Social Prescribing for People Living With HIV in Viet Nam: How Could Community Connection Support Participation While Protecting Privacy and HIV Care?
IMPLEMENTATION & PRACTICE
Social Prescribing for People Living With HIV in Viet Nam: How Could Community Connection Support Participation While Protecting Privacy and HIV Care?
Category: Implementation & Practice
Last reviewed: October 2026
A man who has been receiving HIV treatment for several years wants to join a local photography club. He enjoys taking pictures and hopes to meet people who share his interests. His health is stable, and he is not looking for another HIV-related service.
During a conversation with a community navigator, he mentions that he has become less involved in social activities and would like to spend more time doing something he enjoys.
The navigator knows of a photography group nearby. However, the navigator also works with an HIV service and has access to information about the man's healthcare.
Should the navigator contact the photography group and explain that he is living with HIV and would benefit from social support?
The group may only need to know that someone is interested in photography and would like information about joining. His HIV status is not ordinarily relevant to that activity.
He might prefer to contact the organizer himself. Alternatively, he may welcome assistance with an introduction, provided that his personal health information is not disclosed unnecessarily.
This situation illustrates an important consideration for social prescribing in Viet Nam.
People living with HIV have interests, relationships and community roles that extend beyond their health condition. Some may value specialized HIV peer support, while others may prefer ordinary activities involving art, education, sport, volunteering or cultural participation.
The availability of an HIV-specific support group should not automatically determine where someone is referred.
Community navigation could help people identify suitable opportunities, but the process must respect individual preferences, protect confidentiality and remain clearly distinguished from responsibilities involving HIV treatment and professional healthcare.
For Viet Nam, the question is not simply whether social prescribing could support people living with HIV. It is how community connections might help people participate in ordinary life without requiring unnecessary disclosure, exposing them to additional stigma or interfering with established HIV care.
Community participation should begin with personal interests, not HIV status
People living with HIV may have the same reasons for joining community activities as anyone else.
They may want to learn a language, exercise, participate in the arts, meet friends or volunteer for something they consider meaningful. Some have strong social networks and no particular need for additional assistance. Others may wish to explore new activities after changes in their personal circumstances.
An HIV diagnosis does not automatically mean that someone is socially isolated, lacks family support or needs a specialized intervention.
This distinction matters because social prescribing should respond to a person's expressed needs and goals rather than assign activities based solely on a diagnosis.
The World Health Organization's 2022 toolkit describes social prescribing as a means of connecting people with suitable non-clinical services and resources in the community.
For someone living with HIV, an appropriate connection might be an ordinary photography club, language class or recreational group. It could also involve a specialized peer-support organization if the person wants to meet others with relevant lived experience.
Neither option should automatically be considered more appropriate.
The choice should reflect the individual's preferences, the nature of the activity and the receiving organization's ability to provide a suitable service.
For example, someone may already have a strong relationship with an HIV peer-support network but still want to join a sports club where HIV is not part of the conversation. Another person may prefer a specialized group because they value discussing experiences with people who understand their circumstances.
These preferences may also change. Someone who initially wants HIV-specific peer support may later become interested in ordinary community activities, while another person may seek specialist support after joining a general group.
A responsible pathway should allow people to make these choices without treating their diagnosis as the main factor determining where they belong.
Ordinary social participation also does not automatically become social prescribing simply because a person living with HIV is involved.
Someone who joins a community club independently is participating in community life. The social-prescribing element becomes relevant when an intentional, voluntary process helps the person identify or connect with a suitable resource in response to an expressed need or goal.
Sometimes that process may involve a navigator. In other situations, providing accurate information may be sufficient.
The purpose is to make meaningful opportunities easier to access when assistance is wanted, not to turn ordinary community participation into another component of HIV case management.
Ordinary community activities should not require unnecessary HIV disclosure
A person living with HIV may want to be recognized as a photographer, student, musician, neighbor or volunteer rather than primarily as someone receiving healthcare.
Ordinary community activities can provide opportunities to maintain these identities and develop relationships with others who share similar interests.
A language class may offer the enjoyment of learning. A sports club may provide recreation and social contact. A community arts group may allow someone to contribute creatively alongside other participants.
These activities do not need an HIV-related purpose to be valuable.
A fundamental consideration is that HIV is not transmitted through ordinary social contact.
WHO and UNAIDS explain that everyday activities such as hugging, shaking hands, sharing meals or participating in ordinary social settings do not transmit HIV.
There is no scientific basis for treating a person's HIV status as an ordinary barrier to joining a language class, arts group or similar community activity.
A community organization should not assume that a participant living with HIV presents a risk merely by sharing a room, using common facilities or interacting with other members.
This does not mean that every activity has identical safety requirements.
Some activities may involve physical demands or circumstances requiring particular precautions or professional assessment. These should be considered according to the nature of the activity and the actual risks involved, rather than through blanket assumptions about HIV.
If someone has a health or functional concern affecting participation in a demanding activity, appropriate clinical advice may be needed. However, the organizer may only need information about a relevant adjustment or participation requirement, not the person's complete diagnosis or treatment history.
For ordinary social activities, there would generally be no reason to require HIV testing or disclosure merely as a condition of joining.
Unnecessary medical questions can discourage participation, even when the activity itself presents no relevant HIV-related risk.
Community inclusion should be based on accurate information, respectful treatment and appropriate service arrangements, not fear or assumptions about a person's health.
Specialized HIV peer support may be valuable, but it should remain a choice
HIV peer-support organizations have an established role in HIV responses internationally, including in Viet Nam.
They may provide opportunities for people with shared experiences to exchange information, develop relationships, receive encouragement and participate in organizations that understand HIV-related concerns.
Some community-based organizations also contribute to HIV prevention, testing, treatment linkage, adherence support, advocacy and other services.
These activities can be especially valuable when they involve meaningful leadership and participation by people living with HIV or communities directly affected by the epidemic.
However, HIV-specific peer support and social prescribing should not be treated as interchangeable.
A specialized peer-support group may focus on treatment experiences, disclosure concerns, stigma or other issues directly associated with living with HIV.
A social-prescribing pathway may instead connect someone with an ordinary community activity that has no HIV-related purpose.
The two approaches may complement one another, but they serve different functions.
A person may value both. Someone might receive treatment-related support through an HIV organization while independently joining a community music group. Another person may prefer not to participate in an HIV-specific group, even when that group is well organized and accessible.
That decision should be respected.
Referring someone to an HIV-specific group also raises a particular confidentiality consideration.
Attending a group publicly associated with HIV may lead other people to make assumptions about a participant's health status, even when the organization has appropriate confidentiality procedures.
Such assumptions may be inaccurate, since participants can also include supporters, family members, staff or volunteers. Nevertheless, the possibility of unwanted identification deserves consideration.
This does not make specialized groups unsuitable. It means the individual should understand the nature of the group, how participation is organized and whether attendance could become visible to others.
A person may prefer a private peer-support arrangement, a group with clear confidentiality safeguards or an ordinary community activity unrelated to HIV.
Before recommending a particular service, a navigator should understand whether the person is seeking HIV-related peer support or simply wants to pursue an interest in everyday community life.
An HIV-specific group should not become the default destination for everyone referred from an HIV clinic.
HIV patient navigation and social prescribing have different responsibilities
The distinction between HIV patient navigation and social prescribing is particularly important because both may involve people described as navigators, connectors or peer supporters.
HIV patient navigation is generally organized around helping individuals access, remain engaged with or return to HIV-related healthcare.
Depending on the program, navigators may assist with appointments, communication with healthcare providers, treatment access, adherence support and other concerns affecting continuity of care.
Some programs also connect people with social services when those needs affect their ability to obtain or remain engaged in treatment.
A scoping review by Kokorelias and colleagues, first published in HIV Medicine in February 2026, examined how HIV patient-navigation programs were implemented.
The review included 31 studies published between 2000 and 2025. Most programs were based in the United States, with others operating in Africa and Latin America.
Navigation was delivered by healthcare professionals, peers or combinations of different personnel. Programs frequently included psychosocial support, care coordination and linkage to social services.
The review reported associations between navigation programs and improvements in aspects of HIV care engagement, treatment adherence and psychosocial well-being. It also identified the importance of organizational support, cultural responsiveness and clear implementation arrangements.
However, the review examined HIV-specific patient navigation. It did not assess the effectiveness of connecting people living with HIV to ordinary cultural, recreational or educational activities through social prescribing.
This distinction is directly relevant to Viet Nam.
On 27 August 2026, the Department of Disease Prevention under the Ministry of Health issued Official Letter No. 1593/PB-HIV-MT concerning the referral of people identified as living with HIV at healthcare facilities to antiretroviral treatment services.
The accompanying guidance emphasizes timely linkage to treatment and appropriate follow-up of referral outcomes. It replaces an earlier official letter issued in July 2019.
This is a structured HIV healthcare referral pathway. Its purpose is to help ensure that people identified as living with HIV can access appropriate treatment.
It should not be confused with a voluntary introduction to a photography club, language class or ordinary community activity.
Both processes may involve coordination, but their objectives, professional responsibilities and information requirements differ.
HIV care linkage must remain part of the established healthcare system. Community-connected social prescribing may help people pursue suitable non-clinical activities when they want that assistance.
One should not replace the other.
How could a navigator arrange a connection without disclosing HIV status?
A navigator may be able to help someone access an ordinary community activity without sharing their diagnosis.
Consider a person receiving HIV care who wants to join a neighborhood photography club.
The navigator could first clarify what the person is interested in and whether they would prefer to contact the group independently.
If the person wants information only, the navigator could provide publicly available details about the activity, registration process and contact person.
No disclosure of HIV status would ordinarily be necessary.
If the person requests an introduction, the navigator could help communicate their interest in photography using only the information needed for that purpose.
The organizer may require a name, preferred contact method or ordinary participation details. There would usually be no reason to explain that the person attends an HIV clinic or receives antiretroviral treatment.
Sometimes an individual may have a separate health or functional concern that affects participation.
For example, someone might prefer shorter sessions or need to avoid a particular physical demand.
The navigator could help communicate the relevant practical requirement, where appropriate permission and legal grounds exist, without automatically disclosing the diagnosis associated with it.
If the situation requires individualized clinical advice, the appropriate healthcare professional should provide that assessment.
The navigator should not independently determine medical fitness or recommend treatment-related restrictions.
A person may also prefer to speak directly with the organizer while receiving assistance preparing questions or understanding the activity.
There is no need to create a formal referral when a simpler connection meets the person's needs.
The central principle is that HIV status should not become routine referral information simply because a navigator or healthcare service happens to know it.
The referral process itself may reveal sensitive information
Even when a navigator does not explicitly disclose HIV status, the way a referral is organized may reveal information unintentionally.
For example, an ordinary community organizer may receive an email from an address that clearly identifies an HIV treatment program.
The organizer might then infer that the person being introduced is living with HIV.
A referral form may contain an unnecessary diagnostic label, or a community organization may receive a document that includes clinical information irrelevant to the proposed activity.
These risks deserve attention because confidentiality can be compromised through context as well as through direct disclosure.
Similar concerns arise with messaging applications, social media and event photographs.
A person joining a support group associated with HIV may be identifiable through a participant list, group invitation or publicly shared photograph.
A messaging group may expose members' names or telephone numbers to other participants. The name of the group itself may reveal its purpose to someone who sees a notification.
These arrangements may be acceptable to some people but uncomfortable or unsafe for others.
Navigators and participating organizations should therefore consider not only what information is deliberately transferred, but also what the receiving organization or other participants might reasonably infer from the referral route.
Where appropriate, a person may prefer to contact an ordinary community service independently.
If assistance is needed, a suitably arranged general community-navigation contact may sometimes reduce unnecessary identification with an HIV-specific service, provided that the arrangement is transparent, lawful and does not involve misleading records.
The purpose is not to conceal information that must legally be provided. It is to avoid sharing information that is irrelevant to the community activity.
Organizations should not assume a referral is confidential simply because the HIV diagnosis has been removed from the message itself.
The sender's identity, attached documents, shared systems and registration procedures may still reveal information that the person did not intend to disclose.
For specialized HIV peer-support groups, the situation may be different.
Participants should understand how the group operates, who may see their attendance and what confidentiality arrangements are realistically available.
No organization should promise absolute anonymity when the setting or activity cannot provide it.
Protecting privacy requires attention to everyday procedures, not merely a general statement that personal information will be kept confidential.
What should ordinary community organizations be prepared to do?
A community organization does not need to become an HIV service to welcome someone living with HIV.
Its primary responsibility is to deliver the activity it offers in a respectful and appropriate manner.
For a photography club, this means organizing photography activities. For a language group, it means providing a suitable environment for language learning.
There should be no assumption that a participant's HIV status changes the nature of these ordinary activities.
However, organizations should understand how to respond if someone voluntarily discloses personal health information.
Staff and volunteers should not treat disclosure as permission to discuss the information with other members or use it in publicity.
They should avoid unnecessary questions about treatment, prognosis or how the person acquired HIV.
The individual's participation should not be transformed into a public discussion about HIV unless that is genuinely what the person wants and suitable arrangements have been agreed.
Organizations should also avoid introducing unnecessary medical requirements for ordinary activities.
For example, a general arts or cultural group should not require HIV testing or disclosure simply because it has been approached about welcoming someone living with HIV.
Where an activity has specific legal or safety requirements, those requirements should be considered according to the actual service provided.
Staff should also know how to respond if a participant experiences disrespectful treatment or discrimination.
An organization should be able to address ordinary concerns through its own procedures, while recognizing when professional advice, a complaint mechanism or another appropriate response may be necessary.
The referring HIV service should not automatically become responsible for managing every difficulty that arises within the community group.
A community organization can be inclusive without identifying particular members as people living with HIV.
Respectful communication, appropriate confidentiality and fair participation arrangements can benefit everyone using the service.
What rights and legal boundaries apply in Viet Nam?
Viet Nam's HIV legislation provides a direct legal foundation for community participation and confidentiality.
The Law on HIV/AIDS Prevention and Control No. 64/2006/QH11, as amended by Law No. 71/2020/QH14, recognizes rights relating to community integration, healthcare, education, vocational training, employment and privacy.
The 2020 amendments took effect on 1 July 2021.
Article 3 establishes principles concerning the prevention of stigma and discrimination and the importance of facilitating social participation by people living with HIV and their families.
Article 4 recognizes the rights of people living with HIV, including the right to live as part of the community and society, receive healthcare, participate in education and employment, and have their HIV-related privacy protected.
Article 8 prohibits specified acts of stigma, discrimination and unauthorized disclosure.
These provisions are relevant to ordinary community participation because they recognize that people living with HIV should not be excluded from social life merely because of their diagnosis.
However, confidentiality is not an absolute rule that overrides every other legal requirement.
The law establishes specific duties and exceptions concerning HIV-related information.
Following the 2020 amendments, Article 4 includes an obligation to promptly inform a spouse, intended spouse or person cohabiting as spouses of one's positive HIV test result.
Article 30 also regulates notification of positive HIV test results and access to information by specified persons in legally defined circumstances.
These requirements must be respected, but they serve different purposes from introducing someone to an ordinary recreational or cultural activity.
They do not create a general entitlement for a photography club, language class or similar community organization to obtain a participant's HIV status.
A navigator should therefore not assume that involvement in a referral provides authority to share clinical information.
The lawful basis, necessary permissions and applicable restrictions must be considered according to the actual purpose and circumstances.
An additional development in 2026 concerns administrative enforcement.
Government Decree No. 90/2026/ND-CP, issued on 30 March 2026 and effective from 15 May 2026, regulates administrative penalties in the health sector.
Article 22 includes sanctions for specified discriminatory practices involving people living with HIV, including particular conduct in education, employment and healthcare settings.
The application of a sanction depends on the actual conduct and relevant legal provisions. The decree should not be interpreted as establishing an identical penalty for every access problem or disagreement involving a community organization.
Nevertheless, it reinforces the importance of respecting existing protections against HIV-related discrimination.
For social prescribing, the practical implication is that community participation should not be organized through unnecessary medical disclosure, discriminatory requirements or assumptions that people living with HIV must use separate services.
Personal-data protection must reflect the purpose of the connection
HIV-related information is sensitive because inappropriate disclosure may affect a person's relationships, employment, social participation and sense of personal safety.
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.
These instruments establish requirements concerning personal-data processing, including sensitive information relating to health.
They are relevant when healthcare organizations, navigators or community partners collect, store or transfer personal information.
A referral arrangement must establish an appropriate legal basis for processing, meet applicable consent and notification requirements, and respect any specific obligations concerning health information.
Agreement to participate in a community activity should not automatically be treated as permission to transfer HIV treatment information.
Similarly, consent given in the context of healthcare does not automatically authorize unrelated disclosure to a cultural or recreational organization.
The amount of information shared should reflect the purpose of the connection.
For an ordinary community activity, the receiving organization may only need basic registration or participation information.
It would not normally require HIV test results, medication records or clinical notes.
Where specialized HIV support or healthcare is involved, different information-sharing arrangements may be necessary under the applicable legal and professional requirements.
Keeping HIV care records and ordinary community-participation information appropriately separated can help reduce unnecessary exposure of sensitive data.
The same care is needed when programs collect photographs, participant stories or evaluation information.
A person should not become identifiable as living with HIV merely because an organization wishes to publicize a successful community initiative.
Privacy protection should be built into the referral process rather than addressed only after an unintended disclosure occurs.
What does research from Viet Nam tell us?
Research from Viet Nam provides useful context, although direct evidence concerning social prescribing for ordinary community participation remains limited.
A study by Thai and colleagues, published in BMC Public Health on 21 March 2025, examined the relationship between social support, family support, HIV-related stigma and symptoms of depression among people living with HIV in Ho Chi Minh City.
The study included 777 adults receiving care at four outpatient clinics.
Data were collected between January and April 2021 through structured interviews and measures of family support, social support, perceived and internalized stigma, and depressive symptoms.
The researchers identified statistically significant negative correlations between measures of social and family support and measures of HIV-related stigma and depressive symptoms.
These findings suggest that social relationships and perceived support are relevant to the experiences of people receiving HIV care.
However, their interpretation requires caution.
The study was cross-sectional and involved people already engaged with outpatient HIV services in one city. It cannot be assumed to represent every person living with HIV in Viet Nam.
The study did not evaluate social prescribing, referrals to ordinary community clubs or the effects of participation in recreational and cultural activities.
Its design also does not allow conclusions about causality. The findings cannot establish that a particular community intervention will reduce stigma or depressive symptoms.
The relevance to social prescribing is therefore specific.
The study indicates that experiences of social support are associated with important aspects of living with HIV. It does not tell us whether participants would prefer specialized peer groups or ordinary community activities, or whether formal navigation would improve their experiences.
These questions require research designed to examine community participation and the acceptability of different connection pathways.
What can international experience contribute?
International HIV programs have substantial experience involving peers, community organizations and navigators in care and support.
WHO has emphasized community leadership, meaningful participation and non-discriminatory HIV services.
In July 2026, WHO reaffirmed the importance of community-led organizations in the global HIV response, including their role in shaping services, implementation and accountability.
These principles are relevant to collaboration with people living with HIV.
However, the existence of established community-based HIV programs should not be treated as proof that social prescribing directed toward ordinary community activities will produce the same outcomes.
The 2026 scoping review by Kokorelias and colleagues identified implementation factors such as trust, cultural responsiveness, organizational support and collaboration between services.
These are useful considerations for designing a referral pathway.
Yet HIV patient navigation generally focuses on access to healthcare and continuity of treatment.
Connecting someone with a community arts group or language class is a different activity with different aims.
For an HIV navigation program, success may involve timely treatment linkage, retention in care or adherence support.
For social prescribing focused on ordinary community participation, the individual may be more interested in pursuing a hobby, maintaining friendships or developing a new interest.
These outcomes should not be combined without recognizing the different purposes of the services.
Published evidence directly evaluating structured social-prescribing pathways for ordinary community participation among people living with HIV in Viet Nam remains limited.
A responsible approach would therefore begin with a carefully defined model and examine its acceptability, privacy and practical usefulness rather than assume benefits from other HIV interventions.
What might a realistic pilot look like in Viet Nam?
A small pilot could involve an established HIV healthcare service, an appropriately prepared navigation partner and a limited number of ordinary community organizations.
The purpose would not be to create another HIV treatment program.
Instead, the pilot could explore whether people receiving HIV care who express an interest in ordinary community participation can connect with suitable activities through a voluntary process that protects their privacy.
For example, the navigation partner might provide information about a local language group, arts program or community learning activity.
The person would decide whether the opportunity is relevant and whether they want assistance making contact.
Some participants may prefer to receive information and contact the organization themselves.
Others may want an introduction, provided that the referral does not unnecessarily disclose their HIV status or the nature of their healthcare.
An optional pathway to trusted HIV peer-support organizations could also be available for people who specifically want HIV-related support.
These should be presented as choices rather than predetermined destinations.
Before implementation, the partners would need to examine the capabilities and operating arrangements of participating services.
Community organizations should understand that they are providing ordinary activities, not HIV counseling or treatment.
Navigators should receive preparation appropriate to their responsibilities, particularly concerning informed choice, confidentiality, respectful communication and unintended disclosure risks.
The referral process should be reviewed for information that might reveal HIV status indirectly, including the identity of the referring organization, email addresses, document titles and shared digital systems.
Participants should have opportunities to shape the pilot.
People living with HIV may identify privacy concerns that healthcare administrators or community organizers have not anticipated.
Some may consider direct self-referral the most comfortable option. Others may prefer assistance from a trusted intermediary.
Where feasible, the model should allow both approaches.
The participating organizations should also know how to respond to discrimination, inappropriate requests for medical information or confidentiality breaches.
The purpose of the pilot would be to determine whether ordinary community participation can be supported without creating additional risks or duplicating established HIV services.
How should success and unintended consequences be assessed?
Referral numbers alone would not demonstrate the value of a community-connection pathway.
Someone may receive information about an activity and decide not to attend. Another person may contact the organizer independently and participate without the receiving organization knowing anything about their HIV status.
A third person may attend regularly and value the relationships that develop.
These experiences should be assessed according to the person's own goals.
A useful evaluation would consider whether participants were offered meaningful choices, whether they found suitable opportunities and whether the connection helped them take part in activities they wanted to pursue.
The experiences of people who decline a referral also matter.
Some may already have sufficient social connections. Others may prefer not to involve healthcare services in their recreational or cultural lives.
These choices should not automatically be interpreted as unsuccessful engagement.
Confidentiality is a particularly important consideration.
The pilot should examine whether unnecessary information was disclosed, whether participants felt in control of what was shared and whether the referral process created unwanted visibility of HIV status.
Any actual or suspected confidentiality breach should receive an appropriate response.
Evaluation should also avoid generating new privacy risks.
For example, an ordinary community club should not need to maintain a register identifying participants as living with HIV merely to support program evaluation.
Where research information is required, appropriate consent, confidentiality, data-protection and ethical-review arrangements must be established.
Reported improvements in social connection or well-being may be encouraging, but they should be interpreted according to the evaluation design.
A small feasibility pilot cannot establish that social prescribing reduces HIV-related stigma, prevents depression, improves antiretroviral adherence or reduces healthcare costs.
Those claims would require appropriately designed research and, where relevant, clearly defined clinical responsibilities.
The most useful early findings may concern whether the pathway respects choice, protects privacy and helps people access ordinary community opportunities without unnecessary labeling or disclosure.
Community participation should not require people to be defined by HIV
People living with HIV may value professional healthcare, peer support and HIV-related community organizations.
These services can be important when they provide reliable information, trusted relationships and assistance with healthcare.
However, people may also want community opportunities that have nothing to do with HIV.
They may wish to study, play sport, join a cultural group, volunteer or develop friendships without their medical history becoming part of the activity.
Social prescribing could help support these choices when someone wants assistance finding or connecting with a suitable resource.
Its role should remain clearly defined.
HIV healthcare professionals and established treatment services must remain responsible for clinical assessment, treatment and follow-up.
HIV peer-navigation programs may support access to care and other HIV-specific needs within their established responsibilities.
Ordinary community organizations provide the activities and services they are competent and legally permitted to deliver.
A social-prescribing navigator may help identify options and facilitate a connection, but should not automatically disclose HIV status or assume that every person needs a specialized HIV support group.
For Social Prescribing Vietnam, the relevant opportunity is to explore how healthcare, trusted navigation partners and ordinary community organizations might work together while preserving individual choice and confidentiality.
The purpose is not to generate more referrals based on an HIV diagnosis.
It is to make suitable community opportunities easier to access for people who want them, without unnecessary disclosure, discrimination or interference with their healthcare.
Sometimes the most appropriate support may be an HIV peer group chosen by the individual. At other times, it may simply be information about a photography club, language class or volunteer activity.
And sometimes no referral is necessary.
A person living with HIV should be able to participate in ordinary community life without having to explain their diagnosis when it is not relevant.
That principle should remain central to any responsible social-prescribing approach developed in Viet Nam.
References
World Health Organization Regional Office for the Western Pacific. A Toolkit on How to Implement Social Prescribing. Manila: World Health Organization; 2022.
World Health Organization. HIV and AIDS. WHO Fact Sheet. 27 July 2026.
World Health Organization. WHO Director-General Meets HIV Community Leaders to Reaffirm Commitment to Community Leadership and Meaningful Engagement. 3 July 2026.
Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS). Information on How HIV Is Transmitted and Not. UNAIDS Viet Nam.
Thai TT, Nguyen BT, Le Nguyen MBT, Tran THT, Nguyen NBT, Tran VB, Pham PTT, Bui HHT. The correlation of social support and family support with HIV-related stigma and depression in people living with HIV in Vietnam. BMC Public Health. 2025;25:1094. doi:10.1186/s12889-025-22326-x.
Kokorelias KM, Sheppard CL, Eaton A, et al. Understanding the implementation of patient navigation for adults living with HIV: A scoping review of components, equity considerations and lessons learned. HIV Medicine. 2026;27(6):822–871. doi:10.1111/hiv.70194.
National Assembly of Viet Nam. Law No. 64/2006/QH11 on HIV/AIDS Prevention and Control. Adopted 29 June 2006; effective 1 January 2007, as amended.
National Assembly of Viet Nam. Law No. 71/2020/QH14 amending and supplementing provisions of the Law on HIV/AIDS Prevention and Control. Effective 1 July 2021.
Government of Viet Nam. Decree No. 90/2026/ND-CP on Administrative Penalties in the Health Sector. Issued 30 March 2026; effective 15 May 2026.
Ministry of Health of Viet Nam, Department of Disease Prevention. Official Letter No. 1593/PB-HIV-MT on strengthening referral of people identified as living with HIV at healthcare facilities to antiretroviral treatment services, together with its implementation guidance. 27 August 2026.
National Assembly of Viet Nam. Law No. 91/2025/QH15 on Personal Data Protection. Effective 1 January 2026.
Government of Viet Nam. Decree No. 356/2025/ND-CP detailing provisions and implementation measures under the Law on Personal Data Protection. Effective 1 January 2026.
Editorial and legal note: This article provides an educational and implementation-focused discussion of community participation and social prescribing for people living with HIV in Viet Nam, based on international evidence, relevant research and legal frameworks reviewed through October 2026.
It does not establish that social prescribing is a nationally standardized, specifically authorized or clinically validated HIV-related service in Viet Nam.
Community connection should not replace HIV testing, treatment, antiretroviral care, professional counseling, mental healthcare or other regulated services. HIV-specific patient navigation and peer-support programs should also be distinguished from social prescribing directed toward ordinary non-clinical community participation.
Any proposed program should assess its actual activities, applicable legal requirements, professional responsibilities, confidentiality and personal-data protection, referral arrangements, potential discrimination risks and the competence and capacity of participating healthcare and community organizations.