity or community gathering be advertised as treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder, depression or another mental health condition.
A person may find community participation comforting or meaningful. That experience can be valuable without being described as therapy.
When someone experiences severe or persistent distress, significant deterioration in everyday functioning, thoughts of self-harm or other serious mental health concerns, appropriate professional assessment and care are needed. Where there is an immediate risk to safety, emergency services and competent authorities must take priority.
A community navigator should understand these boundaries and have an appropriate way to help people reach qualified services when necessary.
People Should Not Have to Revisit Their Trauma to Participate
An activity organized after a disaster should not assume that participants want to discuss what happened.
Some people may appreciate sharing experiences with others who understand their circumstances. Others may prefer familiar activities that provide a break from thinking about the disaster.
Both preferences are reasonable.
Someone joining a community gardening group should not be expected to describe damage to their home. A person attending a reading activity should not have to explain their emotional response to the flood to demonstrate that they deserve support.
Similarly, facilitators should not encourage participants to recount potentially distressing experiences in a group setting without an appropriate purpose, competence and safeguards.
Care navigation may require some understanding of the person's current circumstances, but that does not mean collecting a detailed account of their disaster experience.
A useful conversation could focus on what the person wants to do now, which activities they previously enjoyed and what difficulties might prevent participation.
Questions should be proportionate to the intended support. The aim is to help people make informed choices about community activities, not to require them to describe or process traumatic experiences.
Community Activities Must Be Safe Before They Resume
An activity that was safe before a flood may no longer be safe afterward.
A familiar meeting room may have structural damage. Outdoor spaces may contain debris or other hazards. Roads and access routes may remain affected by landslides, flooding or temporary restrictions.
A building that has reopened for limited use may not yet be suitable for organized group activities.
The organization responsible for an activity should establish whether the venue is available, appropriately authorized and suitable for the intended use. Applicable warnings, restrictions and instructions from competent authorities must be respected.
Where specialist safety assessments are required, they should be undertaken by appropriately qualified and authorized people or organizations.
A care navigator should not independently certify that a building, road or outdoor location is safe after a disaster.
The same caution applies to the information used for community connections.
A directory that was accurate before a storm may become unreliable when venues close, organizations relocate or activity schedules change. Contact details may no longer work, previously advertised activities may remain suspended, and some organizations may have temporarily stopped accepting participants.
It would be inappropriate to tell someone that a local group is operating normally without checking whether it has resumed and can welcome participants.
Reliable navigation therefore depends on current information, not simply a list of community resources that existed before the disaster.
Where possible, organizations maintaining community information should identify who is responsible for updates and when an activity's availability was last confirmed. Information should be checked again when circumstances change, especially after further severe weather warnings.
When an activity cannot be verified as available and appropriate, it should not be recommended as though those conditions have been established.
Local Organizations May Also Be Recovering
Community organizations often play an important role before, during and after disasters. They may help residents share information, organize practical assistance and maintain local relationships.
However, the organizations themselves may have experienced serious disruption.
Staff and volunteers may be repairing their own homes, caring for family members or dealing with lost income. Meeting spaces may be damaged, equipment may be unavailable and funding may have been redirected toward more urgent needs.
An organization that offered community activities before a flood should not automatically be expected to accept new participants or referrals afterward.
Before proposing a partnership, a navigation initiative should establish whether the organization is operating, whether it wants to participate and what additional responsibilities it can realistically manage.
Some groups may welcome support to resume familiar activities. Others may prefer to concentrate on their existing recovery responsibilities.
The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies emphasizes community engagement and accountability in humanitarian programming. Its guidance encourages meaningful participation, transparent communication and opportunities for affected communities to influence decisions and provide feedback.[9]
These principles are relevant when considering partnerships during recovery.
Local people and organizations should not be treated simply as recipients of programs developed elsewhere. Their knowledge, priorities and existing relationships should influence whether a new activity or navigation arrangement is needed.
Where organizations are expected to contribute substantial staff time, facilities or other resources, appropriate financial and operational support should be considered.
Community resilience should not become an excuse for transferring additional responsibilities to volunteers who may already be under considerable pressure.
Different People May Need Different Forms of Assistance
Disasters can affect people's circumstances in ways that are not always visible.
An older adult may remain independent and socially connected but temporarily lose access to a familiar activity. A person with a disability may have an established support network yet encounter new barriers because accessible transport or facilities have been damaged.
A family living in temporary accommodation may need information about services in an unfamiliar area. Children may have fewer opportunities for recreation when schools or community spaces remain closed.
Other households may be dealing with serious housing, financial, health or protection needs that require established professional and public services.
These differences should inform decisions about appropriate support.
Age, disability, displacement or exposure to a disaster should not automatically determine whether someone needs social prescribing.
For children, community activities may require suitable safeguarding, supervision and arrangements involving parents or legal guardians, depending on the circumstances.
For people with disabilities, organizers may need to consider accessibility, communication and practical assistance, particularly where familiar environments have changed.
People receiving ongoing medical care may need advice from appropriate healthcare professionals before participating in activities that could present particular health risks.
Language and cultural preferences also deserve consideration, especially in communities where information may need to be available in languages other than Vietnamese.
The relevant question is what a person needs and wants, rather than which category they belong to.
A disaster does not make everyone affected by it a suitable participant in the same program.
What Could Care Navigation Realistically Contribute?
A carefully defined navigation function could help interested individuals find reliable information about community activities during recovery.
The process might begin with a simple conversation.
Someone may want to return to a familiar group. Another person may be interested in activities near temporary accommodation. A parent may wish to know whether suitable recreational opportunities for children have resumed.
The navigator would first need to establish whether an appropriate activity actually exists.
This could involve contacting the organizer, checking whether the venue is available, confirming the current schedule and understanding any participation requirements or capacity limits.
If a suitable activity is operating, the navigator could explain what it offers and how the person can make contact.
Where the individual wants additional help, an introduction may be arranged through an appropriate and lawful process.
Some people may prefer to contact the organization independently. Others may decide not to attend. Participation should remain voluntary, and neither decision should be treated as a failure of the navigation process.
Importantly, a navigator needs to recognize when a concern falls outside this limited function.
A person who cannot access essential medication may need timely healthcare assistance. Someone requiring emergency shelter should be directed toward the responsible authorities and services. A child facing a protection concern may require action through established child-protection arrangements.
The purpose of navigation is not to turn every problem into a community referral.
It is to help people understand available options and reach appropriate support without delaying or replacing services that have the necessary authority and expertise.
Working Within Viet Nam's Disaster Management Framework
Viet Nam has an established legal and institutional framework governing disaster preparedness, response and recovery.
The Law on Natural Disaster Prevention and Control, as amended, is reflected in Consolidated Document No. 85/VBHN-VPQH dated March 27, 2026.[10]
The Law on Civil Defense, as amended, is reflected in Consolidated Document No. 132/2026/VBHN-LQ-VPQH dated September 18, 2026.[11]
These consolidated documents provide updated reference texts for the relevant legislation. Their dates of consolidation should not be interpreted as the dates on which entirely new laws were enacted.
The Law on States of Emergency No. 104/2025/QH15, effective from July 1, 2026, also establishes requirements concerning the declaration, management and termination of legally recognized states of emergency and associated measures.[12]
Its application depends on the relevant legal circumstances and decisions of competent authorities. The occurrence of a damaging storm or flood does not, by itself, mean that a state of emergency has been formally declared under that law.
Together with applicable implementing regulations and other legal provisions, these frameworks define responsibilities for competent authorities and organizations.
Any proposed post-disaster care navigation arrangement must operate consistently with those responsibilities.
It should not independently organize rescue operations, determine evacuation procedures, certify affected locations as safe, allocate statutory disaster assistance or represent itself as an authorized emergency response body.
Nor should it create parallel arrangements that interfere with official disaster information, emergency coordination or humanitarian assistance.
Where a healthcare organization, social service provider or community partner wishes to explore navigation during recovery, the arrangement should be developed through appropriate approvals and coordination.
Social prescribing does not provide a separate legal mandate for directing disaster recovery activities.
Its possible contribution is narrower: helping people identify and access appropriate non-clinical community opportunities when conditions are suitable and participation is wanted.
Clinical Care and Professional Social Work Must Retain Their Roles
Health and social-service needs may continue long after the immediate effects of a disaster.
Some people require follow-up for injuries or interrupted treatment. Others may need medical assessment, mental health services, professional social work or assistance through established social protection arrangements.
A navigator may help identify an appropriate contact or explain how to reach a service. That does not mean the navigator can independently perform the professional functions involved.
Viet Nam's Law on Medical Examination and Treatment No. 15/2023/QH15 governs regulated medical examination and treatment activities.[13]
Decree No. 110/2024/ND-CP provides the framework for social work, while Circular No. 51/2024/TT-BYT regulates social-work activities within its scope in medical examination and treatment establishments.[14,15]
Circular No. 29/2026/TT-BYT, effective from August 25, 2026, further regulates social-work practice and the updating of professional knowledge within its defined scope.[16]
These provisions are relevant when organizations propose activities involving regulated professional services.
They do not mean that every ordinary community conversation, information exchange or informal introduction automatically constitutes professional social-work practice.
The applicable requirements depend on the actual activities performed, the organization providing them and the responsibilities involved.
A person undertaking care navigation should not independently diagnose medical or mental health conditions, provide regulated treatment, determine entitlement to statutory assistance or undertake professional case management without the necessary authority, competence and qualifications.
Clear boundaries are particularly important after disasters because individuals may present several practical, social and health concerns at the same time.
Where needs exceed the navigator's role, an appropriate pathway to qualified professionals or competent authorities should be available.
Privacy and Dignity Matter During Recovery
Information shared during disaster recovery can be highly personal.
A temporary address may reveal where someone is staying after displacement. Details about lost income, family separation, medical conditions or protection concerns may be sensitive.
A person may welcome information about community activities without wanting these circumstances disclosed to neighbors, employers or unrelated organizations.
Even well-intentioned partnerships can create privacy risks if information is exchanged too broadly.
For example, a healthcare organization introducing someone to a community activity may need to share limited contact information under an appropriate arrangement.
The receiving organization would not ordinarily need the person's full medical record or a detailed account of their disaster experience.
Viet Nam's Law on Personal Data Protection No. 91/2025/QH15 and Decree No. 356/2025/ND-CP have both been effective since January 1, 2026.[17,18]
Organizations involved in structured navigation must determine the applicable lawful basis and conditions for collecting, using, storing and sharing personal information, including relevant consent, notification and security requirements.
Particular care is needed when health information or other sensitive personal data are involved.
Agreeing to attend a community activity should not be treated as blanket authorization to share personal information across healthcare providers, community organizations and other partners.
Photography and storytelling also deserve attention.
Images of people participating in post-disaster activities may be useful for documenting a program, but participants should not feel pressured to be photographed or publicly identified.
Their personal experiences should not become promotional material without an appropriate legal basis and necessary permissions.
Respecting privacy is particularly important during recovery, when individuals may already have limited control over other aspects of their circumstances.
What Might a Responsible Local Pilot Look Like?
A small, time-limited pilot could help determine whether a clearly defined navigation function adds value in a particular community during recovery.
It should begin with local circumstances rather than an assumption that additional social prescribing services are needed.
Interested residents and established community organizations could be consulted to understand which activities have stopped, which have resumed and whether people want help finding suitable opportunities.
The findings might show that existing family relationships, community groups and information networks are functioning well.
In that situation, a new formal navigation service may offer little additional benefit.
Alternatively, people may identify a specific gap, such as difficulty obtaining reliable information about community activities after relocating to temporary accommodation.
A modest pilot could focus on addressing that problem.
For example, a participating community organization might maintain a small, regularly updated directory of suitable non-clinical activities that have safely resumed.
A designated navigator, operating within an appropriate organizational and professional framework, could help interested people understand the available options and make contact when requested.
The pilot should not duplicate official disaster information systems or attempt to operate an independent emergency referral network.
Participating organizations would need to agree on the responsibilities involved, including information verification, communication, privacy, safety concerns and circumstances requiring the suspension of activity connections.
The arrangement should also be practical for people with limited transport, financial resources or mobility.
Local partners should have a genuine opportunity to decide whether participation is feasible and whether the expected workload is reasonable.
A pilot should be small enough to adapt or discontinue when circumstances change. This flexibility is particularly important where further weather warnings, infrastructure damage or changes in essential services may affect community activities.
How Should Such a Pilot Be Evaluated?
Evaluating community navigation after a disaster requires care because recovery is influenced by many different factors.
Housing repairs, restored income, reopening of schools, improved transport and access to healthcare may all affect a person's circumstances.
Someone who begins participating in community activities again may be benefiting from several improvements at once. It would therefore be misleading to attribute changes automatically to a navigation intervention.
Early evaluation should focus on whether the proposed approach is feasible, acceptable, appropriate and safe.
Did participants receive accurate information about activities? Did they feel free to decide whether to participate? Were the available options relevant to their interests and circumstances?
Were community organizations able to manage the additional work? Did the navigation process create confusion with official recovery services or professional responsibilities?
It would also be useful to understand why some people chose not to participate.
A person may be concentrating on housing repairs or family responsibilities. Another may already have suitable community connections. Some may simply prefer activities that are not included in the available options.
These decisions should not automatically be treated as unsuccessful outcomes.
Evaluation should also consider practical risks, including inaccurate information, unsuitable venues, privacy incidents and inappropriate delays in reaching healthcare or other essential services.
Where longer-term outcomes are studied, social participation, perceived connection, subjective well-being and clinical outcomes should be measured and interpreted separately.
A small feasibility pilot may show that navigation helps selected individuals identify available community opportunities.
It would not, by itself, prove improved mental health, reduced post-traumatic stress symptoms, lower hospital utilization or increased disaster resilience.
Stronger claims require appropriate research designs, comparison data and consideration of other influences on recovery.
The purpose of early implementation should be to learn whether the approach provides meaningful additional value without creating unnecessary costs, risks or burdens.
Community Recovery Should Build on Existing Strengths
One challenge in post-disaster programming is the sustainability of activities introduced with temporary resources.
A new program may attract initial interest but depend on short-term funding, visiting facilitators or organizational support that will not remain available.
Another concern is duplication.
A community may already have local associations, trusted volunteers, established service providers or informal networks that understand its circumstances.
Introducing a separate branded navigation system could add complexity without improving access to support.
Responsible development should begin by understanding what already exists and where genuine gaps remain.
Where possible, new efforts should strengthen suitable local activities, relationships and institutions rather than create parallel structures.
Community organizations should retain a meaningful role in deciding whether additional services are appropriate and what support they can reasonably provide.
Any partnership should be transparent about its resources, responsibilities and likely duration. A temporary initiative should not create an expectation of permanent support that participating organizations cannot sustain.
Community recovery is not strengthened simply by increasing the number of programs.
It is more likely to be strengthened when people can influence decisions that affect them and when existing organizations have the resources and authority to continue their work appropriately.
Reconnection Should Remain a Choice, Not a Measure of Recovery
People recover from disasters in different ways and at different speeds.
Some want to return quickly to familiar activities. Others need time, privacy or practical assistance before they can think about participating in community life.
Some find comfort in spending time with others. Some prefer ordinary routines that do not involve discussing what happened.
These differences should be respected.
Social prescribing may offer another way for interested people to discover and access suitable community opportunities during recovery. That contribution could be meaningful, but it remains limited.
It cannot replace rescue and emergency response, safe housing, clean water, essential healthcare, professional mental health services, social protection or statutory disaster recovery responsibilities.
For Viet Nam, any responsible approach must recognize the value of local relationships while remaining grounded in the country's existing disaster management, healthcare and social-service systems.
It should also acknowledge that the effectiveness of social prescribing specifically after floods and storms has not been established in the Vietnamese context.
The most useful question is not how many people can be referred to community activities after a disaster.
It is whether someone who wants to reconnect with community life can find an appropriate opportunity, at a suitable time, without unnecessary barriers or risks.
Sometimes that may mean returning to a familiar group. Sometimes it may involve discovering a new activity in a different neighborhood. And sometimes the most appropriate response is to provide information, respect the person's decision and leave the opportunity open for another time.
Community reconnection cannot repair everything a disaster has taken away.
But when it is wanted, appropriate and safely supported, it may help people regain access to a meaningful part of everyday life.
References
United Nations in Viet Nam. (2025). Viet Nam: Joint Response Plan Charts Pathway for Recovery. Published December 19, 2025.
United Nations Development Programme. (2026). From Response to Resilient Recovery: Reflecting on Community Recovery and Building a More Resilient Future. Published October 2, 2026.
World Health Organization Regional Office for the Western Pacific. (2022). A Toolkit on How to Implement Social Prescribing. Manila: World Health Organization.
Bui, B. K. H., Anglewicz, P., & VanLandingham, M. J. (2021). The impact of early social support on subsequent health recovery after a major disaster: A longitudinal analysis. SSM – Population Health, 14, 100779. DOI: 10.1016/j.ssmph.2021.100779.
Lwin, K. S., Wong, M. S. J., Tan, M. H., et al. (2026). Organization and implementation of social prescribing in the Western Pacific Region: A scoping review. The Lancet Regional Health – Western Pacific, 67, 101714. DOI: 10.1016/j.lanwpc.2025.101714.
World Health Organization. (2025). Mental Health in Emergencies. Updated May 6, 2025.
Inter-Agency Standing Committee. (2007). IASC Guidelines on Mental Health and Psychosocial Support in Emergency Settings.
World Health Organization, War Trauma Foundation, & World Vision International. (2011). Psychological First Aid: Guide for Field Workers. Geneva: World Health Organization.
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. (2022). A Red Cross Red Crescent Guide to Community Engagement and Accountability.
Office of the National Assembly of Viet Nam. (2026). Consolidated Document No. 85/VBHN-VPQH: Law on Natural Disaster Prevention and Control. Issued March 27, 2026.
Office of the National Assembly of Viet Nam. (2026). Consolidated Document No. 132/2026/VBHN-LQ-VPQH: Law on Civil Defense. Issued September 18, 2026.
National Assembly of Viet Nam. (2025). Law No. 104/2025/QH15 on States of Emergency. Effective July 1, 2026.
National Assembly of Viet Nam. (2023). Law No. 15/2023/QH15 on Medical Examination and Treatment. Effective January 1, 2024.
Government of Viet Nam. (2024). Decree No. 110/2024/ND-CP on Social Work. Effective October 15, 2024.
Ministry of Health of Viet Nam. (2024). Circular No. 51/2024/TT-BYT on Social-Work Activities in Medical Examination and Treatment Establishments. Effective March 1, 2025.
Ministry of Health of Viet Nam. (2026). Circular No. 29/2026/TT-BYT on Social-Work Practice and Professional Knowledge Updating. Effective August 25, 2026.
National Assembly of Viet Nam. (2025). Law No. 91/2025/QH15 on Personal Data Protection. Effective January 1, 2026.
Government of Viet Nam. (2025). Decree No. 356/2025/ND-CP Detailing Certain Articles and Measures for Implementation of the Law on Personal Data Protection. Effective January 1, 2026.
Article Information
Primary Category: Viet Nam Context
Secondary Category: Implementation & Practice
Evidence and Regulatory Context Reviewed: November 1, 2026
Publisher: Social Prescribing Vietnam (SPVN)
Disclaimer
This article is provided for educational, research and general informational purposes only. It does not constitute individualized medical, mental health, psychological, professional social-work, disaster management, emergency response, humanitarian assistance or legal advice.
The examples of community reconnection following floods and storms are illustrative. They do not indicate that social prescribing has been formally established as a disaster recovery service in Viet Nam or that any particular organization currently provides the activities described.
The international research and guidance discussed in this article offer evidence and principles for comparative learning. They do not establish that social prescribing after floods or storms improves clinical outcomes, treats psychological trauma, reduces healthcare utilization or increases disaster resilience in Viet Nam.
Social prescribing and community care navigation may complement existing healthcare, social services, community organizations and recovery initiatives where appropriate. They do not replace search and rescue, evacuation, emergency medical care, disaster relief, safe shelter, water and sanitation services, professional mental health treatment, child protection, regulated social-work practice or statutory disaster management responsibilities.
Activities should not be organized or recommended in locations affected by unresolved hazards, official restrictions or other conditions that make participation unsafe. Applicable decisions concerning emergency response, public safety, infrastructure, clinical care and statutory assistance remain with the competent authorities, organizations and qualified professionals.
Organizations considering post-disaster community navigation should independently assess the applicable Vietnamese legal, professional and organizational requirements, including disaster management coordination, safety, safeguarding, voluntary participation, personal data protection, lawful information sharing and accountability before implementation.
Social Prescribing Vietnam (SPVN) is an education, research, development, implementation-support and collaboration platform. Publication of this article does not indicate that SPVN operates emergency or humanitarian services, directly provides individualized care navigation, medical referrals, clinical treatment, psychological first aid, professional social-work services or post-disaster recovery programs.
References to government agencies, international organizations, humanitarian initiatives and research publications are provided for educational and comparative purposes. They do not imply endorsement, accreditation, authorization, formal affiliation or an established partnership.