Social Prescribing and Disability Inclusion in Viet Nam: How Could Care Navigation Support Accessible Community Participation Without Replacing Rehabilitation and Disability Services?
IMPLEMENTATION & PRACTICEVIET NAM CONTEXT
Social Prescribing and Disability Inclusion in Viet Nam: How Could Care Navigation Support Accessible Community Participation Without Replacing Rehabilitation and Disability Services?
Category: Implementation & Practice
Last reviewed: October 2026
A young woman who uses a wheelchair wants to join a photography group at a local community center. She enjoys taking pictures and hopes to meet people who share her interests. The group welcomes new members, and a community navigator identifies it as a possible opportunity.
However, the activity takes place upstairs in a building without an elevator or suitable accessible route. The organizer suggests that volunteers could carry her wheelchair up the stairs.
The group may have good intentions, but does this arrangement make participation genuinely accessible?
The problem is not the woman's interest or motivation. It is that the service has not been organized in a way that allows her to participate safely and with dignity. Referring her to the group does not resolve that problem.
This example raises an important question for social prescribing in Viet Nam. Connecting people with community activities may help them pursue personal interests, develop relationships and participate in everyday life. But for persons with disabilities, the existence of an activity does not necessarily mean that participation is possible.
A community organization may describe itself as open to everyone while remaining inaccessible to people with different mobility, communication, sensory or support needs.
Care navigation could help identify these barriers, clarify individual preferences and facilitate appropriate arrangements. However, navigators cannot replace the responsibilities of community-service providers, rehabilitation professionals or specialist disability-support organizations.
The central question is therefore not simply how to refer more persons with disabilities to community activities. It is what community services need to change so that participation becomes genuinely accessible, respectful and meaningful, and how navigation can support that process without assuming responsibilities outside its competence.
Disability inclusion should begin with rights, not referrals
Disability inclusion is sometimes approached as a matter of providing additional assistance to people considered vulnerable or dependent. Although practical support may be necessary, this approach can overlook the person's right to make choices and participate in ordinary community life.
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) provides a different starting point.
The Convention recognizes the dignity, autonomy and equal rights of persons with disabilities. It also reflects an understanding that exclusion often arises from the interaction between impairments and barriers in the surrounding environment.
A wheelchair user may be unable to enter a community building because there is no accessible route. A Deaf person may struggle to participate in a group discussion because suitable communication arrangements are unavailable. Someone with an intellectual disability may be interested in an activity but receive information that is difficult to understand.
In these situations, the person's impairment is not the only issue. The way the service is designed and delivered also determines whether participation is possible.
Article 9 of the CRPD addresses accessibility. Article 19 recognizes the right to live independently and be included in the community, while Article 30 concerns participation in cultural life, recreation, leisure and sport.
These provisions are directly relevant to social prescribing because many community activities involve cultural, educational, recreational and social participation.
Viet Nam approved ratification of the CRPD through National Assembly Resolution No. 84/2014/QH13 on 28 November 2014. Its instrument of ratification was deposited with the United Nations on 5 February 2015, and the Convention entered into force for Viet Nam on 7 March 2015.
At the national level, the Law on Persons with Disabilities No. 51/2010/QH12 recognizes rights relating to equal participation, independent living, healthcare, rehabilitation and access to public facilities and services.
The Office of the National Assembly issued Consolidated Document No. 24/VBHN-VPQH on 26 February 2026, incorporating subsequent legislative amendments, including amendments associated with Law No. 112/2025/QH15, effective from 1 March 2026. The consolidated document provides an updated reference to the existing law; it is not a separate new Law on Persons with Disabilities.
These legal commitments are important, but they do not mean that all community services have become accessible.
In its concluding observations on Viet Nam's initial report, dated 28 April 2025, the United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities identified continuing concerns about accessibility, independent living and participation in community life.
The Committee highlighted barriers involving public buildings, information, communication and cultural and recreational facilities. It also emphasized the importance of meaningful participation by persons with disabilities and their representative organizations in decisions affecting them.
An analysis published by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) in April 2026 described a significant rights-based policy direction associated with Conclusion No. 444-TB/VPTW, issued on 5 December 2025.
The analysis highlighted a shift away from approaches centered mainly on charity toward stronger recognition of rights, inclusion and institutional accountability.
This direction is relevant to the development of community services, although a policy conclusion should not be confused with legislation establishing specific duties for every service provider. Nor does it demonstrate that accessibility requirements have already been implemented consistently across local organizations.
For social prescribing, the implication is that accepting referrals from persons with disabilities is not enough. Receiving services must also consider whether people can exercise meaningful choice and participate on an equal basis with others.
Accessibility and reasonable accommodation require different responses
Two concepts are particularly important when considering disability-inclusive community services: accessibility and reasonable accommodation.
Accessibility concerns the design of environments, information, facilities and services so that persons with disabilities can use them. It should be considered in advance rather than only after someone requests to participate.
A community center, for example, should consider whether people can enter the building, move between activity areas, use toilets and leave safely. Organizers should also consider whether information about an activity is understandable and available through suitable communication methods.
Reasonable accommodation addresses the needs of an individual in a particular situation.
Article 2 of the CRPD defines reasonable accommodation in terms of necessary and appropriate modifications and adjustments that enable equal enjoyment of rights without imposing a disproportionate or undue burden.
In practice, these modifications are sometimes described as reasonable adjustments.
An activity may be generally accessible but still require a specific adjustment for an individual participant.
A person with hearing loss may benefit from a different seating arrangement or communication support. Someone who experiences sensory overload may request a quieter space or opportunities to take breaks. A participant with limited stamina may need a shorter session or a different pace.
The appropriate response depends on the individual, the activity and the surrounding circumstances. It should not be determined solely by a disability label.
The CRPD Committee's General Comment No. 2 on accessibility, published in 2014, explains the distinction between accessibility measures that should be planned in advance and reasonable accommodation needed in individual cases.
This distinction matters because a service should not rely indefinitely on individual adjustments to compensate for barriers that could be addressed through ordinary improvements to its design.
There is also an important legal consideration. Under the CRPD, denial of reasonable accommodation is recognized as a form of disability-based discrimination.
However, the position under Vietnamese domestic law requires careful interpretation.
In its 2025 concluding observations, the CRPD Committee noted that important concepts, including reasonable accommodation and universal design, were not clearly defined in national legislation. It recommended greater alignment between domestic law and the Convention.
The CRPD provides an international rights framework, but it should not be assumed that every element of reasonable accommodation creates an identical, directly enforceable obligation for every type of community organization under existing Vietnamese legislation.
The applicable domestic requirements depend on the nature of the service, the facility, the activities involved and relevant legal provisions.
Nevertheless, community organizations do not need to wait for a legal dispute before considering whether practical changes could make participation possible.
Choosing a more accessible room, adapting instructions or modifying how participants take part in an activity may be manageable changes that improve the experience for many people.
Accessibility should be part of ordinary service planning. Individual adjustments should then be discussed respectfully with the people who need them.
What would a community service actually need to change?
Disability inclusion becomes meaningful when it changes how a service operates, not merely how the service describes itself.
A community organization might advertise an activity as inclusive, but that statement needs to be reflected in the experience of participants.
Can someone enter the venue and use its facilities? Can they understand instructions and communicate with staff? Can they participate in the main activity rather than being present only as an observer? Can they raise concerns or leave safely when needed?
These questions apply to community arts, music groups, libraries, gardening programs, recreational clubs, educational workshops and volunteer activities.
Physical accessibility is one important part of the assessment.
A building may have a ramp at its entrance but still be difficult to use because of narrow passages, unsuitable seating, inaccessible toilets or activities taking place in areas that some participants cannot reach.
For construction works covered by the relevant technical requirements, organizations must also consider the applicable Vietnamese regulations.
Circular No. 06/2024/TT-BXD introduced QCVN 10:2024/BXD, the National Technical Regulation on Constructions Accessibility, effective from 1 February 2025. It replaced the previous QCVN 10:2014/BXD.
The regulation establishes accessibility requirements for specified types of construction works. Its application depends on the type of facility and the circumstances covered by the regulation, including relevant new construction and renovation activities.
A community organization should therefore distinguish between its legal obligations and the broader practical question of whether participants can actually use the venue.
If a location is unsuitable, moving the activity to another room or an accessible venue may be more appropriate than asking participants to accept unsafe arrangements.
Carrying a wheelchair user up stairs should not be treated as a routine substitute for an accessible route. Apart from potential safety concerns, such an arrangement may undermine the person's independence and dignity.
Communication requires equal attention.
A public invitation may be easy to read for some people but inaccessible to others. Depending on the activity and participants' needs, suitable arrangements could include clear written information, large print, accessible electronic documents, captions, sign language interpretation or other communication support.
A Deaf participant should not automatically be expected to lip-read through an entire group discussion. Someone with a visual impairment may need information provided verbally or in an accessible format rather than relying on printed materials.
For a participant with an intellectual disability, plain language, visual explanations or additional time may make it easier to understand the activity and decide whether to join.
These arrangements should be discussed with the individual rather than based on assumptions about everyone with a particular disability.
The activity itself may also need to change.
A photography group could select an accessible location where participants can explore the same subject without navigating difficult stairs or terrain. A gardening program could provide raised planting areas, suitable tools or opportunities to work while seated.
A discussion group might change its seating arrangement, introduce clearer turn-taking or provide information before each session.
Such changes do not necessarily alter the purpose of the activity. They may allow people to participate in different ways while pursuing the same interests.
Organizational procedures matter as well.
An inclusive service should provide a practical way for participants to communicate accessibility needs without requiring unnecessary disclosure of medical information.
Staff should know whom to contact when a request is received, how to consider possible changes and how to communicate the outcome.
An organizer should not promise an adjustment without confirming that it can be delivered.
Staff attitudes can also determine whether participation feels welcoming.
A person may be able to enter the building but still feel excluded if volunteers speak only to their companion, make decisions without consultation or assume they should participate in a separate activity.
A service becomes more inclusive when persons with disabilities are recognized as participants with their own interests, preferences and contributions.
The aim is not to treat accessibility as an exceptional favor. It is to make it part of normal service quality.
Autonomy means having control over participation
Respect for autonomy is central to disability-inclusive social prescribing.
A person may need assistance with communication, mobility or understanding available options. That does not mean the person should lose control over decisions about participation.
Independent living should not be confused with doing everything without assistance. A person may rely on support while retaining the ability and right to make decisions about their own life.
The starting point should be what the individual wants to do.
Someone may enjoy singing and wish to join a music group. Another person may prefer photography, language learning or a quiet cultural activity.
The navigator should not assume that a disability-focused program is necessarily the most appropriate option.
Specialized disability-led activities can be valuable, particularly when they provide peer support, shared experience or opportunities for advocacy. However, participation in these programs should reflect the person's preferences rather than an assumption that mainstream community activities are unsuitable.
Similarly, a person should not automatically be directed toward rehabilitation simply because they have a disability and want to participate in an ordinary social activity.
The presence of a disability does not turn every community activity into a therapeutic intervention.
Family involvement also requires careful consideration.
Families may provide important support, but an adult with a disability should not automatically be excluded from conversations about their own interests or preferences.
A navigator should communicate directly with the person wherever possible, using suitable methods and support.
Supported decision-making may involve accessible explanations, additional time, communication assistance or help from someone the individual trusts.
These approaches differ from making decisions on the person's behalf.
Under Viet Nam's Civil Code No. 91/2015/QH13, specific legal rules apply to civil act capacity, guardianship and representation. Articles 22 and 23 address court determinations concerning loss of civil act capacity and difficulties in cognition or behavioral control.
A disability diagnosis or disability status alone should not be treated as automatically establishing that a person lacks legal capacity.
Where legally established representation or guardianship arrangements apply, they must be considered according to the relevant law.
At the same time, domestic legal arrangements should be distinguished from the broader supported decision-making principles recognized under Article 12 of the CRPD.
Children with disabilities should also have opportunities to express their views in ways appropriate to their age, development and communication needs, alongside applicable requirements concerning parents or legal representatives.
For care navigation, the practical responsibility is to support informed and voluntary participation.
A person should be free to accept an activity, decline it, request a change or stop attending.
Choosing not to participate after receiving suitable information should not automatically be interpreted as poor motivation or unsuccessful engagement.
What can a care navigator do, and where should the role stop?
A care navigator may help identify whether a community activity is suitable and accessible before introducing it to a person with a disability.
This requires more than asking whether the organization welcomes persons with disabilities.
The navigator may need to understand how the activity operates, what facilities are available, whether staff can communicate appropriately and whether relevant adjustments can be arranged.
Consider someone with a mobility impairment who wants to join a local craft group.
Before suggesting attendance, the navigator could contact the organizer to clarify where sessions take place, whether participants can access the activity space and whether the necessary facilities are usable.
If the person wishes, the navigator could communicate a specific accessibility request.
The organizer would then need to consider what changes are possible and what legal or operational requirements apply.
The navigator's role is to facilitate communication and help the person understand the available options. Responsibility for the venue and delivery of the activity remains with the service provider.
Some people may benefit from additional information before attending.
Knowing the group size, session structure, communication arrangements or availability of support may help someone decide whether an activity is right for them.
Others may prefer to speak directly with the organizer or make an introductory visit.
These arrangements should reflect the person's preferences rather than becoming a standard requirement for everyone with a disability.
Limited follow-up may also be useful when it helps determine whether agreed adjustments were actually provided.
For example, if an organizer promised to move a session to an accessible room, the navigator might help confirm whether that arrangement was in place.
If a communication adjustment was not available, the navigator could help raise the concern with the provider, with the person's permission.
However, navigators should not be expected to deliver the adjustments themselves.
A navigator should not act as a sign language interpreter without appropriate competence, physically transfer participants without suitable training and equipment, provide personal care, prescribe assistive devices or make clinical judgments outside their professional scope.
Nor should the navigator become permanently responsible for overcoming a community organization's failure to provide accessible services.
The distinction matters because repeated individual assistance can sometimes hide an underlying service problem.
If a person can participate only because the navigator repeatedly arranges temporary solutions, the community service may not have become meaningfully accessible.
Navigation should help establish an appropriate connection. It should not replace the provider's responsibility to organize and deliver an accessible activity.
Why rehabilitation and disability-support services must remain distinct
Social prescribing, rehabilitation and specialist disability-support services may all contribute to participation in community life, but they have different purposes and responsibilities.
Social prescribing generally involves connecting people with suitable non-clinical community resources.
Rehabilitation and habilitation may involve professional assessment, individualized interventions, assistive technology, functional training and other services intended to support abilities, independence and participation.
Article 26 of the CRPD recognizes the importance of habilitation and rehabilitation across different areas of life.
Viet Nam's Law on Persons with Disabilities also provides for healthcare, rehabilitation and community-based rehabilitation, with responsibilities assigned to relevant services and organizations.
Community-based rehabilitation requires particular attention because it is sometimes confused with community activities associated with social prescribing.
The World Health Organization's Community-Based Rehabilitation: CBR Guidelines, published in 2010, describe CBR as a broader strategy involving health, education, livelihood, social participation and empowerment.
CBR is therefore not limited to clinical rehabilitation, and it may share some objectives with inclusive community development.
However, that overlap does not make CBR and social prescribing interchangeable. They may operate through different structures, responsibilities and types of support.
An ordinary photography group does not become a rehabilitation service simply because someone with a disability attends it. Similarly, a navigator does not become a rehabilitation professional by helping someone access the group.
Consider a person recovering from a neurological condition.
They may need rehabilitation assessment, mobility training or advice about assistive technology. They may also want to join a local cultural or recreational activity.
Both needs can be addressed, but they require different responses.
Rehabilitation professionals remain responsible for assessment and interventions within their scope. A community organization provides the activity it is competent to deliver. A navigator may help the person explore suitable opportunities and communicate with relevant providers.
The same distinction applies to personal assistance, specialized communication support, vocational rehabilitation, disability-related social work and other established disability services.
A community activity cannot replace essential personal assistance. A volunteer companion is not automatically an appropriate substitute for trained support, and a recreational group should not be expected to manage complex clinical or personal-care needs beyond its competence.
If someone requires a regulated professional social-work service, the applicable Vietnamese framework, including Decree No. 110/2024/ND-CP and Circular No. 29/2026/TT-BYT, must be considered.
The Law on Medical Examination and Treatment No. 15/2023/QH15 and its implementing requirements are also relevant where activities fall within regulated medical examination, treatment or clinical rehabilitation.
Where specialist services are needed, a navigator may help the person find the appropriate provider through an agreed pathway.
This should not imply that the person's interest in ordinary community participation is less important.
Rehabilitation and disability support may help individuals develop or maintain abilities and obtain necessary assistance. Inclusive community activities offer opportunities to pursue interests, contribute to groups and participate in everyday life.
These functions can complement one another without replacing each other.
What if a community activity cannot meet an accessibility need?
Not every community organization can immediately meet every individual requirement.
Some activities operate in older buildings, depend on volunteers or involve particular physical and operational demands.
These circumstances require realistic assessment, but they should not automatically justify exclusion.
The first question should be whether the barrier can be removed or the activity appropriately modified.
If a meeting room is inaccessible, could the group use another room or venue? If communication is difficult, could instructions be provided differently? If an activity includes unnecessary physical demands, could participants take part through another suitable arrangement?
Where a requested accommodation raises significant operational or safety concerns, the provider should assess the individual circumstances and applicable legal obligations.
The CRPD concept of reasonable accommodation recognizes the relevance of disproportionate or undue burden, but this should not be used as a vague explanation for rejecting a request without considering possible alternatives.
The distinction between an international human-rights principle and the particular obligations established by Vietnamese law must also be maintained.
An organization should not declare that an activity is unsuitable for all persons with disabilities merely because one participant has requested an adjustment.
Likewise, requiring every person with a disability to attend with a family member should not become a default condition.
If assistance is genuinely required, the parties should determine who is qualified or otherwise competent to provide it and whether suitable arrangements can be established.
Where participation cannot be arranged safely and appropriately, the navigator should explain the limitation clearly and help explore alternatives if the person wishes.
An alternative should not automatically mean a separate disability-only activity. The individual's interests and preferences should continue to guide the choice.
Repeated accessibility problems should also inform organizational improvement.
If several people cannot participate because a venue or activity format is unsuitable, the organization may need to change its ordinary practices rather than rely on individual navigation each time.
Persons with disabilities should help shape the services
Community services are unlikely to become meaningfully inclusive if accessibility decisions are made without the people who will use them.
Persons with disabilities and their representative organizations can identify barriers that may not be obvious to community workers, healthcare professionals or service managers.
A venue may appear accessible to its operator but present difficulties involving entrances, toilets, seating or internal circulation.
A communication method that works for one participant may not work for another.
Organizations of persons with disabilities (OPDs) can contribute to understanding these differences and improving how services operate.
Their involvement could include reviewing information materials, examining accessibility arrangements, advising on communication, testing activities and helping organizations understand participants' experiences.
It is important to distinguish organizations of persons with disabilities from organizations working for persons with disabilities.
Both may contribute valuable knowledge and services. However, organizations led and represented by persons with disabilities have a particular role in expressing lived experience, interests and rights.
The CRPD Committee's General Comment No. 7, published in 2018, emphasizes the participation of persons with disabilities through their representative organizations in implementing and monitoring the Convention.
Its 2025 concluding observations on Viet Nam also called for stronger and more meaningful participation by these organizations.
For a community partnership, consultation should therefore involve more than inviting a person with a disability to attend an event after the program has already been designed.
People should have opportunities to influence which activities are offered, how accessibility is addressed and how concerns are handled.
Their participation should also be supported through appropriate communication and accessible consultation arrangements.
This approach helps ensure that inclusion is shaped by the experiences and preferences of participants rather than by assumptions made on their behalf.
Safety, consent and privacy remain important
Disability-inclusive participation may involve assistance with communication, mobility or particular activities. The nature of that assistance should be understood before participation begins.
Staff and volunteers need to recognize what they are competent to provide and when specialist support is required.
For example, volunteers should not undertake physical transfers, administer medicines or provide complex personal care merely because an organizer has agreed to welcome a participant.
Where such assistance is necessary, appropriate arrangements should be established with suitably competent personnel and in accordance with applicable professional and legal requirements.
Community organizations should also provide accessible ways for participants to raise concerns about inappropriate treatment, harassment or other forms of harm.
Situations requiring specialist safeguarding, healthcare, social-work or legal intervention should be addressed through suitable professional pathways.
Privacy deserves similar attention.
A community organization does not automatically need a person's diagnosis, rehabilitation history or disability certificate to discuss participation in an ordinary activity.
A navigator may need to communicate a specific accessibility requirement, but the information shared should be limited to what is necessary and legally appropriate.
For example, an organizer may need to know that a participant requires wheelchair-accessible facilities. They would not necessarily need to know the medical condition associated with the person's mobility impairment.
Viet Nam's Law on Personal Data Protection No. 91/2025/QH15 and Decree No. 356/2025/ND-CP, both effective from 1 January 2026, are relevant when personal information is collected, processed or shared.
Depending on its content, disability-related information may include sensitive personal data, particularly health information.
Referral arrangements should therefore establish an appropriate lawful basis, meet applicable consent and notification requirements, and protect information from unnecessary disclosure.
Photographs, personal stories and disability-related information should not be used for publicity or fundraising without the necessary permissions and safeguards.
Respect for privacy is part of respect for autonomy. A person should be able to participate in a community activity without being required to disclose personal information that the organizer does not need.
What could a realistic disability-inclusive pilot look like in Viet Nam?
A useful pilot could begin with a small number of existing community activities rather than immediately establishing a separate program specifically for persons with disabilities.
The purpose would be to explore whether ordinary activities could become more accessible through changes in service design and appropriate navigation support.
For example, a local partnership might select a cultural activity, a community learning group or a recreational program already serving local residents.
Persons with disabilities and, where appropriate, their representative organizations should be involved from the beginning.
Together, the partners could examine how the activity works and what changes may be necessary for people with different participation needs.
This assessment should consider the complete experience, including registration, communication, entry to the venue, participation in the main activity, use of facilities and interaction with staff.
The partners should distinguish between adjustments that the community organization can make directly and needs requiring specialist support.
A group may be able to change its venue, improve communication materials or modify the structure of a session. It may not be equipped to provide rehabilitation, personal assistance or complex disability-related services.
When someone expresses an interest in participating, a navigator could help clarify their preferences, communicate relevant accessibility needs and confirm whether suitable arrangements are available.
The navigator should not independently assess rehabilitation needs, determine medical fitness or make decisions reserved for qualified professionals.
The pilot should also establish how requests for adjustments will be considered, who will communicate decisions and what happens if an agreed arrangement is not provided.
Participation should remain voluntary.
People should not be recruited merely because they have a disability or because an organization wants to demonstrate that its activities are inclusive.
Nor should participation in a particular activity become a condition for accessing rehabilitation, statutory assistance or other disability-related services for which the person may be eligible.
The initial objective should be to understand whether community organizations can make appropriate adjustments, whether participants find the activities worthwhile and whether navigation provides useful support.
A small pilot should not assume that improved accessibility will automatically reduce healthcare utilization or produce measurable clinical improvements.
Its value may lie in identifying practical changes that make ordinary community participation more accessible.
What should be measured before considering expansion?
The number of persons with disabilities referred to an activity is not a sufficient measure of inclusion.
A person may receive a referral but be unable to enter the venue. Someone else may attend once but feel excluded from the main activity. Another participant may attend regularly but have little opportunity to make choices or contribute.
These experiences should not be treated as equivalent.
Evaluation should consider whether participants were able to access the activity, whether promised adjustments were provided and whether people could participate in ways that mattered to them.
The person's own experience should remain central.
Someone may value developing friendships, learning a new skill, contributing to a group or simply enjoying an activity that reflects their interests.
These outcomes can be meaningful even when they do not produce measurable changes in clinical health indicators.
However, attendance alone should not be assumed to improve well-being.
A community activity may be enjoyable for one person and unsuitable for another. The presence of social interaction does not guarantee that meaningful relationships will develop.
A scoping review by Kisa and Kisa, published in Frontiers in Public Health in July 2026, examined 115 empirical studies of social-prescribing interventions across 16 countries.
The review identified considerable variation in program models, implementation arrangements and reported outcomes. It emphasized the importance of relationships, community capacity and local implementation conditions rather than referral processes alone.
However, it was not a specific evaluation of disability-inclusive social prescribing in Viet Nam.
Published evidence directly examining this particular model in Vietnamese community services remains limited.
A local pilot should therefore evaluate its own implementation.
Information about accessibility requests, adjustments provided, unsuccessful referrals, participant experiences and reasons for discontinuation could help identify whether services are becoming more inclusive.
The collection of such information should remain proportionate and respect privacy.
Evaluation should also consider whether the community organization has changed its ordinary practices.
If participation depends on a navigator repeatedly arranging temporary solutions, the underlying service may still be inaccessible.
A stronger indication of progress would be that the organization becomes better able to welcome future participants with similar needs.
The goal is not simply to increase referrals. It is to improve the quality and accessibility of the services to which people are connected.
Disability inclusion requires more than a successful referral
Social prescribing may create opportunities for persons with disabilities to pursue interests, build relationships and participate in community life.
Its contribution, however, depends on whether those opportunities are genuinely accessible.
A navigator can help someone identify suitable activities, communicate preferences and explore appropriate adjustments. The navigator may also help identify when rehabilitation or specialist disability-support services are needed.
But navigation cannot indefinitely compensate for inaccessible venues, unsuitable communication practices or community organizations that are unwilling or unable to make necessary changes.
Nor should social prescribing be used to replace rehabilitation, personal assistance, professional social work or other disability-related services.
For Viet Nam, a useful direction would be to explore disability-inclusive community connections through cooperation among healthcare organizations, community-service providers, disability-support organizations and persons with disabilities themselves.
Community organizations should consider accessibility as part of ordinary service quality rather than an exceptional favor provided to individual participants.
For Social Prescribing Vietnam, this is an important area for evidence-informed discussion, partnership development and responsible local learning.
The purpose is not to create a parallel system of activities for persons with disabilities or add specialist responsibilities to the navigator's role.
It is to understand how existing community opportunities can become more inclusive, how individual adjustments can be arranged and how people can receive appropriate specialist support when they need it.
A successful referral is only the beginning.
Meaningful inclusion occurs when a person can choose an activity, access the setting, participate with dignity, contribute alongside others and decide whether the experience is worth continuing.
That is the difference between connecting someone to a community service and making community participation genuinely accessible.
References
United Nations. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Adopted 13 December 2006. In particular, Articles 2, 3, 5, 9, 12, 19, 26 and 30.
United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. General Comment No. 1 (2014): Article 12 – Equal Recognition Before the Law. CRPD/C/GC/1. 19 May 2014.
United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. General Comment No. 2 (2014): Article 9 – Accessibility. CRPD/C/GC/2. 22 May 2014.
United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. General Comment No. 5 (2017): Article 19 – Living Independently and Being Included in the Community. CRPD/C/GC/5. 27 October 2017.
United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. General Comment No. 7 (2018): Participation of Persons with Disabilities, Including Children with Disabilities, through Their Representative Organizations, in the Implementation and Monitoring of the Convention. CRPD/C/GC/7. 9 November 2018.
United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Concluding Observations on the Initial Report of Viet Nam. CRPD/C/VNM/CO/1. 28 April 2025.
World Health Organization, UNESCO, International Labour Organization and International Disability Development Consortium. Community-Based Rehabilitation: CBR Guidelines. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2010.
World Health Organization Regional Office for the Western Pacific. A Toolkit on How to Implement Social Prescribing. Manila: World Health Organization; 2022.
United Nations Development Programme. Situational Analysis Report on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in Viet Nam. 12 March 2023.
United Nations Development Programme. Viet Nam's Rights-Based Shift in Disability Inclusion: A Landmark Policy Direction and Implications for Programming and Development Partnerships. 10 April 2026.
Kisa A, Kisa S. Models, implementation, and reported outcomes of social prescribing interventions: a scoping review. Frontiers in Public Health. 2026;14:1871347. doi:10.3389/fpubh.2026.1871347.
National Assembly of Viet Nam. Law No. 51/2010/QH12 on Persons with Disabilities, dated 17 June 2010, effective 1 January 2011, as amended and consolidated in Document No. 24/VBHN-VPQH issued by the Office of the National Assembly on 26 February 2026.
National Assembly of Viet Nam. Resolution No. 84/2014/QH13 on Ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. 28 November 2014.
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Viet Nam. Notice No. 08/2015/TB-LPQT concerning the entry into force of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities for Viet Nam. 12 March 2015.
Ministry of Construction of Viet Nam. Circular No. 06/2024/TT-BXD promulgating QCVN 10:2024/BXD, National Technical Regulation on Constructions Accessibility. Effective 1 February 2025.
National Assembly of Viet Nam. Civil Code No. 91/2015/QH13, including Articles 22 and 23 concerning civil act capacity and persons with difficulties in cognition or behavioral control. Effective 1 January 2017.
National Assembly of Viet Nam. Law No. 15/2023/QH15 on Medical Examination and Treatment. Effective 1 January 2024.
Government of Viet Nam. Decree No. 110/2024/ND-CP on Social Work. Effective 15 October 2024.
Ministry of Health of Viet Nam. Circular No. 29/2026/TT-BYT on Social Work Practice and Continuing Professional Knowledge. Effective 25 August 2026.
National Assembly of Viet Nam. Law No. 91/2025/QH15 on Personal Data Protection. Effective 1 January 2026.
Government of Viet Nam. Decree No. 356/2025/ND-CP detailing provisions and implementation measures under the Law on Personal Data Protection. Effective 1 January 2026.
Editorial and legal note: This article provides an educational and implementation-focused discussion of disability inclusion and social prescribing in Viet Nam, based on international evidence, disability-rights principles and relevant legal frameworks reviewed through October 2026.
It does not establish that disability-inclusive social prescribing is a nationally standardized, specifically authorized or clinically validated service in Viet Nam. The international concept of reasonable accommodation should be distinguished from the specific obligations and implementation requirements established under Vietnamese law.
Any proposed program should assess the actual activities involved, applicable accessibility and professional requirements, individual autonomy, safeguarding, personal-data protection and the responsibilities of participating community organizations, rehabilitation providers and disability-support services.