Social Prescribing and Returning to Work After Illness in Viet Nam: Where Could Care Navigation Help, and When Must Health, Rehabilitation and Employment Services Lead?
IMPLEMENTATION & PRACTICE
Social Prescribing and Returning to Work After Illness in Viet Nam: Where Could Care Navigation Help, and When Must Health, Rehabilitation and Employment Services Lead?
Category: Implementation & Practice
Last reviewed: October 2026
A warehouse worker in Viet Nam has spent several months recovering from a serious illness. His condition has improved, and he hopes to return to work. He misses his regular routine, earning an income and spending time with colleagues. Yet he is uncertain whether he can manage the physical demands of his previous job.
His treating clinician can assess relevant medical concerns and advise on his recovery. His employer may need to consider whether changes to his duties or working arrangements are appropriate and possible.
But the worker has other questions. What if his previous job is no longer suitable? Where could he find reliable information about different occupations or skills training? Who could help him understand the services available before deciding what to do next?
A community navigator might help him identify the right organizations and make appropriate connections. However, the navigator should not determine his fitness for work, recommend medical restrictions or take over decisions that belong to healthcare professionals, employers or employment-service providers.
This is one situation in which social prescribing could have a limited role in the transition between healthcare and working life.
Recovery from illness does not always mean that someone is ready to resume previous responsibilities. A person may be medically stable but still face difficulties returning to employment, exploring different work or rebuilding everyday routines.
In Viet Nam, these circumstances vary considerably. Some people have an employer and a position to return to. Others are self-employed, work informally or have lost their previous source of income during illness.
The question is therefore not whether social prescribing should become another return-to-work program. It is where care navigation could help people reach appropriate community, training and employment services, while clinical decisions, vocational rehabilitation and employment responsibilities remain with the professionals and organizations qualified and legally permitted to undertake them.
Medical improvement does not automatically mean readiness for work
Returning to work after illness is not always straightforward.
A person may have completed treatment or reached a more stable stage of recovery while continuing to experience fatigue, reduced physical capacity or other difficulties affecting everyday activities.
Some people want to return to their previous jobs as soon as possible. Others are uncertain whether they can manage the same tasks, working hours or workplace conditions.
The demands of the job also matter. A person recovering from illness may be comfortable with desk-based activities but find physically demanding work difficult. Another may manage familiar tasks for a short period but struggle with long shifts or unpredictable schedules.
Someone whose condition has improved may still need further clinical assessment, treatment or rehabilitation before resuming particular duties.
These situations cannot always be resolved by a simple judgment that someone is either fit or unfit for all forms of work.
The relevant questions may concern the person's current abilities, the demands of a particular job and whether suitable arrangements can be made.
Depending on the circumstances, these decisions may require input from treating clinicians, rehabilitation or occupational health professionals and the employer.
A community navigator should not make those judgments. However, the person may need help identifying which professional or organization can provide the necessary advice.
A navigator might explain how to contact an appropriate employment service, identify available skills-training opportunities or help someone understand which organization is responsible for a particular issue.
The value would lie in making the available options easier to understand, not in replacing the expertise needed to determine what work is medically appropriate or practically feasible.
Returning to work can mean different things
The phrase "returning to work" often suggests an employee recovering from illness and resuming a previous position. That is only one possibility.
Some people remain employed during illness and hope to return to the same workplace. Others are no longer employed and need to explore different opportunities.
A person who previously worked in a physically demanding occupation may want to consider work with different requirements. Someone who operated a small business before becoming ill may wish to resume that activity gradually.
Others may not be ready for paid employment but want to reconnect with learning, volunteering or ordinary community activities.
These different circumstances require different responses.
An employee returning to an existing employer may need discussions about duties, workplace safety and possible adjustments. A person seeking new employment may benefit from contact with an appropriate employment-service organization, vocational guidance provider or skills-training institution.
Someone who works independently may need information about relevant training, employment or business-support services, without having an employer responsible for organizing a return-to-work process.
Care navigation should recognize these differences before suggesting a service.
It should also avoid assuming that paid employment is the only worthwhile goal.
For some people, rebuilding daily routines, maintaining social relationships or participating in an activity they enjoy may be more appropriate during a particular stage of recovery.
Those activities can have value in their own right. They should not automatically be described as steps toward employment.
The person's goals and health circumstances should guide whether work-related support is relevant and what form it might take.
Viet Nam's employment structure requires different connection pathways
A return-to-work model designed mainly for employees of large organizations would not reflect the circumstances of everyone in Viet Nam.
According to the National Statistics Office, informal employment accounted for 61.5% of total employment during the first nine months of 2026, equivalent to approximately 32.4 million people.
This statistical category includes different forms of employment, such as certain self-employed workers, unpaid family workers and employees whose employment or social insurance circumstances meet the statistical definition of informality.
It should not be interpreted as meaning that every informally employed person has no employer or that all informal workers have the same legal circumstances.
Nevertheless, the figures show why a return-to-work model based entirely on formal employment relationships would overlook a substantial part of the workforce.
Someone operating a small market stall may have no human resources department to discuss changes to working arrangements. A self-employed worker may need to determine whether resuming previous activities is realistic or whether other options should be explored.
A person working in a family business may have different sources of support and different constraints from someone employed by a large company.
These differences matter because the most appropriate receiving service may not be the same.
For an employee with an established employer, the relevant next step may involve contact with the employer or an appropriate occupational health service.
For someone seeking new employment, a public or otherwise appropriately operating employment-service organization may be more relevant.
A self-employed person may be interested in skills development or a suitable business-support service.
The navigator needs to understand what the person is trying to achieve and which organization may be able to assist.
A referral should not be made solely because a service appears in a directory. Its purpose, eligibility requirements and actual capacity should be understood before the person is introduced.
Where could care navigation add practical value?
A person recovering from illness may know that additional support would be useful without knowing which service to approach.
The difficulty may not be the absence of every possible service. It may be uncertainty about what different organizations do and which one is relevant.
Consider someone who has completed treatment and wants to explore different employment options.
The person may be unfamiliar with public employment services, vocational guidance providers or professional rehabilitation services.
A navigator could help clarify the person's question and identify an appropriate contact.
Someone interested in changing occupations might benefit from information about an employment-service organization that provides vocational guidance. Another person may wish to understand available training opportunities before deciding whether to pursue a new type of work.
Someone who remains employed may want to know whom to contact within their organization regarding a possible return.
The navigator could help the person prepare questions, understand publicly available information or arrange a voluntary introduction through an agreed pathway.
These activities should not be confused with professional vocational assessment or job placement.
A navigator should not select an occupation based on a medical diagnosis, decide which jobs someone can safely perform or guarantee that completing a training course will result in employment.
Nor should the navigator present a particular job as medically suitable without the appropriate professional assessment when one is needed.
There may also be situations where a formal referral adds little value. If the person can easily contact the relevant organization independently, reliable information may be sufficient.
Similarly, where an established healthcare or rehabilitation team already provides appropriate service coordination, creating a separate navigation role may only duplicate existing work.
The purpose should be to address a genuine connection gap rather than add another administrative step between the person and the service they need.
When must healthcare and rehabilitation services lead?
The clinical boundary is particularly important when the proposed work may affect a person's health or safety.
A treating healthcare professional may need to assess ongoing symptoms, treatment-related effects or other medical concerns relevant to particular activities.
Where rehabilitation is indicated, appropriately qualified professionals may assess functional abilities and provide interventions within their competence.
Occupational health services may also contribute to assessing the relationship between health and work demands, where such services are available and applicable.
These assessments are different from community navigation.
A navigator should not decide whether someone can safely lift heavy objects, operate machinery, undertake prolonged physical activity or return to safety-sensitive duties. Nor should a navigator interpret medical test results or provide individual medical restrictions outside their professional competence.
If a person experiences worsening symptoms after attempting to resume work, appropriate healthcare assessment may be necessary to determine whether further treatment, rehabilitation or changes to activities are required.
However, not every work-related conversation requires a new medical examination.
Someone seeking general information about training programs or employment services may be able to obtain that information without clinical clearance.
The need for healthcare involvement should reflect the activity, the person's circumstances and the relevant clinical concerns.
Professional assessment should be available when necessary, without becoming an unnecessary barrier to ordinary information or community participation.
The role of social prescribing is to help people reach suitable services. It should not be used to bypass medical or rehabilitation assessment when those services must take the lead.
Returning to an existing employer involves responsibilities beyond navigation
An employee recovering from illness may have an established workplace and a manager responsible for employment arrangements.
The employee may wish to discuss changes to duties, working hours or other aspects of the job. These discussions may involve medical advice, workplace requirements and decisions about the employment relationship.
A navigator could help the person identify an appropriate organizational contact or understand where to obtain professional advice.
However, deciding whether particular duties are safe or feasible, agreeing on contractual changes and implementing workplace arrangements are not responsibilities that automatically belong to social prescribing.
The employer remains responsible for applicable labor and occupational safety obligations.
Qualified healthcare and occupational health professionals remain responsible for assessments and advice within their professional scope.
Viet Nam's Labor Code No. 45/2019/QH14 and the Law on Occupational Safety and Health No. 84/2015/QH13 provide important legal foundations for these responsibilities.
Specific circumstances, including occupational accidents and occupational diseases, may involve additional employer obligations and statutory arrangements. Those requirements should not be assumed to apply identically to every period of absence caused by an illness unrelated to work.
The precise legal position depends on the employment relationship, reason for absence, applicable legislation and the individual's circumstances.
For example, a person returning after an occupational injury may have rights and employer arrangements that differ from those of someone recovering from a non-work-related illness.
A community navigator should not provide definitive advice on legal entitlements, employment disputes or an employer's statutory obligations without the relevant professional competence.
Where specialized legal or employment advice is required, the appropriate service should take responsibility.
This distinction protects both the worker and the navigator. The worker should reach the organization capable of addressing the issue, while the navigator should not be placed in a position of making employment decisions without the necessary authority or expertise.
Finding different work requires appropriate employment services
Not everyone can or wishes to return to the same occupation.
Someone whose health has changed may want to explore work with different physical demands. Another person may have lost their previous position during a prolonged period of illness.
Others may wish to develop skills before deciding whether to seek employment.
These circumstances may require vocational guidance, skills training or professional employment services.
Viet Nam's Employment Law No. 74/2025/QH15, effective from 1 January 2026, establishes the updated framework for employment-support policies, labor-market information, skills development, employment services and unemployment insurance.
Government Decree No. 352/2025/ND-CP, also effective from 1 January 2026, provides detailed regulations concerning employment services, including the organization and operation of public employment-service organizations and employment-service enterprises.
An important regulatory change followed in July 2026.
Under the 2025 Law on Investment No. 143/2025/QH15 and Government Resolution No. 66.17/2026/NQ-CP, employment-service business activities were removed from the relevant list of conditional investment and business sectors from 1 July 2026.
However, specialized employment legislation and implementing regulations also need to be considered. The removal of an activity from that list should not be understood as abolishing every applicable requirement governing the organization and delivery of employment services.
The Ministry of Home Affairs had addressed the interaction between these legal frameworks in its April 2026 explanation of the rules applicable before the July changes.
Consequently, any organization intending to provide employment services should assess the requirements applicable to its actual activities at the time of implementation, rather than assume that earlier licensing provisions remain unchanged or that all professional requirements have disappeared.
For social prescribing, the distinction between providing information and operating an employment service remains important.
Giving someone the contact details of an appropriate employment-service organization may be a straightforward navigation activity.
Selecting candidates for employers, conducting job-placement activities as a service or operating an employment-service business may involve different legal and operational responsibilities.
A social-prescribing partnership should therefore define whether it is providing general information, facilitating introductions or undertaking activities that fall within the employment-service framework.
The navigator's contribution should be to help people reach appropriate providers, while those providers remain responsible for the services they are legally permitted and competent to deliver.
Self-employed and informal workers may need a different approach
People who are self-employed or work informally may face a different transition after illness.
They may not have an employer to contact or a formal workplace return plan to discuss.
A small business owner might need to reconsider how much work they can manage. Someone working in a family business may wish to resume limited responsibilities before returning to previous activities.
A person who previously depended on physically demanding independent work may want to explore training for another occupation.
These circumstances are not always addressed by employer-based return-to-work programs.
A navigator might help identify relevant employment, training or business-support resources, subject to the person's interests and eligibility.
However, the availability of such services should not be assumed. A local program may have limited capacity, eligibility conditions or a purpose that does not match the person's circumstances.
When professional assessment of work capacity is necessary, the responsibility remains with appropriately qualified healthcare or rehabilitation professionals.
Where specialized employment or business advice is required, the person should be directed to an organization competent and legally permitted to provide it.
A navigator should not independently determine whether a particular business activity is medically safe, financially viable or legally appropriate.
Economic pressure can make the situation particularly difficult. Someone may feel compelled to resume strenuous work because of immediate financial needs, even when recovery is incomplete.
Community navigation should not encourage such a return simply because the person has few alternatives.
Where a person requires financial assistance, statutory benefits or specialist social protection services, those matters should be addressed through appropriate established pathways.
The navigator's realistic contribution is to help people identify relevant organizations and understand available options without making promises that a referral cannot fulfill.
Community participation can matter even when employment is not yet appropriate
Some people recovering from illness are not ready to return to paid work but still want to become more active in everyday life.
They may wish to reconnect with friends, attend a learning activity or participate in a community group. Others may be interested in volunteering because they want to contribute to something they value.
These activities can have personal meaning without being part of a formal vocational rehabilitation program.
A community arts group or language class should not automatically be described as employment preparation because the participant may eventually want to work.
Likewise, participation in an occasional community activity should not be treated as evidence that someone is medically fit for paid employment.
A person may comfortably attend a short class while remaining unable to meet the physical demands or working hours of a particular occupation.
A navigator may help someone connect with a suitable community activity when they express an interest, while professional employment and rehabilitation services continue to address their respective responsibilities.
Volunteering also requires appropriate boundaries.
A volunteer opportunity should not become a way to obtain unpaid labor from someone who is recovering from illness or seeking employment.
The receiving organization should explain the activity, its expectations and any relevant responsibilities. Participants should be free to decline, reduce or stop their involvement.
Where an arrangement raises questions about whether an employment relationship exists, the relevant labor-law requirements must be considered.
Community participation should remain worthwhile on its own terms, not simply because it might lead to paid work in the future.
Support should not pressure people to return before they are ready
Returning to work can be important for financial, personal and social reasons.
Some people miss their professional identity or everyday routine. Others feel pressure to resume earning an income. These motivations can exist at the same time.
A person may genuinely want to work again while remaining uncertain about their health.
A responsible support pathway should recognize that uncertainty rather than treat it as a problem that must be overcome as quickly as possible.
There is a risk that employment-oriented programs place too much emphasis on the number of participants who return to work.
Such an approach may encourage people to resume unsuitable duties or accept employment before relevant health concerns have been addressed. It may also overlook whether the return is sustainable.
Someone who resumes work but soon experiences worsening symptoms or another prolonged absence should not automatically be considered a successful outcome merely because they initially returned.
The same concern applies when a participant is encouraged to accept work that does not reflect their abilities, preferences or circumstances.
People should not be considered unsuccessful because they delay a return, change their plans or prioritize further recovery. Nor should a decision to explore a different occupation automatically be treated as a failure to return to previous employment.
The navigator's responsibility is to support informed choices and appropriate connections, not to push someone toward the fastest possible employment outcome.
Recovery should not become an employment-performance target.
What does international guidance and research suggest?
International experience provides useful lessons about cooperation between health and employment services, although it should not be treated as direct evidence for social prescribing.
The United Kingdom's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence published guideline NG146, Workplace Health: Long-Term Sickness Absence and Capability to Work, in November 2019.
The guideline addresses cooperation between employers, workers, healthcare professionals, occupational health services and other support providers. It emphasizes communication, workplace circumstances and appropriate arrangements for returning after sickness absence.
These recommendations offer useful implementation lessons, but they operate within the United Kingdom's healthcare and employment system. They should not be interpreted as directly governing medical certification or employment duties in Viet Nam.
Another example is WorkWell in England, an integrated health and employment-support program intended to help people address health-related barriers to work and connect with appropriate services.
The United Kingdom government updated WorkWell implementation guidance during 2026.
WorkWell illustrates how different services may cooperate through a structured pathway, but it is not identical to social prescribing. Its funding, professional arrangements and employment objectives extend beyond the limited community-navigation role discussed here.
NHS England's Workforce Development Framework for Social Prescribing Link Workers, Version 2, updated in July 2026 and published in August 2026, provides another reference for considering competencies, supervision and role boundaries.
However, it does not establish a professional qualification or authorize employment-service activities in Viet Nam.
Research on vocational rehabilitation also provides useful context.
A systematic review by de Geus and colleagues, published in the Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation in 2025 after first appearing online in June 2024, examined interventions for workers on long-term sickness absence.
The review included 21 studies describing 25 interventions. Ten interventions produced better return-to-work outcomes than usual care, while two had mixed findings.
The interventions varied considerably. Some involved counseling, coaching, return-to-work planning, practical skills development or workplace advice.
However, similar components were also found in interventions that did not improve outcomes. The researchers could not clearly identify which individual components explained successful results.
An earlier Cochrane review by Vogel and colleagues, published in 2017, examined return-to-work coordination programs across 14 randomized trials involving 12,568 workers.
The review focused on workers with musculoskeletal or mental health conditions who had been on sick leave for at least four weeks.
It found no clear improvement in the main return-to-work outcomes compared with usual care across the assessed follow-up periods, with the certainty of evidence varying by outcome.
These findings do not mean that professional coordination or employment support has no value. They show that better employment outcomes cannot be assumed simply because a program involves multiple professionals, individualized plans or navigation.
Most importantly, neither review evaluated the specific social-prescribing approach considered in this article.
Vocational rehabilitation, occupational health interventions, employment case management and community-connected social prescribing have different objectives and professional responsibilities.
Their findings should not be combined as though they concern the same intervention.
For Viet Nam, the reasonable conclusion is that navigation may be worth exploring where it addresses a genuine information or service-connection gap. Its contribution should be assessed locally rather than inferred from broader return-to-work research.
What legal and professional boundaries apply in Viet Nam?
Several legal frameworks are relevant when considering connections between healthcare and working life.
The Law on Medical Examination and Treatment No. 15/2023/QH15, effective from 1 January 2024, establishes requirements for relevant clinical activities and professional responsibilities.
The Labor Code No. 45/2019/QH14 governs important rights and obligations within employment relationships.
The Law on Occupational Safety and Health No. 84/2015/QH13 establishes workplace safety and health requirements, including specific responsibilities concerning occupational accidents and occupational diseases.
The Employment Law No. 74/2025/QH15, Decree No. 352/2025/ND-CP, the Law on Investment No. 143/2025/QH15 and Resolution No. 66.17/2026/NQ-CP are relevant to determining the employment-service regulatory framework in 2026.
These instruments apply to different parts of the transition from illness to working life, but their application depends on the circumstances.
A person employed under a labor contract may have rights and obligations different from those of a self-employed person. Statistical classification as an informal worker does not, by itself, determine whether a legally recognized employment relationship exists.
Someone returning after an occupational accident may fall within specific statutory arrangements that do not apply in the same way to a person recovering from an unrelated illness.
An organization providing general information about employment services is also not necessarily undertaking the same activity as an employment-service enterprise.
A proposed social-prescribing pathway should therefore define what each participating organization actually does.
Healthcare professionals remain responsible for clinical judgments within their authorized scope.
Rehabilitation professionals undertake specialized assessments and interventions according to their qualifications and applicable requirements.
Employers retain their legal obligations under relevant labor and occupational safety legislation, while employment-service organizations remain responsible for the activities they are legally permitted and competent to provide.
A navigator may help the person contact these services but should not assume their professional or legal responsibilities.
Social prescribing does not create an exemption from healthcare, employment or other applicable regulations.
Personal health information should only be shared when appropriate
Returning to work after illness may involve sensitive health information.
A person may need clinical advice about work activities or wish to discuss certain limitations with an employer. However, not every organization involved in the transition requires access to diagnoses, treatment histories or complete medical records.
A training provider may need to understand a practical participation requirement but not the medical condition that led to it.
An employment-service organization may require information appropriate to its lawful functions.
The information needed will depend on the service, the individual's circumstances and applicable requirements.
Viet Nam's Law on Personal Data Protection No. 91/2025/QH15 and Decree No. 356/2025/ND-CP both took effect on 1 January 2026.
They establish requirements for personal-data processing, including protections relevant to sensitive health information.
A referral pathway should have an appropriate lawful basis, meet applicable consent and notification requirements and limit information sharing to what is necessary for a defined purpose.
Agreement to receive navigation assistance should not automatically be treated as permission to disclose medical records to prospective employers or training organizations.
Where professional assessment or legally required medical documentation is necessary, the relevant healthcare, occupational health and employment requirements must be followed.
A navigator should not promise absolute confidentiality when a specific legal duty or statutory exception applies. Equally, sensitive information should not be transferred simply because another organization considers it useful.
The person should understand what information may be shared, who will receive it and why it is needed.
A well-designed pathway should make it possible to obtain ordinary employment-service information without unnecessary disclosure of medical history.
What might a realistic pilot look like in Viet Nam?
A small pilot could examine whether community navigation helps people recovering from illness identify and access appropriate support related to their work-related goals.
It should not attempt to deliver medical assessment, vocational rehabilitation and job placement through one newly created navigator role.
A more realistic arrangement would involve a selected healthcare provider, an appropriate employment-service partner and a small number of verified community or training organizations.
Participants could be adults who have expressed an interest in returning to work or exploring alternative work-related options but are uncertain where to find relevant assistance.
The pilot should distinguish people who have an employer, those seeking different employment and those who are self-employed or working informally.
For someone with an existing employer, the navigator might help identify the appropriate organizational contact or professional support service.
For someone looking for other work, the navigator could provide information about a suitably operating employment-service organization or a relevant skills-training opportunity.
A self-employed person may need a different pathway depending on their work, circumstances and the services available.
The pilot should establish when clinical or rehabilitation assessment is required and which professional or organization is responsible.
It should also identify what happens when no suitable employment-support service is available.
A navigator should not promise that a referral will lead to a job or that a training program will be medically suitable for everyone.
Receiving services should be reviewed for their actual capabilities, eligibility requirements and capacity.
Participants should have opportunities to shape the pilot, particularly by explaining what support they would find useful and what information they prefer to keep private.
The process should allow individuals to change or postpone work-related goals as their health and circumstances evolve.
The initial purpose should be to determine whether people can reach appropriate services without confusion, unrealistic expectations, professional-role overlap or pressure to resume work prematurely.
Success should mean appropriate progress, not simply more people working
A return-to-work-related social-prescribing pathway should not be evaluated only by counting how many participants obtain employment.
That measure may be relevant to some employment programs, but it does not fully reflect the purpose of community navigation.
A person may receive useful information about training and decide to pursue it later. Another may contact an employment-service organization and learn that professional rehabilitation assessment would be appropriate before applying for certain jobs.
Someone else may choose to delay returning to work because their health requires further attention.
These outcomes should not automatically be classified as failures.
A useful evaluation would consider whether the individual understood the available options, reached a suitable service and felt able to make informed decisions.
It should also examine the appropriateness of referrals and the clarity of professional responsibilities.
Did the person reach the intended organization? Could it provide the expected service? Were clinical concerns directed to qualified professionals? Did the referral create pressure or unrealistic expectations about employment?
The experiences of employers, employment-service providers and community partners should also be considered where relevant.
A pathway may appear successful because it generates many referrals, while receiving organizations lack the capacity to respond.
The evaluation should also consider whether a person's goals remain appropriate over time.
A return to work followed by worsening symptoms or an unsustainable working arrangement should not automatically be counted as a positive outcome.
If sustained employment is an explicit objective, it requires an appropriate study design and should be considered alongside health, safety, work quality and the individual's preferences.
For people who are not ready for employment, meaningful progress may involve obtaining appropriate information, accessing professional assessment or identifying a realistic next step.
The pilot should not use employment targets to encourage premature returns or disadvantage people who decide that paid work is not appropriate at that stage.
Community connection can help bridge a transition without replacing specialist services
Returning to work after illness may involve more than medical recovery.
People may need time to understand their changing abilities, consider employment options or reconnect with services that can support their next steps.
For some, the appropriate pathway leads back to an existing employer. For others, it involves vocational guidance, training or different work. Self-employed and informal workers may need a different approach.
Social prescribing could make a limited contribution by helping people identify suitable community resources and connect with professional services when they want assistance.
However, it should not become a substitute for medical assessment, occupational health services, vocational rehabilitation, professional employment services or legally required workplace responsibilities.
Clinical professionals remain responsible for decisions within their healthcare scope. Employers and employment-service organizations retain their respective legal and professional responsibilities.
Navigators may help people understand where to seek assistance and facilitate connections without taking over these functions.
For Social Prescribing Vietnam, the most useful opportunity is to explore whether a clearly defined community-navigation role can make the transition from healthcare to work-related support easier to understand.
The approach should remain responsive to individual goals rather than driven by employment targets.
Some people may return to previous work. Others may choose a different occupation, undertake training or postpone employment while continuing recovery. Still others may decide that paid work is not an appropriate goal at that stage of life.
These choices deserve respect.
The value of community-connected support should not be judged by how quickly someone resumes work, but by whether they receive appropriate information, reach suitable services and can make decisions consistent with their health, circumstances and preferences.
That is where social prescribing may contribute: not by taking responsibility for returning people to work, but by helping them navigate the connection between healthcare and the services that may support their chosen next steps.
References
World Health Organization Regional Office for the Western Pacific. A Toolkit on How to Implement Social Prescribing. Manila: World Health Organization; 2022.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Workplace Health: Long-Term Sickness Absence and Capability to Work. NICE Guideline NG146. London: NICE; 20 November 2019.
NHS England. Workforce Development Framework for Social Prescribing Link Workers. Version 2. 2026.
UK Department for Work and Pensions and Department of Health and Social Care. WorkWell Prospectus: Guidance for Local System Partnerships. Updated 2026.
de Geus CJC, Huysmans MA, van Rijssen HJ, de Maaker-Berkhof M, Schoonmade LJ, Anema JR. Elements of return-to-work interventions for workers on long-term sick leave: A systematic literature review. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation. 2025;35(2):159–180. Published online 7 June 2024. doi:10.1007/s10926-024-10203-0.
Vogel N, Schandelmaier S, Zumbrunn T, Ebrahim S, de Boer WEL, Busse JW, Kunz R. Return-to-work coordination programmes for improving return to work in workers on sick leave. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2017;(3). doi:10.1002/14651858.CD011618.pub2.
National Statistics Office of Viet Nam. Press Release on Labor and Employment in the Third Quarter and First Nine Months of 2026. 3 October 2026.
National Assembly of Viet Nam. Employment Law No. 74/2025/QH15. Adopted 16 June 2025; effective 1 January 2026.
Government of Viet Nam. Decree No. 352/2025/ND-CP detailing certain provisions of the Employment Law concerning employment services. Issued 30 December 2025; effective 1 January 2026.
National Assembly of Viet Nam. Law on Investment No. 143/2025/QH15. Relevant changes concerning conditional investment and business sectors applied from 1 July 2026.
Government of Viet Nam. Resolution No. 66.17/2026/NQ-CP concerning the reduction and amendment of conditional investment and business sectors. 2026.
Ministry of Home Affairs of Viet Nam. Official response concerning employment-service business licensing and the interaction of the Employment Law and Investment Law. Published on the Government Portal, 19 April 2026.
National Assembly of Viet Nam. Labor Code No. 45/2019/QH14. Effective 1 January 2021, as amended.
National Assembly of Viet Nam. Law No. 84/2015/QH13 on Occupational Safety and Health. Effective 1 July 2016, as amended.
National Assembly of Viet Nam. Law No. 15/2023/QH15 on Medical Examination and Treatment. Effective 1 January 2024.
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 social prescribing and community navigation alongside the transition to work after illness in Viet Nam, based on international guidance, available research and relevant legal frameworks reviewed through October 2026.
It does not establish that social prescribing is a nationally standardized, specifically authorized or clinically validated return-to-work or employment-support service in Viet Nam.
Community navigation should not replace clinical assessment, occupational health services, vocational rehabilitation, professional employment services or the legal responsibilities of employers and other organizations.
Any proposed program should assess its specific activities, applicable legal and professional requirements, participant preferences, clinical and employment-related referral boundaries, personal-data protection and the capacity and authorization of participating organizations. Employment outcomes should not be pursued at the expense of health, safety or informed choice.