Social Prescribing and Transport Barriers in Viet Nam: Where Could Care Navigation Improve Community Access, and When Must Transport and Medical Services Lead?
IMPLEMENTATION & PRACTICE
Social Prescribing and Transport Barriers in Viet Nam: Where Could Care Navigation Improve Community Access, and When Must Transport and Medical Services Lead?
Category: Implementation & Practice
Last reviewed: October 2026
An older man in Ho Chi Minh City would like to join a weekly community art group. He knows where the activity takes place, the sessions are affordable, and new participants are welcome. He is interested in attending, but there is one problem: getting there.
He no longer drives regularly and is unfamiliar with the public transport connections near the venue. A bus route appears to be available, but he does not know how far he would need to walk from the nearest stop. He is also concerned about getting home if the activity finishes later than expected.
The art group may be welcoming and well suited to his interests. Yet none of those qualities guarantees that he can actually reach it.
A healthcare professional or social worker may recognize that community participation could be meaningful to him. However, suggesting an activity does not necessarily resolve the practical difficulties of attending.
This is where community care navigation could potentially help. Someone familiar with local resources might assist him in understanding available transport options, checking information about the venue, or contacting the organizer about arrival arrangements.
Providing journey information, however, is not the same as operating a transport service, guaranteeing accessibility, arranging specialized passenger assistance, or determining whether someone requires medical transportation. Those responsibilities belong to different organizations and professionals.
For Viet Nam, the opportunity is to explore whether social prescribing and care navigation could help people overcome practical barriers to reaching suitable community activities. Any such approach must recognize the responsibilities of transport operators, public authorities, healthcare professionals, and community organizations rather than treating navigation as a substitute for those services.
Access depends on the whole journey, not just the availability of transport
Transport barriers are often described in terms of distance or the absence of a bus route. In practice, getting from home to a community activity can involve several difficulties that are not immediately apparent.
A bus may pass near someone's home, but the nearest stop may be difficult to reach. A person may be able to board a vehicle but struggle with a transfer. Another may arrive near the destination only to discover that the final section of the journey involves an unsuitable pedestrian route.
Cost, travel time, service reliability, accessibility, safety, and the availability of accurate information can all influence whether a journey is realistic.
The return journey matters just as much. Someone may be able to attend a morning activity but find that transport services are less frequent when the session ends. Another person may feel comfortable traveling during daylight but be concerned about returning after dark.
A journey may also become difficult because of heavy rain, flooding, traffic conditions, or unexpected service changes.
These circumstances illustrate the difference between having transportation available and being able to use it to participate in community life.
Transport access should also be distinguished from an individual's mobility or functional ability. A person may be physically capable of traveling independently but have no affordable transport option. Someone with a mobility limitation may be able to use public transportation successfully when vehicles, stations, pedestrian routes, and information are accessible.
The difficulty may lie primarily in the transport environment rather than the person's health.
For social prescribing, the relevant question is whether someone can make the entire journey to an activity that matters to them. That includes leaving home, reaching the transport service, boarding and traveling, completing any transfers, reaching the venue, and returning home.
A route that works for only part of the journey may not provide meaningful access.
Why do transport barriers matter for social prescribing?
Social prescribing aims to connect people with appropriate non-clinical activities, groups, and community resources that reflect their needs, interests, and preferences.
These opportunities may include community learning, arts and cultural activities, volunteering, social groups, recreational movement, and other forms of participation.
However, the existence of community resources does not guarantee that everyone can use them.
Two people may be interested in the same activity but have very different experiences getting there. Someone who lives nearby may be able to walk to the venue, while another person may face several transport connections or travel costs that make regular attendance unrealistic.
A person-centered approach should therefore consider practical access rather than assume that identifying a suitable activity is enough.
The World Health Organization's 2022 toolkit on implementing social prescribing emphasizes the importance of adapting programs to local circumstances, available community resources, and implementation capacity.
NHS England's Workforce Development Framework for Social Prescribing Link Workers, updated in July 2026 and published in August 2026, also emphasizes person-centered practice, community partnerships, professional boundaries, and appropriate supervision.
These principles are relevant to transport difficulties. However, they do not establish a separate transport navigator profession or authorize social prescribing link workers to operate transport services.
International research provides further context.
A global scoping review by Kisa and Kisa, published in Frontiers in Public Health in July 2026, examined 115 peer-reviewed empirical studies of social prescribing interventions across different populations and settings.
The review identified transport difficulties among barriers affecting access and engagement, alongside participation costs, limited time, socioeconomic disadvantage, digital exclusion, and uneven community capacity.
Some programs reported using practical adjustments such as transport vouchers, flexible schedules, and outreach activities to improve engagement.
However, these arrangements were not consistently available, and the review did not establish that any particular transport intervention would be effective across different health systems.
As a scoping review, it mapped existing research rather than formally assessing the methodological quality of every included study or establishing causal effects.
For Viet Nam, these findings support recognizing transport as an important implementation issue. They do not demonstrate that adding a navigator will necessarily improve participation or that arrangements used elsewhere can be transferred directly.
The appropriate starting point is to understand the actual journey a person would need to make and whether an existing service can help address the difficulty.
What does recent Vietnamese evidence tell us about accessibility?
A particularly relevant study was published by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) in Viet Nam on 27 August 2026.
Conducted by ECUE Social Enterprise in collaboration with UNDP, the study examined the experiences of persons with disabilities using public transportation in Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City.
Researchers followed 58 real journeys made by participants with mobility disabilities, including wheelchair users, people with visual impairments, and Deaf participants.
The journeys involved buses, bus rapid transit, metro services, waterbuses, stations, pedestrian routes, and connections between different parts of the transport system.
Physical infrastructure accounted for approximately 43–55% of the barriers identified during these journeys, depending on the city.
Common difficulties included damaged or disconnected sidewalks, missing curb ramps, inaccessible bus stops, and unsafe pedestrian crossings. Participants using wheelchairs and those with visual impairments encountered particularly substantial barriers.
The study also documented positive developments. Participants reported improvements involving metro infrastructure, newer low-floor buses, digital journey-planning tools, fare exemptions, and assistance from transport staff. Some described experiences that were better than they had expected.
The findings therefore provide a more balanced picture than simply describing public transportation as inaccessible.
Progress has been made, but difficulties can remain at different stages of a journey.
An accessible bus may offer limited practical benefit when someone cannot reach the boarding point. A metro station may have accessible facilities, but the journey may still be difficult if a lift is unavailable, ticketing arrangements require assistance, or information cannot be accessed in a suitable format.
The route from the final station to the destination may create another barrier.
The study highlights why accessibility needs to be considered across the entire journey rather than assessed one vehicle or facility at a time.
This is particularly relevant to social prescribing. People need to travel not only to healthcare facilities but also to educational opportunities, community activities, workplaces, and places where they maintain social relationships.
However, the findings have important limitations.
The study examined 58 selected journeys in two major cities. It does not provide a nationally representative estimate of transport accessibility or establish how frequently particular barriers affect all Vietnamese residents.
Nor did the study evaluate social prescribing or a community care navigation intervention.
Its contribution is to provide practical evidence about transport accessibility and identify areas where improvements are needed. It does not demonstrate that adding navigators would resolve these difficulties.
For SPVN, the central lesson is that a community resource should not automatically be considered accessible simply because a bus route or metro station appears nearby.
Different people experience transport barriers differently
Transport difficulties are not limited to people with disabilities.
They may also affect people because of cost, location, working hours, caregiving responsibilities, changes in health, or the practical demands of a particular journey.
An older person may prefer a familiar route with fewer transfers. A family caregiver may need an activity that can be reached within a limited period away from home. Someone working irregular hours may find that community activities and transport schedules do not match.
A person with limited financial resources may be unable to afford repeated journeys even when the activity itself is free.
In rural and remote communities, the distance between settlements and available services may create additional challenges. Transport options may be infrequent or unsuitable for reaching particular community activities.
These examples describe possible barriers, not characteristics that should be assumed for everyone in a particular population.
A diagnosis, disability status, age, or place of residence does not automatically determine whether someone can travel independently. The relevant issue is the person's circumstances and the requirements of the journey.
Transport barriers may also change over time. Someone may be able to attend an outdoor activity during favorable weather but struggle with the same route during heavy rain. Another person may manage a journey on some days while needing different arrangements when personal circumstances change.
Care navigation should therefore avoid applying the same solution to everyone.
Some people need only accurate information. Others may appreciate assistance contacting a transport provider or identifying a more accessible venue. Someone requiring clinical supervision during transportation may need an entirely different service.
These needs should be understood before deciding whether an additional navigation function would be useful.
What does Vietnamese law provide for accessible transportation?
Viet Nam has an established legal framework concerning the rights of persons with disabilities and accessibility in public transportation.
The Law on Persons with Disabilities No. 51/2010/QH12, effective from 1 January 2011, includes provisions addressing participation in transportation and access to public transport services.
The legislation has been amended over time. On 26 February 2026, the Office of the National Assembly issued Consolidated Document No. 24/VBHN-VPQH, bringing together the law and relevant amendments.
This consolidated document provides a convenient reference to the amended provisions. It does not independently establish new legal requirements.
Article 41 addresses participation in transportation by persons with disabilities, including relevant assistance, priority arrangements, and fare concessions.
Article 42 concerns accessibility and assistance on public transport vehicles.
Government Decree No. 28/2012/ND-CP provides additional implementing provisions, including certain fare exemptions and reductions for persons with severe or exceptionally severe disabilities.
Under its relevant provisions, eligible persons with severe or exceptionally severe disabilities are entitled to bus fare exemptions and specified reductions for certain other domestic transport services, subject to applicable documentation and requirements.
These provisions should be interpreted together with subsequent amendments and the rules governing the particular service.
It would be misleading to suggest that every person with a disability automatically receives free transportation on every mode of public transport in Viet Nam.
It would also be inaccurate to assume that every vehicle, station, sidewalk, or journey is accessible simply because accessibility requirements exist in law.
The UNDP–ECUE findings illustrate this difference between the legal framework and the experiences of people using transport services.
Accessibility depends on infrastructure, operations, information, assistance, and how different parts of the transport system connect.
A community navigator may help someone find official information about accessible services or applicable fare concessions.
However, the navigator should not independently certify eligibility, promise a particular concession, or determine whether a transport operator or facility complies with accessibility requirements.
Those responsibilities remain with the relevant providers and competent authorities.
Transport providers and public authorities remain responsible for transport services
Viet Nam's road transport framework has undergone several important changes.
The Law on Roads No. 35/2024/QH15 and the Law on Road Traffic Order and Safety No. 36/2024/QH15 took effect on 1 January 2025.
Both laws were subsequently amended by Law No. 118/2025/QH15, with the relevant amendments taking effect on 1 July 2026.
The Office of the National Assembly issued Consolidated Document No. 49/VBHN-VPQH on 17 March 2026 for the Law on Roads and Consolidated Document No. 55/VBHN-VPQH on 23 March 2026 for the Law on Road Traffic Order and Safety.
These consolidated documents provide references to the amended legislation. Their issuance did not bring forward the effective date of the amendments introduced by Law No. 118/2025/QH15.
Government Decree No. 158/2024/ND-CP, effective from 1 January 2025, regulates road transport activities within its scope, including relevant conditions for transport businesses and operators.
The decree was amended by Government Decree No. 218/2026/ND-CP, issued on 19 June 2026 and effective from 10 August 2026.
On 2 July 2026, the Ministry of Construction issued Consolidated Document No. 58/VBHN-BXD, incorporating the amendments into the road transport regulatory framework.
This consolidated document facilitates reference to the amended provisions but does not make the changes introduced by Decree No. 218/2026/ND-CP effective before 10 August 2026.
These regulations concern defined road transport activities. They should not be interpreted as imposing identical licensing requirements on every informal journey or every instance of voluntary assistance.
The applicable obligations depend on the actual activity, the transport service involved, and how it is organized.
Where an activity constitutes regulated transportation, the relevant legal requirements must be followed. Responsibility for operating vehicles, meeting applicable business and licensing conditions, complying with transport safety requirements, and delivering services within an operator's authorized scope remains with the relevant providers.
Public authorities also have responsibilities concerning transport infrastructure, accessibility, network planning, and the implementation of applicable policies.
These responsibilities cannot be transferred to a community navigator simply because someone has helped a participant identify a route.
For SPVN, the distinction is important. Care navigation may help people obtain transport information or contact an appropriate provider, but it should not be described as operating a transport service, certifying accessibility, or guaranteeing journey safety.
Where could care navigation make a practical difference?
Care navigation may be useful when someone wants to participate in a community activity but needs additional information or help making the connection.
The starting point should be the person's actual difficulty.
Someone may know which activity they want to attend but be uncertain about transport connections. Another may have found a route through an application but want to confirm whether the relevant station has accessible facilities.
A person may also need information about the activity's schedule, expected travel costs, or the distance between the nearest stop and the entrance.
An appropriately organized navigation function could help obtain this information or identify the relevant organization to contact.
The support might involve checking published routes and schedules, confirming current contact details, or asking an activity organizer about accessibility and arrival arrangements.
Where the person wants assistance, a navigator could facilitate contact with a transport information service or community organization.
However, information should be presented with appropriate limitations.
A navigator should not promise that a vehicle will arrive at a particular time, that a station lift will remain available, or that staff assistance will be provided without confirmation from the responsible provider. Even confirmed arrangements may change because of operational circumstances.
Nor should a navigator independently determine whether a journey is medically suitable for someone with particular clinical needs.
The contribution is practical information and connection, not transport operation or clinical assessment.
Sometimes the most useful result may be identifying another activity that is easier to reach.
A smaller neighborhood group may be more practical than a distant program requiring several transfers. Alternatively, the person may prefer the original activity despite a more complicated journey.
That decision should reflect their preferences rather than simply what is most convenient for the navigator or referring organization.
The purpose is to help people make informed choices, not restrict them to the nearest available service.
Getting home should be part of the conversation
Transport planning often focuses on reaching a destination. For someone considering regular community participation, the return journey may be equally important.
An activity may finish at a time when transport services are less frequent. A person may need to leave early to catch a convenient connection or may be concerned about returning after dark.
The total cost of a return journey may also be more important than the cost of traveling in one direction.
These factors can influence whether someone attends once or continues participating.
A useful community connection should therefore consider the activity's actual schedule and the practical requirements of reaching and leaving the venue.
This does not mean that a navigator must plan or supervise every journey.
For someone who travels independently, reliable location and route information may be sufficient. Another person may want help understanding alternative return options or confirming when the activity ends.
Where information is uncertain, that uncertainty should be communicated.
A planned journey is not a guaranteed journey. Traffic conditions, weather, service disruptions, and other changes can affect travel arrangements.
A navigator should not make assurances that belong to a transport provider or cannot reasonably be guaranteed.
The person should remain free to decide whether the available options are acceptable. Community participation should not become an obligation that requires someone to undertake a journey they consider unsuitable.
What if ordinary public transport is not a realistic option?
There will be circumstances where public transportation is unavailable, inaccessible, unaffordable, or unsuitable for reaching a particular activity.
In a large city, the difficulty may involve inaccessible pedestrian connections, multiple transfers, or repeated travel costs. In a rural area, available services may operate infrequently or fail to connect directly with the destination.
The absence of suitable public transport does not automatically mean that a healthcare or community organization should create its own transport service.
Sometimes the better response may involve identifying a closer activity, changing the meeting location, adjusting the schedule, or contacting an existing provider that offers an appropriate service.
Some community organizations may already have arrangements that help participants reach their activities. Others may not have the vehicles, personnel, insurance arrangements, funding, or organizational capacity required to provide transportation.
These differences need to be understood before a referral is made.
A community group should not be expected to offer transport simply because a participant was introduced through a healthcare service.
Similarly, a volunteer who occasionally helps someone travel should not automatically be treated as a professional transport provider or someone qualified to deliver specialized passenger assistance.
Where an organization considers arranging regular, paid, contracted, or specialized transportation, it needs to determine which legal, operational, safety, licensing, insurance, and other requirements apply.
Describing an arrangement as community support or social prescribing does not remove obligations associated with the actual service provided.
For Viet Nam, responsible implementation means exploring practical ways to connect people with existing transport options without creating an unregulated parallel transport service.
Accompanying someone is not the same as providing specialized transport or care
Some people may want another person to accompany them during a journey, but the reasons can be quite different.
Someone unfamiliar with a route may appreciate companionship during an initial visit. A person with a disability may require assistance with communication or accessibility. Another person may need personal care or clinical supervision during transportation.
These circumstances should not be treated as equivalent.
Ordinary companionship is different from physical transfer assistance, personal care, clinical monitoring, or specialized medical transportation.
The responsibilities of an accompanying person depend on the assistance actually required.
A family member or friend may voluntarily accompany someone on an ordinary journey. A community organization may have suitable arrangements for supporting participants within its capabilities.
However, a navigator should not assume that volunteers are qualified to lift or transfer people, manage medical equipment, provide specialized care, or respond to clinical emergencies beyond the basic emergency assistance they are competent to provide.
Where activities require professional competence or specialized arrangements, appropriately qualified personnel or competent services may be necessary.
The distinction is particularly important when someone has significant mobility limitations, relies on medical equipment, or requires individualized support during transportation.
A person providing accompaniment should understand the agreed scope of their role and its limitations. A community organization should not promise escort or personal assistance services unless suitable arrangements have been established.
Social prescribing should not become a mechanism for transferring professional care responsibilities to informal volunteers.
When must medical services lead?
Transport to a community activity is not automatically medical transportation simply because the person has a health condition.
Many people living with chronic conditions, disabilities, or functional limitations can use ordinary transport independently or with appropriate non-clinical assistance.
A diagnosis alone does not determine whether specialized medical transport is necessary.
However, some journeys involve needs that cannot be managed through ordinary community navigation.
A person may require transportation involving clinical monitoring, treatment, specialized medical equipment, or professional supervision. These circumstances call for appropriate healthcare assessment and arrangements.
Viet Nam's Law on Medical Examination and Treatment No. 15/2023/QH15, effective from 1 January 2024, establishes the legal framework for healthcare practice.
Government Decree No. 96/2023/ND-CP provides relevant implementing provisions concerning healthcare institutions and professional practice.
Where transportation forms part of emergency medical care or involves regulated healthcare services, the applicable clinical, organizational, and legal requirements must be followed.
A community navigator should not independently determine whether someone is medically stable for transport, whether an ambulance is required, or whether a particular vehicle can safely accommodate clinical needs.
When such decisions require professional judgment, they must be made by appropriately competent healthcare professionals and service providers.
The distinction also applies to non-emergency journeys.
Someone traveling to a routine healthcare appointment may not require clinical supervision during transport. Another person may have more complex needs that require a professionally arranged service.
The appropriate response depends on the person's circumstances and the support involved, not simply whether the destination is a healthcare facility.
If a potentially serious medical problem occurs during travel, the response should involve appropriate emergency medical assistance rather than ordinary navigation support.
Care navigation may help someone locate relevant service information or contact an appropriate provider within its agreed scope. It must not replace clinical decisions or the responsibilities of medical transport services.
Accessibility should not depend on someone having a navigator
The UNDP–ECUE study highlights an important issue: people may face barriers because the transport environment does not support a complete accessible journey.
It would be inappropriate to treat every such difficulty as an individual problem that can be solved through additional effort or assistance from a navigator.
A wheelchair user should not have to rely indefinitely on another person to compensate for inaccessible sidewalks or boarding arrangements.
Someone with a visual impairment should not be expected to overcome missing or inaccessible journey information solely through personal assistance.
These are problems involving infrastructure, service design, transport operations, and the responsibilities of the organizations involved.
Care navigation may help people understand available arrangements or communicate difficulties through appropriate channels.
However, it cannot replace improvements required from transport operators, infrastructure managers, and competent public authorities.
There is also a risk that poorly designed referral arrangements could reinforce unequal access.
If a program routinely connects people only to activities that are easy to reach using existing transport services, those living in underserved areas may have fewer choices.
People facing significant accessibility barriers may also be offered a narrower range of opportunities despite having similar interests.
A responsible approach should therefore distinguish between finding a practical option for someone today and addressing the structural problems that limit their choices.
Both concerns matter, but they require different responses.
Social prescribing may help make an existing opportunity more accessible through better information and coordination. It should not be treated as a substitute for an inclusive transport system.
What can community organizations contribute?
Community organizations often have useful knowledge about access to their activities.
An organizer may know which entrance is easiest to use, whether a venue has stairs, where nearby transport stops are located, or whether session times can accommodate people traveling from farther away.
A group may also be able to explain whether an activity is offered at another venue or whether similar opportunities are available closer to someone's home.
This information can help people decide whether an activity is practical.
However, community organizations have different capacities.
Some have paid staff, accessible facilities, and established administrative arrangements. Others depend on volunteers and informal communication.
A group should not be expected to provide specialized transport advice, accessibility certification, escort services, or personal assistance beyond its competence.
Likewise, an organizer should not guarantee that a public transport journey is accessible simply because other participants have used it successfully.
Information should reflect what the organization actually knows.
Where a venue has limitations, those should be communicated accurately rather than concealed through unsupported assurances.
Community organizations may also consider practical improvements, such as providing clearer arrival information, adjusting activity times, or using more accessible venues when resources allow.
People who experience accessibility barriers should have opportunities to contribute to these decisions.
The aim is not to impose a complex transport or healthcare administration system on ordinary community groups. It is to help people make informed choices while keeping responsibilities realistic.
How could a transport-aware social prescribing connection work in Viet Nam?
A practical approach would begin with an existing community activity and the journey required to reach it.
Consider again the older man who wants to join the art group in Ho Chi Minh City.
The person helping him could first confirm the activity's current location, schedule, and contact details. The next question would be whether he wants assistance understanding available transport options.
If he is comfortable arranging the journey independently, reliable information may be enough.
If he would like additional support, a suitably organized navigator could check published routes and schedules or contact the relevant transport provider or activity organizer about specific arrangements.
The objective would be to establish whether the journey appears practical, not to certify that every part of it will be safe or accessible under all circumstances.
Suppose the available information indicates that he would need to walk a considerable distance from the nearest bus stop.
The navigator could explain this and help him consider whether another route or a closer activity might better suit his preferences.
If the man has a health concern requiring professional assessment, that question should be addressed by an appropriate healthcare professional rather than left to the navigator.
If the activity organizer confirms that the venue has steps or other accessibility limitations, the information should be communicated accurately.
The man could then decide whether to attend, explore another option, or seek further advice.
A separate navigator would not be necessary if an existing healthcare, social work, or community organization could provide the relevant information directly.
Nor should the arrangement require him to disclose extensive personal or medical information simply to learn how to reach an art group.
This example illustrates how attention to transport can improve community connections without turning social prescribing into a transport service.
Privacy and personal choice remain important
Transport-related navigation may involve information about a person's location, daily routine, mobility needs, or health circumstances.
Some people may not want their travel arrangements or participation in community activities shared with several organizations. Others may appreciate assistance but prefer to disclose only the information necessary for the intended purpose.
These preferences should be respected.
Viet Nam's Law on Personal Data Protection No. 91/2025/QH15 and Government Decree No. 356/2025/ND-CP, both effective from 1 January 2026, establish relevant obligations concerning personal-data processing.
Any exchange of personal information between healthcare, community, and transport-related organizations must have an appropriate legal basis and comply with applicable consent, notification, confidentiality, and data protection requirements.
Information sharing should be limited to what is necessary.
For example, an activity organizer may need to know that someone wishes to confirm an accessible entrance or particular arrival arrangements. The organizer would not ordinarily need the person's complete medical history.
Similarly, a transport provider may need information relevant to a particular assistance request, but that does not automatically justify access to healthcare records or unrelated personal circumstances.
Digital journey-planning tools and messaging applications may make communication easier. However, they should not be assumed to provide complete or continuously accurate accessibility information.
Organizations should consider how location data and personal information are collected, stored, and shared when such tools are used.
Care navigation should make community participation easier without unnecessarily exposing personal details or limiting an individual's freedom to decide whether assistance is wanted.
What should Viet Nam evaluate before expanding transport-related navigation?
A transport-aware social prescribing initiative should be evaluated according to the practical problem it is intended to address.
If the main difficulty is unreliable journey information, an evaluation could examine whether participants can obtain accurate information more easily.
If the purpose is to improve access to community activities, it could consider whether people who wanted to participate were able to reach suitable activities and whether transport-related difficulties remained.
Understanding why some people did not attend would also be valuable.
Travel costs, time, route complexity, accessibility, service reliability, and concerns about returning home may all influence participation. However, these factors should be examined rather than assumed.
A person may choose not to attend for reasons unrelated to transport, including personal preferences, changes in health, or dissatisfaction with the activity. These decisions should be respected.
The experiences of participants and community organizations would provide useful information. Transport providers and relevant public authorities may also contribute when an evaluation involves service operations or accessibility barriers.
Different outcomes should be distinguished.
Providing route information is not the same as completing a journey. Reaching an activity once is not the same as being able to attend regularly.
Similarly, improved access to a community activity does not automatically demonstrate better mental health, reduced healthcare use, or financial savings.
Those broader outcomes would require appropriate research designs and stronger evidence.
An initial initiative may demonstrate that journey information has become more accurate, participants understand their options better, or inappropriate referrals have been reduced.
It should also consider unintended consequences, including additional costs for participants, inaccurate accessibility information, privacy risks, unrealistic promises, or pressure on community organizations to provide assistance beyond their capabilities.
Equity deserves particular attention.
An arrangement that works well for people living near major public transport routes may offer less value in areas with limited services. A digital navigation tool may assist some participants while remaining inaccessible to others.
The evaluation should therefore consider who benefits, who continues to face barriers, and whether any groups are unintentionally excluded.
For Viet Nam, the central question is whether a navigation function provides practical assistance beyond what existing transport information, healthcare, social work, and community services can already offer.
Where it does not, improving those existing arrangements may be more appropriate than introducing another service layer.
Better community access requires more than a referral
Transport is part of the practical reality of community participation.
Someone may be interested in an activity, know where it takes place, and have suitable support available, yet still be unable to attend because the journey is too difficult, expensive, unreliable, or inaccessible.
Social prescribing may contribute by helping people understand their options and connect with suitable community resources when additional assistance is useful.
However, its role must remain proportionate to what care navigation can realistically achieve.
A navigator may help someone obtain reliable journey information, contact an activity organizer, or identify a more accessible opportunity.
The navigator cannot guarantee the operation of transport services, determine legal transport entitlements, certify accessibility, or assume responsibility for medically supervised transportation.
Those responsibilities belong to the relevant transport providers, public authorities, healthcare professionals, and other competent organizations.
For Viet Nam, responsible development should begin with existing community activities and the transport conditions that affect people's ability to reach them.
The UNDP–ECUE study provides an important reminder that accessibility depends on the whole journey, not just the vehicle.
International social prescribing research also identifies transport difficulties as barriers to participation and describes practical adjustments that may help in particular settings. However, it does not establish that every navigation model will be effective or that community organizations can overcome structural transport problems themselves.
For Social Prescribing Vietnam (SPVN), the opportunity is to contribute to evidence-informed learning and responsible collaboration among healthcare organizations, community providers, transport stakeholders, and other appropriate partners.
The aim is not to establish a separate transport system or transfer the responsibilities of transport providers to community navigators.
It is to recognize when the journey prevents someone from reaching a meaningful community opportunity and consider whether an appropriate existing service can help.
Sometimes better information may be enough. Sometimes the answer may involve a more accessible venue, a different schedule, or a suitable transport provider.
Where clinical assessment or specialized medical transportation is required, healthcare professionals and competent providers must lead.
There will also be situations where no practical transport option is available. That limitation should be acknowledged rather than concealed through an inappropriate referral.
People seeking community connection do not necessarily need another organization arranging their activities or journeys. They need opportunities they can realistically access, with appropriate support when it is wanted and available.
For Viet Nam, community-connected care will be more useful when it considers not only where people are being referred, but also whether they can complete the journey and return home through arrangements that are realistic for their circumstances.
References
World Health Organization Regional Office for the Western Pacific. A Toolkit on How to Implement Social Prescribing. Manila: World Health Organization; 2022. ISBN: 9789290619765.
NHS England. Workforce Development Framework for Social Prescribing Link Workers. Version 2, updated July 2026; published 13 August 2026.
Kisa A, Kisa S. Models, implementation, and reported outcomes of social prescribing interventions: A scoping review. Frontiers in Public Health. 2026;14:1871347. doi:10.3389/fpubh.2026.1871347.
United Nations Development Programme in Viet Nam and ECUE Social Enterprise. Experiences of Persons with Disabilities Using Public Transport in Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City. Published 27 August 2026.
United Nations Development Programme in Viet Nam. How Accessible Is Public Transport for Persons with Disabilities in Viet Nam's Two Largest Cities? Published 27 August 2026.
World Health Organization. Global Report on Health Equity for Persons with Disabilities. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2022. ISBN: 9789240063600.
National Assembly of Viet Nam. Law No. 51/2010/QH12 on Persons with Disabilities. Issued 17 June 2010; effective 1 January 2011.
Office of the National Assembly of Viet Nam. Consolidated Document No. 24/VBHN-VPQH consolidating the Law on Persons with Disabilities and relevant amendments. Issued 26 February 2026.
Government of Viet Nam. Decree No. 28/2012/ND-CP detailing and guiding the implementation of certain provisions of the Law on Persons with Disabilities. Issued 10 April 2012; effective 1 June 2012, as subsequently amended.
National Assembly of Viet Nam. Law No. 35/2024/QH15 on Roads. Issued 27 June 2024; effective 1 January 2025.
National Assembly of Viet Nam. Law No. 36/2024/QH15 on Road Traffic Order and Safety. Issued 27 June 2024; effective 1 January 2025.
National Assembly of Viet Nam. Law No. 118/2025/QH15 amending and supplementing certain provisions of ten laws related to security and public order, including the Law on Roads and the Law on Road Traffic Order and Safety. Issued 10 December 2025; effective 1 July 2026.
Office of the National Assembly of Viet Nam. Consolidated Document No. 49/VBHN-VPQH consolidating the Law on Roads and relevant amendments. Issued 17 March 2026.
Office of the National Assembly of Viet Nam. Consolidated Document No. 55/VBHN-VPQH consolidating the Law on Road Traffic Order and Safety and relevant amendments. Issued 23 March 2026.
Government of Viet Nam. Decree No. 158/2024/ND-CP on Road Transport Activities. Issued 18 December 2024; effective 1 January 2025.
Government of Viet Nam. Decree No. 218/2026/ND-CP amending and supplementing certain provisions of Decree No. 158/2024/ND-CP on Road Transport Activities. Issued 19 June 2026; effective 10 August 2026.
Ministry of Construction of Viet Nam. Consolidated Document No. 58/VBHN-BXD on Road Transport Activities. Issued 2 July 2026.
National Assembly of Viet Nam. Law No. 15/2023/QH15 on Medical Examination and Treatment. Issued 9 January 2023; generally effective 1 January 2024.
Government of Viet Nam. Decree No. 96/2023/ND-CP detailing certain provisions of the Law on Medical Examination and Treatment. Issued 30 December 2023; effective 1 January 2024.
Ministry of Health of Viet Nam. Circular No. 51/2024/TT-BYT regulating social work activities in healthcare establishments licensed to operate as hospitals. Issued 31 December 2024; effective 1 March 2025.
National Assembly of Viet Nam. Law No. 91/2025/QH15 on Personal Data Protection. Issued 26 June 2025; effective 1 January 2026.
Government of Viet Nam. Decree No. 356/2025/ND-CP detailing certain provisions and implementation measures under the Law on Personal Data Protection. Issued 31 December 2025; effective 1 January 2026.
Editorial and Legal Note
This article provides an educational and implementation-focused discussion of transport barriers, social prescribing, and potential community care navigation approaches in Viet Nam. It draws on international guidance, published research, Vietnamese transport accessibility findings, and relevant legal provisions reviewed through October 2026.
Transport access is discussed as a practical condition affecting people's ability to reach community resources. It should not be interpreted as a clinical diagnosis, a determination of medical transport needs, or an automatic basis for receiving transport-related financial assistance or concessions.
The international evidence cited does not establish that a particular transport navigation intervention is effective, safe, or universally applicable in Viet Nam.
Community care navigation is discussed as a potential function or service approach. It does not imply the existence of a nationally standardized or separately licensed transport navigator profession in Viet Nam.
Social prescribing and care navigation may help people identify appropriate community activities, obtain relevant transport information, and connect with existing services. They do not replace regulated transport operations, transport safety responsibilities, accessibility compliance, clinical assessment, emergency medical response, or specialized patient transportation when required.
The legal responsibilities of transport operators, healthcare organizations, public authorities, and community providers must be interpreted according to the activities actually performed and the regulations applicable to those activities.
Fare concessions, accessibility arrangements, and assistance services may vary according to transport mode, eligibility conditions, responsible provider, and applicable legal and local requirements. Publication of this article does not establish individual entitlement to a particular transport service or benefit.
Organizations considering transport-related collaboration should assess actual service availability, accessibility information, participant preferences, professional competence, safety arrangements, institutional authority, lawful information sharing, and the capacity of participating providers.
Where transportation involves clinical monitoring, treatment, specialized medical equipment, or other professional healthcare requirements, appropriately competent healthcare professionals and authorized providers must determine and deliver the necessary arrangements.
The UNDP–ECUE study discussed in this article examined selected journeys made by persons with disabilities in Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City. Its findings should not be interpreted as nationally representative estimates of transport accessibility or as evidence that community navigation can independently overcome structural transport barriers.
Any proposed local implementation should be appropriately designed, monitored, and evaluated, with attention to whether people can complete practical journeys, the reliability of community connections, equity of access, and the responsibilities of existing services.
Social Prescribing Vietnam (SPVN) is a development, education, research, implementation, and collaboration platform. Publication of this article does not mean that SPVN currently operates transport services, provides passenger escort or medical transportation, determines transport eligibility, certifies accessibility, or directly coordinates individual transport and community referrals.
The legal references reflect provisions reviewed through October 2026. Organizations considering implementation should verify the regulations in force at the relevant time, including subsequent amendments, local arrangements, and applicable transitional provisions.