Social Prescribing and Recovery From Substance Use Disorders in Viet Nam: Where Could Community Participation Complement Treatment, and What Legal and Clinical Boundaries Apply?
IMPLEMENTATION & PRACTICEVIET NAM CONTEXT
Social Prescribing and Recovery From Substance Use Disorders in Viet Nam: Where Could Community Participation Complement Treatment, and What Legal and Clinical Boundaries Apply?
A man receiving treatment for opioid use disorder wants to join a weekend photography class. He attends his medical appointments regularly and would like to spend some time doing something unrelated to treatment. A local community group offers a class that interests him, and new participants are welcome.
When he looks at the registration form, however, he notices a question asking whether he has been referred because of a medical condition.
He hesitates. He wants to learn photography, not explain his treatment history to people he has never met.
The class may be suitable, and the organizer may have good intentions. Yet asking about a medical condition creates a potential barrier when that information is unnecessary for participation. A healthcare professional may have suggested the activity after discussing the man's interests, but the community organization does not automatically need to know about his diagnosis or treatment.
This situation illustrates a possible role for social prescribing during recovery from substance use disorders.
For some people, treatment is accompanied by a wish to return to familiar activities, explore new interests, develop relationships or participate in community life without being defined by their health condition.
These opportunities can be meaningful in their own right. Their value does not depend entirely on whether they produce measurable clinical outcomes.
However, social prescribing is not addiction treatment. Community activities cannot replace appropriate medical assessment, prescribed medication, psychological interventions or statutory responsibilities that may apply to particular individuals in Viet Nam.
The question is whether care navigation could help people who want to participate in community life find suitable opportunities while protecting their privacy, respecting their choices and maintaining clear boundaries between ordinary activities, professional treatment and legal obligations.
Recovery Is More Than One Outcome or Activity
Substance use disorders are health conditions involving clinically significant patterns of substance use. Their presentation, severity, associated risks and treatment needs differ considerably.
Someone receiving care for alcohol use disorder may have different treatment needs from a person receiving medication for opioid use disorder. Another individual may have experienced problematic stimulant use or difficulties involving more than one substance.
Their recovery goals and circumstances should not be assumed to be identical.
The World Health Organization (WHO) and United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) emphasize evidence-based, ethical and person-centered treatment in their International Standards for the Treatment of Drug Use Disorders, published in 2020.[1]
These standards recognize that appropriate care may involve different combinations of medical, psychological and social interventions, depending on the individual and the clinical situation.
Recovery is also understood in different ways across professional frameworks and personal experiences. For some people, sustained abstinence from a particular substance is an important goal. Others may be receiving long-term prescribed medication, working toward greater treatment stability or addressing health and social difficulties alongside their substance use.
These circumstances cannot be reduced to a single measure of personal success.
In particular, receiving prescribed methadone for opioid use disorder should not be interpreted as unsuccessful recovery simply because treatment continues. Medication can be an essential component of evidence-based care.
Equally, joining a community group does not demonstrate that a substance use disorder has resolved.
Someone may enjoy photography, volunteering or recreational activities while continuing to need specialist treatment. Another person may be progressing well in treatment without wanting additional organized activities.
Social prescribing should respect these differences rather than promote one model of recovery for everyone.
Its potential contribution is to support meaningful participation when the person wants it, a suitable opportunity exists and participation is compatible with relevant clinical and legal requirements.
Clinical Diagnosis and Legal Status Are Not Interchangeable
Language requires particular care when discussing substance use in Viet Nam.
Terms such as substance use, substance use disorder, illicit drug use, drug dependence, drug rehabilitation and post-rehabilitation management have different meanings.
A substance use disorder is a clinical concept. Appropriate diagnosis and treatment depend on professional assessment and recognized clinical standards.
Vietnamese drug prevention and control legislation also establishes specific legal categories, procedures and responsibilities involving illicit drug use, determination of drug dependence, rehabilitation and management after rehabilitation.
These categories serve particular statutory purposes. They should not automatically be treated as equivalent to every diagnosis used in international clinical classification systems.
Not everyone who consumes alcohol has alcohol use disorder. Not everyone who uses a substance meets the clinical criteria for a substance use disorder.
Similarly, a person's clinical treatment status does not, by itself, establish which statutory drug-related measures apply to them.
This distinction matters for any proposed community navigation pathway.
A navigator should not determine whether someone meets the statutory criteria for drug dependence, whether a person is subject to a particular rehabilitation measure or what legal obligations apply.
Those decisions belong to appropriately qualified professionals and competent authorities under the relevant legal framework.
A community organization offering recreational or educational activities has an even more limited role. It should not be expected to verify clinical diagnoses or legal classifications simply because someone has been introduced through a healthcare-related service.
Community Participation Can Have Meaning Beyond Treatment
During treatment or recovery, people may want to maintain ordinary interests and activities that are not organized around substance use.
Someone who previously enjoyed painting may wish to join an art class. Another person may want to become more physically active, learn a language, explore photography or participate in a local cultural activity.
These interests are not necessarily signs of an unmet clinical need. They may simply reflect what the individual enjoys and how they would like to spend their time.
The WHO Regional Office for the Western Pacific describes social prescribing as an approach that connects people with suitable non-clinical community resources to support health and well-being.[2]
In this context, a navigator might help someone identify appropriate activities, understand participation requirements or contact an organization when requested.
The process should begin with the person's interests rather than their diagnosis.
Someone who wants to learn photography should not automatically be directed to a recovery-focused group. A person interested in gardening may prefer an ordinary community gardening activity rather than a program organized around addiction.
For some individuals, participating in an activity where people come together because of a shared interest may provide an opportunity to develop relationships outside treatment.
They may wish to be known as a photographer, student, volunteer, gardener or community member rather than primarily as someone receiving addiction care.
Care navigation could support that preference.
However, community activities should not be relabeled as addiction interventions simply because some participants have a history of substance use.
A photography class remains a photography class. Its organizers should not be expected to deliver treatment, monitor recovery or assess clinical outcomes.
Treatment and Emergency Care Must Remain With Qualified Professionals
Community participation may complement recovery, but it cannot replace evidence-based treatment.
Depending on the condition and circumstances, clinical care may involve medication, psychological interventions, medical monitoring, structured behavioral treatment or other professionally delivered services.
The WHO–UNODC standards emphasize appropriate assessment, continuity of care, patient dignity and access to evidence-based treatment.[1]
For opioid use disorder, medication treatment can play an important role in reducing health risks and supporting ongoing care.
Someone receiving methadone should not be advised by a community navigator to reduce or discontinue prescribed treatment because they have joined a social activity.
Likewise, a community group should not promote unverified treatments or claim that participation can replace professional addiction care.
Alcohol use disorder presents different clinical considerations.
A person with alcohol dependence may be at risk of serious withdrawal complications, including seizures or delirium, when alcohol consumption is reduced or stopped abruptly.
WHO guidance emphasizes appropriate clinical assessment and management of alcohol withdrawal, particularly when severe complications are possible.[3]
A navigator should not independently recommend detoxification or provide instructions for managing withdrawal.
Opioid overdose is another potentially life-threatening situation. WHO identifies respiratory depression as a central danger and emphasizes the need for rapid recognition and emergency response.[4]
Suspected overdose, severe withdrawal, serious intoxication, acute psychological crises and other immediate threats to health require an appropriate emergency response and qualified clinical care.
These situations fall outside ordinary social prescribing.
Where a participant reports symptoms or concerns requiring professional assessment, the appropriate response is to facilitate access to competent healthcare services rather than attempt to resolve the problem through a community activity.
Social prescribing is most appropriately considered alongside suitable treatment, not instead of it.
What Does Recent Research From Viet Nam Tell Us?
Recent Vietnamese research provides useful insights into stigma, trust and engagement with addiction treatment services.
A study by Nguyen and colleagues, published in Substance Use: Research and Treatment on May 21, 2026, examined methadone maintenance treatment-related stigma and confidence in treatment adherence among 690 adults with a history of drug use across three Vietnamese provinces.[5]
The researchers analyzed cross-sectional baseline data collected between April and July 2024.
Both anticipated stigma and internalized stigma were negatively correlated with self-reported confidence in treatment adherence. However, after adjusting for selected participant characteristics, only anticipated stigma remained independently associated with lower adherence self-efficacy.
This suggests that people who expected negative treatment from others because of methadone therapy tended to report less confidence in their ability to maintain treatment adherence.
The finding is important, but its meaning should remain precise. The study did not demonstrate that stigma caused poorer adherence, nor did it evaluate social prescribing or community participation.
Nevertheless, it provides relevant context for understanding why unnecessary disclosure may matter.
Someone may be interested in a community activity but hesitate if participation requires revealing a treatment history they prefer to keep private.
Another Vietnamese study by Li and colleagues, published online in January 2026 in the Journal of Substance Use and Addiction Treatment, examined trust in addiction treatment services among 690 adults with histories of drug use.[6]
The researchers analyzed baseline data from an ongoing randomized intervention study, distinguishing trust in individual providers from trust in treatment services more broadly.
Higher internalized methadone-related stigma and greater depressive symptoms were associated with lower trust in addiction treatment services after adjustment for selected characteristics.
However, this was an observational analysis of baseline data. It did not demonstrate that reducing stigma would necessarily improve trust or treatment outcomes.
It also did not evaluate community navigation.
Its relevance to social prescribing is therefore indirect but useful. Trust cannot be assumed simply because an organization offers assistance.
Some people may welcome an opportunity but hesitate if they are uncertain about confidentiality, institutional involvement or how their personal information may be used.
These studies support careful attention to privacy, respectful communication and individual choice. They do not establish that everyone receiving addiction treatment needs a social prescribing referral.
Community-Based Addiction Treatment Is Not Social Prescribing
Viet Nam has experience developing community-based approaches to addiction treatment and rehabilitation. However, these approaches should not be confused with social prescribing.
A study by Jordens and Higgs, published online in Global Public Health on September 30, 2026, examined an earlier voluntary community-based drug treatment initiative in Khánh Hoà.[7]
The research drew on qualitative data collected during 2016–2017, when local stakeholders were implementing elements of Viet Nam's drug treatment reform agenda.
It described efforts to develop community-based treatment services through cooperation between governmental and non-governmental actors, alongside challenges associated with the continued role of compulsory rehabilitation.
Although the article was published in 2026, its findings concern an earlier period. They should not be interpreted as a complete description of current Vietnamese practice following subsequent legal, administrative and institutional changes.
Nor should the study be presented as evidence that a national social prescribing model was operating in Viet Nam in 2026.
Community-based addiction treatment involves the provision or coordination of treatment and recovery-related services within or closer to people's communities.
Social prescribing concerns appropriate connections to non-clinical community resources.
The two may complement one another, but they have different purposes, professional requirements and responsibilities.
A community-based treatment service does not become social prescribing because it operates outside a hospital. Equally, a community activity does not become addiction treatment because someone receiving treatment participates in it.
International Recovery Support Evidence Has Important Limits
Peer recovery support is another relevant area of international research.
A systematic review by Duan and colleagues, published in the October 2026 issue of Drug and Alcohol Dependence, synthesized 53 studies of peer recovery support services for people with substance use disorders.[8]
The review included 25 randomized controlled trials. Forty-seven studies were conducted in the United States, with the remainder from several other countries.
The evidence was most favorable for selected outcomes involving connection to treatment and engagement with services.
However, findings concerning substance use, emergency department attendance, hospitalization, overdose and mortality were inconsistent.
Some uncontrolled longitudinal studies reported improvements in anxiety and depressive symptoms, but the authors found no randomized trials evaluating those particular outcomes.
The review also identified substantial variation in how peer recovery programs were organized, including differences in staffing, intensity, duration and service settings.
These findings are relevant to recovery support, but the intervention being studied must be identified correctly.
Peer recovery services may involve people with lived experience who receive training to support others through structured programs. Their responsibilities can include practical assistance, treatment engagement, navigation and other defined recovery-related activities.
An ordinary community group does not become a peer recovery service because some members have experienced substance use disorders.
Likewise, findings from structured peer recovery interventions cannot automatically be applied to social prescribing.
The distinction also matters when considering evidence from clinical trials in Viet Nam.
The STAR-OM trial, published online in The Lancet Regional Health – Southeast Asia in April 2026, evaluated adaptive behavioral interventions for methamphetamine use among people receiving methadone treatment for opioid use disorder.[9]
The study included 665 participants across 15 methadone treatment clinics in Hà Nội and Ho Chi Minh City.
It examined defined treatment sequences involving contingency management, behavioral education, the Matrix model and text-message support.
The trial reported improvements in selected methamphetamine-use outcomes, with differences across intervention sequences.
These findings contribute to evidence-based addiction treatment in Viet Nam.
However, the interventions were delivered through organized clinical treatment settings, with specific procedures and outcome measures.
They were not ordinary community activities or a social prescribing intervention.
A navigator or recreational group cannot claim equivalent effectiveness by offering informal encouragement, social contact or opportunities for participation.
Evidence supporting a particular treatment should remain associated with that treatment and the population and setting in which it was studied.
Social prescribing requires its own appropriately designed evaluation.
Viet Nam's Drug Prevention and Control Framework Changed in July 2026
The legal context is especially important for this topic.
The National Assembly adopted Law No. 120/2025/QH15 on Drug Prevention and Control on December 10, 2025. The law took effect on July 1, 2026, replacing the previous Drug Prevention and Control Law No. 73/2021/QH14, as amended, subject to applicable transitional provisions.[10]
Government Decree No. 163/2026/ND-CP, issued on May 15, 2026, also took effect on July 1, 2026 and provides detailed implementing provisions.[11]
The framework regulates several distinct matters, including prevention and control of illicit drugs, management of people using illicit drugs, drug rehabilitation, treatment using substitute medication and management after rehabilitation.
It provides for voluntary rehabilitation arrangements as well as compulsory measures in specified circumstances.
An individual receiving voluntary treatment may have different legal obligations from someone subject to a compulsory rehabilitation measure. Another person may be receiving substitute medication or be subject to lawful post-rehabilitation management.
These circumstances cannot be treated as identical.
Article 12 of the new law also provides for electronic monitoring in specified circumstances.
The law identifies categories to which electronic monitoring measures may apply, including people undergoing voluntary drug rehabilitation at home or in the community, people receiving substitute-medication treatment and people subject to post-rehabilitation management.
The law assigns authority to apply the measure to the head of the commune-level public security agency, with detailed conditions and procedures governed by applicable regulations.
This does not mean that everyone receiving addiction treatment is automatically subject to electronic monitoring.
Nor does participation in a community activity give its organizer authority to impose, administer or independently monitor such measures.
A social prescribing initiative must therefore distinguish voluntary participation in ordinary community activities from rehabilitation, treatment or management obligations established by law.
An individual's interest in joining a class or community group does not remove statutory requirements that may apply to their circumstances.
Similarly, a navigator cannot independently determine whether participation is permitted under a particular legal arrangement.
Those questions must remain with the relevant competent authorities and professionals.
Drug-Dependence Determination Is a Regulated Process
Viet Nam's 2026 implementing framework establishes specific procedures for determining drug dependence.
Government Decree No. 166/2026/ND-CP regulates the documentation, sequence and procedures for determining drug dependence.[12]
Ministry of Health Circular No. 14/2026/TT-BYT establishes diagnostic standards and professional procedures for this determination.[13]
Both took effect on July 1, 2026.
These provisions are relevant because determining drug dependence under the statutory framework is not an ordinary community screening activity.
A care navigator should not assess whether someone meets the relevant diagnostic criteria or make a determination that carries legal consequences.
A recreational organization should not independently classify participants according to suspected drug dependence.
Nor should a social prescribing platform collect clinical or behavioral information in a manner that creates the impression of an official medical or legal assessment.
Someone may voluntarily mention a history of substance use during a conversation about community interests.
That disclosure does not give the navigator authority to assign a legal status or decide whether the person is subject to a statutory procedure.
When an official determination or clinical assessment is required, the competent services must lead.
A government report published on October 27, 2026, also illustrates the continuing role of established healthcare services in drug treatment and statutory determination.[22]
The report stated that methadone treatment was being maintained for 34,120 people at 403 treatment facilities and that 4,306 commune-level healthcare facilities met the conditions for determining drug dependence.
These are administrative service figures, not evidence of social prescribing availability or effectiveness.
They reinforce that clinical treatment and statutory determination are established functions with defined institutional responsibilities.
A future community navigation approach should complement these services where appropriate rather than attempt to reproduce their functions.
Alcohol Use Disorder Requires a Different Legal and Clinical Distinction
The term substance use disorders includes alcohol use disorder as well as disorders involving other substances.
However, Viet Nam's legal framework concerning alcohol is not identical to its framework for illicit drugs.
The Law on Prevention and Control of Harmful Effects of Alcoholic Beverages No. 44/2019/QH14 took effect on January 1, 2020, subject to subsequent applicable amendments.[14]
It establishes measures concerning the prevention and reduction of alcohol-related harms.
The statutory procedures governing illicit drug dependence and compulsory drug rehabilitation should not automatically be applied to people with alcohol use disorder.
Clinical management also varies according to the substance involved.
A person receiving treatment for alcohol use disorder may require professional advice concerning withdrawal, medication, psychological interventions or ongoing care.
A community navigator should not recommend abrupt cessation of alcohol, changes to treatment or reliance on community activities to manage withdrawal.
The environment of an activity may also matter.
Someone who wishes to avoid alcohol may not find an event centered on drinking suitable, even if the activity is otherwise attractive.
That does not mean people with a history of alcohol use disorder should automatically be excluded from ordinary social activities.
The appropriate approach is to understand the person's preferences and circumstances, recognize any relevant professional advice and provide accurate information about the activity.
Responsible navigation is based on informed choice rather than automatic assumptions about what someone with a particular diagnosis can or cannot do.
Reducing Unnecessary Disclosure and Stigma
For someone recovering from a substance use disorder, joining an ordinary community activity may be an opportunity to participate without their treatment history becoming the focus.
However, unnecessary questions can make that difficult.
A registration form may ask whether someone has ever received addiction treatment. An organizer may request details of previous drug use or evidence that treatment has finished.
Such requests should not be made routinely without a specific, lawful and proportionate reason.
Unnecessary disclosure can expose people to stigma or discourage them from participating.
The 2026 Vietnamese research on methadone-related stigma and treatment confidence illustrates why concerns about disclosure deserve attention, although that study did not directly evaluate community participation.[5]
A person may simply want to join a class because they enjoy photography, painting or another shared interest.
Their medical history should not automatically become the defining feature of the introduction.
For an ordinary community activity, information about the person's preferred contact method, accessibility needs or relevant participation arrangements may be sufficient.
Detailed clinical diagnoses, medication records or rehabilitation histories would not ordinarily be necessary.
At the same time, confidentiality should not be interpreted as permission to ignore specific lawful reporting requirements or genuine safety responsibilities.
The appropriate approach depends on the circumstances, the activity and the applicable legal framework.
The principle is to avoid collecting or sharing personal information simply because another organization believes the disclosure might be useful.
Not Every Community Activity Will Be Appropriate
Community participation may offer meaningful opportunities, but some activities or environments may be unsuitable for a particular person.
Someone may prefer to avoid settings where alcohol or other substance use is prominent. Another may be uncomfortable with a group that reminds them of difficult personal experiences.
Certain activities may involve physical demands that are inappropriate during medical instability.
Other programs may lack accessibility arrangements, adequate supervision or the capacity to provide support when needed.
A navigator should therefore understand what a proposed activity involves rather than assume that any community opportunity is suitable.
This does not mean ordinary community organizers must become addiction specialists. They do, however, need to understand their own responsibilities and the limits of what their activities provide.
The navigator may help clarify practical information about participation. Where clinical suitability is uncertain, appropriately qualified healthcare professionals should provide the relevant assessment.
A recovery-focused activity may be appropriate for someone who wants it and where the program has suitable arrangements. An ordinary community activity may be more attractive to another individual.
Neither should be treated as a universal requirement.
The objective is to support participation that is relevant, realistic and consistent with the person's preferences, rather than directing everyone with similar diagnoses toward the same activity.
Peer Support and Family Involvement Should Reflect Individual Preferences
People with lived experience of substance use disorders may value connecting with others who have faced similar challenges.
Peer recovery support can be meaningful and, in some settings, is an organized component of treatment and recovery services.
However, social prescribing should not automatically direct everyone with a substance use disorder to a peer support group.
Some people may already receive appropriate peer support through their treatment service. Others may prefer activities where substance use is not discussed.
Someone who wants to learn a language or join a community art program should not need to justify that choice over a recovery-focused activity.
Families may also provide valuable support during treatment and recovery.
Some people receive practical assistance with transportation, appointments and daily responsibilities. Others appreciate encouragement from relatives or help maintaining important relationships.
However, family circumstances vary. Some individuals have complicated relationships with relatives, while others prefer to keep parts of their treatment or social life private.
A navigator should not assume that family involvement is always necessary or welcome.
An adult's treatment history should not automatically be shared with relatives simply because they wish to help.
Similarly, a family member's interest in enrolling someone in a community activity does not automatically replace the individual's own informed participation or any legally required authorization.
Where the person wishes to involve relatives, their role should be understood within the applicable clinical, legal and organizational arrangements.
Where family conflict, violence or other serious concerns arise, appropriate professional or protection services may be necessary.
For children or individuals whose decision-making arrangements are governed by specific legal provisions, applicable requirements concerning consent, representation and protection must be respected.
The starting point should remain the person's circumstances, preferences and lawful ability to participate in decisions.
Privacy and Data Protection Are Particularly Important
Information about substance use, diagnosis, treatment and statutory rehabilitation status can be highly sensitive.
Someone may be concerned that their health information could become known to an employer, neighbor, community organizer or another party.
In some circumstances, specific legal reporting or management requirements may also apply.
Viet Nam's Law on Personal Data Protection No. 91/2025/QH15 and Government Decree No. 356/2025/ND-CP have been effective since January 1, 2026.[15,16]
Organizations considering structured navigation must determine the lawful purposes and bases for processing personal information, relevant consent and notification requirements, the responsibilities of participating parties and appropriate safeguards.
Health information and other sensitive personal data require particular protection.
Consent, where required, should relate to defined purposes rather than operate as unrestricted permission to share complete clinical records.
A person asking about a community education course may need to provide ordinary registration information.
The organizer would not ordinarily need a copy of the person's diagnosis, methadone prescription, rehabilitation records or statutory management information.
Where a healthcare provider or competent authority has a specific legal reporting obligation, that obligation must be addressed through the relevant lawful process.
It should not be transferred informally to an unrelated community organization.
A navigation platform should also avoid creating unnecessary databases that identify participants according to substance use history, treatment status or rehabilitation arrangements.
Digital convenience is not sufficient justification for collecting sensitive information.
Data collection should be limited to what is necessary and lawful for the defined purpose, with appropriate access controls, retention arrangements and accountability.
Confidentiality is important, but it should not be promised without explaining any applicable legal limits.
Who Could Provide Care Navigation?
International social prescribing models frequently involve link workers who help people discuss goals, identify suitable resources and make connections with community activities.
However, these roles should not be transferred into Viet Nam without considering existing professional and legal responsibilities.
The Law on Medical Examination and Treatment No. 15/2023/QH15 governs regulated medical examination and treatment activities.[17]
Government Decree No. 110/2024/ND-CP establishes the framework for professional social work, while Circular No. 29/2026/TT-BYT, effective August 25, 2026, regulates specified aspects of social-work practice and professional knowledge updating.[18,19]
Under Decree No. 110/2024/ND-CP, the requirement for professional social-work practitioners to hold a practice registration certificate applies from January 1, 2027, according to the Decree's provisions.
Circular No. 51/2024/TT-BYT also regulates social-work activities in medical examination and treatment establishments licensed to operate as hospitals.[20]
Not everyone providing information about community opportunities is practicing regulated healthcare or professional social work.
However, a new job title does not remove applicable legal requirements when someone undertakes activities that fall within a regulated professional scope.
For people receiving addiction treatment, the existing clinical team may remain the appropriate source of medical assessment and treatment coordination.
A separate navigator could potentially help with ordinary non-clinical community information where an appropriate and authorized arrangement exists.
The responsibilities should remain clearly distinguishable.
A navigator may explain what an activity offers, help someone contact an organizer and clarify practical participation requirements. They should not diagnose substance use disorders, alter prescribed treatment, determine statutory rehabilitation status or independently manage complex clinical risks.
Where professional assessment or statutory action is necessary, the responsible service must lead.
What Would a Responsible Pilot in Viet Nam Require?
A small pilot could help determine whether people receiving treatment for, or recovering from, substance use disorders want assistance accessing ordinary community activities.
It should not begin by assuming that everyone in treatment needs additional social participation.
The first step would be to understand what potential participants actually want.
Some may be interested in cultural activities, photography or community education. Others may prefer recreation, creative interests or activities that do not require organized group participation.
Some may already have meaningful activities and need no additional assistance.
Others may find participation difficult because of treatment schedules, statutory requirements, financial circumstances, transportation or limited local resources.
These differences should guide the design.
A pilot could begin with a small number of established non-clinical activities that welcome participants according to ordinary eligibility and participation criteria.
Appropriate treatment providers and other competent professionals should be involved in defining professional boundaries, safeguards and procedures for concerns requiring clinical attention.
Community organizations should participate willingly and understand what they are, and are not, being asked to provide.
The pilot should not create a separate addiction treatment service under the social prescribing label.
Nor should it require community organizers to collect drug-use histories or assess compliance with treatment.
Where statutory restrictions or management obligations apply, competent authorities and responsible professionals must determine the relevant implications.
Ordinary community participation should not be presented as satisfying rehabilitation or monitoring requirements unless a specific lawful and authorized arrangement establishes that function.
Before implementation, organizers would need to define responsibilities for coordination, communication, confidentiality, data protection, safeguarding and professional escalation.
Any research component should undergo appropriate institutional authorization and ethical review where required.
The pilot should remain manageable enough to assess whether the proposed connections are useful and safe, and to modify or discontinue arrangements that do not work as intended.
What Should Evaluation Measure?
A community navigation initiative should not be judged only by referral numbers or attendance.
Someone may receive information about several activities and decide that none is appropriate. Another person may join an activity and find it meaningful. Someone else may choose not to participate because of treatment commitments, work, family responsibilities or personal preference.
These different outcomes deserve interpretation rather than automatic classification as success or failure.
An initial evaluation should examine whether navigation is acceptable, practical and safe.
Did participants understand the available choices? Were the activities relevant to their interests? Did they feel able to decline participation? Was personal information protected? Could community organizations manage their responsibilities appropriately?
It should also consider unintended consequences.
A poorly designed introduction may disclose a treatment history unnecessarily, expose someone to stigma or create unrealistic expectations about what the activity can provide.
A community organization may become overburdened if it is expected to manage complex clinical or social needs outside its competence.
These possibilities should be examined through appropriate procedures.
Clinical outcomes require a different level of evidence.
A feasibility pilot cannot establish that navigation reduces substance use, improves treatment retention, prevents overdose or reduces mortality.
Changes in those outcomes may reflect prescribed medication, specialist treatment, psychosocial interventions, personal circumstances or several factors together.
The 2026 systematic review of peer recovery support services found substantial variation between programs and inconsistent results for several important clinical outcomes.[8]
A regional social prescribing scoping review published in The Lancet Regional Health – Western Pacific in January 2026 also identified considerable differences in service models, funding, referral systems and evaluation methods.[21]
These findings reinforce the need for locally appropriate research rather than assuming that interventions developed elsewhere will produce the same outcomes in Viet Nam.
Where clinical outcomes are studied, appropriate research designs, professional oversight and ethical safeguards are necessary.
A social prescribing evaluation should not routinely collect drug-testing results or detailed clinical records unless there is a clearly defined, lawful and appropriately authorized reason.
The evaluation should measure what the proposed service actually seeks to achieve.
If its purpose is to help someone understand and access a meaningful activity, evidence about appropriate connections, informed choice, participant experience and safety may be more relevant initially than attempts to demonstrate reduced healthcare expenditure.
Community Participation Should Not Become Another Test of Recovery
People receiving treatment for substance use disorders may already face significant demands involving medical appointments, medication schedules, professional assessments and, in particular circumstances, statutory responsibilities.
Community participation should not automatically become another obligation.
Someone who wants to join a photography class should be able to explore that opportunity without being treated primarily as a patient or a person under supervision.
They should not be expected to explain their treatment history to every new group. Nor should ordinary participation be used as a moral test of whether they are sufficiently committed to recovery.
A person who declines an activity may simply not enjoy it.
Someone who stops attending may have changed interests, encountered practical difficulties or decided to use their time differently.
These choices should not automatically be interpreted as deterioration in recovery.
At the same time, community organizers and navigators must respect applicable clinical and legal requirements.
The intention to provide voluntary support does not authorize an organization to disregard professional assessments, statutory restrictions or responsibilities assigned to competent authorities.
Social prescribing should therefore support meaningful choices where those choices are appropriate and lawful.
It should not create a parallel system for addiction treatment, rehabilitation, monitoring or post-rehabilitation management.
A Careful Role for Social Prescribing in Viet Nam
Recovery from substance use disorders can involve more than treatment appointments and clinical symptoms.
People may also want opportunities to learn, develop interests, participate in ordinary activities and build relationships within their communities.
These goals can be personally meaningful. However, their value should not be confused with evidence that social prescribing treats substance use disorders.
International research suggests that some structured peer recovery services may improve treatment linkage and engagement, while evidence for several important clinical outcomes remains inconsistent.
Vietnamese research highlights the relevance of stigma, trust and the practical challenges involved in treatment engagement.
These findings provide useful context, but they do not establish an effective social prescribing model for substance use recovery in Viet Nam.
The country's legal framework also requires particular attention.
Law No. 120/2025/QH15 and its implementing regulations establish distinct requirements concerning drug rehabilitation, treatment, determination of drug dependence, electronic monitoring in specified circumstances and management after rehabilitation.
Alcohol use disorders operate within a different legal context, while regulated medical treatment and professional social work retain their own responsibilities.
Any proposed community navigation pathway must respect these distinctions.
For Viet Nam, the opportunity is to explore whether people who want to participate in ordinary community activities can access suitable opportunities without unnecessary barriers, stigma or disclosure.
That does not require treating everyone in recovery as someone who needs a referral. Nor does it require turning community organizations into addiction treatment providers.
Sometimes a useful connection may involve nothing more than accurate information about a class, a cultural activity or a local group. Other circumstances may require professional assessment, specialist treatment or action by a competent authority.
The appropriate response depends on the person, their preferences and the applicable clinical and legal requirements.
The central question is not how many people recovering from substance use disorders can be referred to community programs. It is whether someone who wants to participate in community life can find a suitable opportunity while continuing to receive the care, protection and professional support they need.
Community connection cannot replace treatment or statutory responsibilities. But when it is genuinely wanted, appropriate and responsibly arranged, it may help people participate in ordinary parts of life that matter to them.
That is the potential contribution worth exploring through social prescribing in Viet Nam.
References
World Health Organization & United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. (2020). International Standards for the Treatment of Drug Use Disorders: Revised Edition Incorporating Results of Field-Testing. WHO.
World Health Organization Regional Office for the Western Pacific. (2022). A Toolkit on How to Implement Social Prescribing. WHO. ISBN: 9789290619765.
World Health Organization. Management of Alcohol Withdrawal. Mental Health Gap Action Programme Evidence Centre.
World Health Organization. (2025). Opioid Overdose. Updated August 29, 2025.
Nguyen, H. N., Li, L., Nguyen, T. A., & Pham, T. H. (2026). Methadone maintenance treatment-related stigma and adherence self-efficacy in Vietnam. Substance Use: Research and Treatment, 20, 29768357261452223. Published May 21, 2026. DOI: 10.1177/29768357261452223.
Li, L., Liang, L.-J., Pham, T. H., Nguyen, H. T. T., & Nguyen, T. A. (2026). Trust in addiction treatment services among people who use drugs in Vietnam. Journal of Substance Use and Addiction Treatment, 183, 209898. Published online January 16, 2026. DOI: 10.1016/j.josat.2026.209898.
Jordens, J., & Higgs, P. (2026). The Khánh Hoà model: A case study of voluntary community-based drug treatment in provincial Vietnam. Global Public Health, 21(1), 2740891. Published online September 30, 2026. DOI: 10.1080/17441692.2026.2740891.
Duan, Z., Verinumbe, T., Karimi-Sari, H., Lee, G. Y., Agee, T., Latkin, C., & Falade-Nwulia, O. (2026). Effectiveness of peer recovery support services for substance use disorders: A systematic review of healthcare utilization, behavioral health, and engagement outcomes. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 287, 113290. Published online July 30, 2026; included in the October 2026 issue. DOI: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2026.113290.
Giang, L. M., et al. (2026). Interventions for methamphetamine use among people on methadone maintenance treatment in Vietnam: A sequential multiple assignment randomized trial (STAR-OM). The Lancet Regional Health – Southeast Asia, 48, 100773. Published online April 24, 2026. DOI: 10.1016/j.lansea.2026.100773.
National Assembly of Viet Nam. (2025). Law No. 120/2025/QH15 on Drug Prevention and Control. Enacted December 10, 2025; effective July 1, 2026.
Government of Viet Nam. (2026). Decree No. 163/2026/ND-CP Detailing and Guiding the Implementation of Certain Articles of the Law on Drug Prevention and Control. Effective July 1, 2026.
Government of Viet Nam. (2026). Decree No. 166/2026/ND-CP on Documentation, Sequence and Procedures for Determining Drug Dependence. Effective July 1, 2026.
Ministry of Health of Viet Nam. (2026). Circular No. 14/2026/TT-BYT on Diagnostic Standards and Professional Procedures for Determining Drug Dependence. Issued May 16, 2026; effective July 1, 2026.
National Assembly of Viet Nam. (2019). Law No. 44/2019/QH14 on Prevention and Control of Harmful Effects of Alcoholic Beverages, as amended where applicable. Effective January 1, 2020.
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 Implementing the Law on Personal Data Protection. Effective January 1, 2026.
National Assembly of Viet Nam. (2023). Law No. 15/2023/QH15 on Medical Examination and Treatment, as amended where applicable. Effective January 1, 2024.
Government of Viet Nam. (2024). Decree No. 110/2024/ND-CP on Social Work. Effective October 15, 2024, with specified professional registration requirements applying from January 1, 2027.
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.
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.
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. Published online January 15, 2026. DOI: 10.1016/j.lanwpc.2025.101714.
Government of Viet Nam. (2026). Tháo gỡ vướng mắc, đẩy nhanh tiến độ Dự án 6 về phòng, chống ma túy. Government information report published October 27, 2026.
Article Information
Primary Category: Implementation & Practice
Secondary Category: Viet Nam Context
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, addiction treatment, psychiatric, psychological, professional social-work, drug rehabilitation, regulatory or legal advice.
The situations involving substance use disorders, treatment and community participation are illustrative. They do not represent any particular individual, healthcare facility, rehabilitation service or community organization in Viet Nam.
Substance use disorders are clinical conditions requiring appropriate professional assessment and care. Substance use, substance use disorder, legally determined drug dependence, voluntary drug rehabilitation, compulsory drug rehabilitation, treatment using substitute medication and statutory post-rehabilitation management are distinct concepts and must not be treated as interchangeable.
Social prescribing and community care navigation may complement appropriate non-clinical community activities and established treatment services where suitable. They do not replace clinical diagnosis, medically supervised withdrawal, addiction treatment, prescribed medication, psychological interventions, rehabilitation, overdose response, emergency care, professional social work or statutory drug prevention and control responsibilities.
Law No. 120/2025/QH15 on Drug Prevention and Control and its relevant implementing regulations have been effective since July 1, 2026. Any applicable legal obligations, statutory management procedures or decisions concerning drug rehabilitation must remain within the responsibilities of competent authorities and appropriately qualified professionals.
Alcohol use disorder and matters governed by illicit drug legislation must be distinguished according to the applicable legal and clinical frameworks.
The international research discussed in this article is provided for comparative learning. Evidence from peer recovery support, methadone treatment and specialist behavioral interventions does not establish that social prescribing has been proven effective in treating substance use disorders, preventing recurrence of substance use, reducing overdose or improving healthcare outcomes in Viet Nam.
Community participation should reflect the individual's preferences and circumstances, subject to applicable law, professional requirements and appropriate safety considerations. Participation in ordinary community activities should not be represented as satisfying statutory rehabilitation or monitoring requirements unless specifically established through a lawful and authorized arrangement.
Organizations considering recovery-related community navigation or partnerships should independently assess applicable Vietnamese legal, clinical, professional and organizational requirements, including institutional authorization, professional scope of practice, statutory responsibilities, safeguarding, privacy, lawful information sharing, personal data protection, appropriate ethical review and accountability before implementation.
Social Prescribing Vietnam (SPVN) is a Viet Nam-based education, research, development, implementation-support and collaboration platform supporting responsible, evidence-informed social prescribing and community-connected care. Publication of this article does not indicate that SPVN diagnoses or treats substance use disorders, provides addiction counseling, operates rehabilitation services, conducts drug-dependence assessments, administers substance use treatment, performs statutory post-rehabilitation management, or directly provides individualized care navigation or referral services.
References to government agencies, international organizations, healthcare services, research studies and community initiatives are provided for educational and comparative purposes. They do not imply endorsement, accreditation, authorization, formal affiliation or an established service partnership.