Integrating Lifestyle Medicine into Primary Care in Viet Nam: A Framework for Implementation, Team-Based Care and Outcome Measurement

Integrating Lifestyle Medicine into Primary Care in Viet Nam: A Framework for Implementation, Team-Based Care and Outcome Measurement

Last reviewed: September 2026

Lifestyle Medicine fits naturally with primary care. Many of the conditions encountered repeatedly in primary care, including hypertension, type 2 diabetes, obesity, cardiovascular risk, tobacco use, sleep problems and some mental health concerns, are influenced by health behaviors and by the social conditions in which those behaviors occur.

But integrating Lifestyle Medicine into primary care requires much more than adding six lifestyle questions to a consultation or asking clinicians to give patients more advice. A service needs a defined clinical purpose, appropriate professional roles, workflows that fit everyday care, reliable referral and follow-up, clinical governance and a way to determine whether the model is actually improving patient outcomes.

Without those elements, Lifestyle Medicine can remain dependent on a small number of enthusiastic clinicians rather than becoming part of routine care.

International evidence is moving in this direction. An expert consensus on Lifestyle Medicine in primary care supports multidisciplinary models, structured lifestyle assessment, behavior-change support, different intensities of intervention, individual and group care, referral and outcome measurement. The 2025 Lifestyle Medicine Core Competencies also include interprofessional teamwork, telehealth, clinical information systems, quality improvement and measurement of intervention effectiveness. More recently, a 2026 international white paper called for more systematic integration of Lifestyle Medicine into healthcare systems while emphasizing the need to adapt implementation to local culture, resources, workforce and health-system context.

For Viet Nam, the timing is particularly relevant.

What does “primary care” mean in this article?

The term primary care is used here in its broad clinical and health-system sense: accessible, first-contact, continuing and coordinated care that includes prevention, early detection and long-term management of common health conditions.

It should not be interpreted as the name of a new category of healthcare facility or a separate Lifestyle Medicine licence under Vietnamese law.

The Law on Medical Examination and Treatment recognizes specific organizational forms of healthcare facilities, including hospitals, clinics, health stations and family medicine healthcare facilities. It also classifies healthcare facilities by technical level, including the initial level of medical examination and treatment, which undertakes outpatient care, primary healthcare, disease management and community rehabilitation. Family medicine healthcare services also include primary health management, counseling, prevention and health promotion.

Lifestyle Medicine integration therefore has to occur through existing legally appropriate healthcare structures rather than through the creation of an informal clinical category outside them.

Why primary care matters for Lifestyle Medicine in Viet Nam

Noncommunicable diseases account for around four in five deaths in Viet Nam. These diseases require more than episodic treatment when complications appear. They require earlier identification of risk, continuity of care, repeated support for behavior change and long-term management close to where people live.

In September 2026, the World Health Organization highlighted the expansion of grassroots noncommunicable disease care in Viet Nam. Strengthened community services are now reaching around 10 million people each year, while the established hypertension-control model provides treatment to more than two million people and diabetes management is also being expanded closer to communities.

The legal environment has also moved further toward prevention. The Law on Disease Prevention No. 114/2025/QH15, effective from July 1, 2026, addresses behavioral and lifestyle risk factors for noncommunicable diseases and provides for early detection, counseling, monitoring, preventive treatment for people at risk and community management of people already living with noncommunicable diseases. The Government subsequently issued Decree No. 165/2026/NĐ-CP, effective from the same date, to guide implementation of the law, and the Ministry of Health issued Circular No. 15/2026/TT-BYT detailing relevant provisions.

At the policy level, Resolution No. 72-NQ/TW of September 2025 also emphasizes prevention, stronger grassroots healthcare, screening and improved primary healthcare capacity. This is policy context, not a statutory Lifestyle Medicine mandate, but it reinforces the broader direction toward prevention and community-based chronic disease care.

Lifestyle Medicine could contribute to this transition. Its most useful role would be to strengthen existing healthcare, not to create a parallel system outside it.

Integration should begin with a clinical problem, not with a new label

One of the easiest ways to create an unsustainable Lifestyle Medicine service is to begin with the name rather than the problem.

A healthcare organization may announce a “Lifestyle Medicine clinic,” train staff and develop promotional materials before deciding exactly which patients will be served, what clinical outcomes are expected and how the new pathway will interact with existing care.

A stronger approach begins with a defined population and clinical objective.

A primary care service might initially focus on adults with prediabetes, people with newly diagnosed hypertension, patients with obesity and metabolic risk, smokers with cardiovascular risk or people living with several lifestyle-related chronic conditions.

The population should be focused enough for a clear clinical pathway to be designed and evaluated.

For example, a prediabetes pathway might aim to improve physical activity and dietary quality, support appropriate weight management and reduce progression to type 2 diabetes. A hypertension pathway could integrate conventional blood pressure management with sodium reduction, physical activity, sleep assessment, tobacco cessation and medication adherence. An obesity pathway may include clinical nutrition, physical activity, sleep, psychological assessment, pharmacotherapy where appropriate and long-term follow-up.

The difference is important. “Promoting Lifestyle Medicine” is difficult to measure. “Improving blood pressure control and selected lifestyle behaviors among adults with hypertension over 12 months” can be measured.

Lifestyle Medicine should be built into the clinical pathway

Integration is more likely to last when Lifestyle Medicine becomes part of routine care rather than an optional conversation that occurs only when a clinician happens to have extra time.

A practical pathway can begin when a patient enters care. Medical risk is assessed first. Relevant lifestyle and social factors are then identified systematically, not because every patient requires an intensive intervention across all six Lifestyle Medicine pillars, but because this information can influence clinical decisions.

The Lifestyle Medicine primary-care consensus recommends baseline assessment of relevant lifestyle domains and reassessment over time. The 2025 Core Competencies similarly include integrating lifestyle-related information into patient assessment, using multidisciplinary teams, using clinical information systems and measuring treatment effectiveness.

A practical workflow can therefore follow a simple cycle:

Identify clinical risk → assess relevant lifestyle and social factors → agree on priorities → intervene or refer → follow up → measure response → adapt the plan.

The important part is not the appearance of the diagram. It is whether the organization can make that cycle happen reliably for real patients.

Not every patient needs the same intensity of care

Primary care has limited time and workforce capacity. A sustainable model cannot assume that every patient needs an hour-long Lifestyle Medicine consultation with several professionals.

The primary-care expert consensus distinguishes among Lifestyle Medicine assessment and counseling, therapeutic interventions and more intensive interventions delivered at sufficient duration and intensity for selected clinical goals.

This makes a tiered model practical.

Many patients may need brief assessment, evidence-based advice and agreement on one or two achievable actions. People with greater clinical risk or difficulty making changes may need structured follow-up, nursing support, clinical nutrition care, psychological support or group-based interventions. A smaller group with complex chronic disease or an intensive therapeutic objective, such as type 2 diabetes remission, may require multidisciplinary treatment and closer medical monitoring.

This helps avoid two opposite problems. Generic advice given to everyone may be too weak to influence important disease outcomes, while an intensive program offered to everyone may consume so much professional time that the model cannot reach enough patients to become sustainable.

The intensity of intervention should therefore reflect clinical need, patient preference and available resources.

Team-based care is more realistic than asking one clinician to do everything

Lifestyle Medicine is inherently interdisciplinary. Nutrition, physical activity, sleep, psychological health, substance use, medications, chronic disease and social circumstances frequently interact within the same patient.

Expecting one physician to assess and manage all of these issues during a short consultation is unlikely to be either realistic or sustainable.

A stronger model distributes responsibilities according to professional competence and legal scope.

Physicians can integrate lifestyle factors with diagnosis, medical risk, disease monitoring and pharmacological treatment. Nurses can contribute to education, monitoring, follow-up, self-management support and care coordination. Practitioners holding the professional title of clinical nutrition can provide clinical nutrition care within their authorized scope. Clinical psychologists can contribute when psychological assessment or intervention is indicated. Physicians and medical technicians working in rehabilitation may contribute within their respective professional scopes, while pharmacists can support medication-related care within the pharmacy regulatory framework.

Vietnamese law matters here. The Law on Medical Examination and Treatment identifies professional titles requiring practising licences, including physicians, assistant physicians, nurses, midwives, medical technicians, clinical nutrition professionals, pre-hospital emergency care professionals and clinical psychologists. Clinical activities remain subject to the professional scope attached to those roles.

A health coach or another non-clinical support professional may potentially assist with goal setting, accountability or implementation of an agreed behavior-change plan. Participation in a team, however, does not confer authority to diagnose disease, prescribe or modify medication, or independently perform activities that legally constitute medical examination or treatment.

Team-based care therefore requires more than assembling people with different backgrounds. Each participant needs a defined role, clear boundaries, an appropriate referral pathway and clinical accountability.

Integration does not create a new scope of practice

Lifestyle Medicine is not currently a separate professional title requiring a practising licence under Vietnamese law. Integrating Lifestyle Medicine into primary care does not expand the professional authority of the people involved.

The underlying qualifications, practising licences and authorized professional scopes continue to apply.

The same is true at facility level. The Law on Medical Examination and Treatment specifies recognized forms of healthcare facilities and requires facilities conducting medical examination and treatment to hold the appropriate operating licence. The licence includes the organizational form and authorized professional scope of the facility.

A training company, wellness center or coaching organization does not become a healthcare facility simply because a physician participates in one of its programs.

The applicable legal requirements depend on the substance of the activities being provided, not only on how the service is branded.

Behavior change needs to become part of clinical practice

Identifying a risk factor is relatively easy. Helping someone change it is much harder.

Many patients already know that smoking is harmful, physical activity is beneficial or excess sodium may increase blood pressure. The gap is often not knowledge. It is implementation.

Lifestyle Medicine therefore includes skills such as motivational interviewing, collaborative goal setting, self-efficacy building, problem solving, action planning and relapse prevention. These areas are explicitly included in the Lifestyle Medicine Core Competencies.

These skills do not require every medical consultation to become a psychotherapy session. They change how clinical recommendations are delivered.

Instead of giving five recommendations at once, a clinician and patient may identify one priority. Instead of documenting that someone is “non-compliant with exercise,” the team can explore whether the barrier is pain, lack of time, caregiving, fear, low confidence or an unsafe environment. Instead of treating a setback as failure, follow-up can identify what changed and revise the plan.

This requires more skill than simply repeating advice, but once incorporated into routine workflow it does not necessarily require a completely separate consultation model.

Social determinants should influence the plan

The 2025 Lifestyle Medicine Core Competencies introduced a specific competency requiring Lifestyle Medicine interventions to be applied in the context of social determinants of health in order to improve outcomes and health equity.

This is particularly relevant to primary care because clinicians repeatedly see how income, working hours, family responsibilities, housing, transport, food access and health literacy affect what patients are able to do.

A nutrition plan that depends on expensive imported foods may be inappropriate when equally evidence-based local alternatives exist. An exercise recommendation that requires gym membership may be unrealistic for someone who could instead walk, use stairs or exercise at home. A sophisticated digital platform may improve access for one person and create a barrier for another with limited digital confidence.

Context should therefore be considered before a treatment plan is judged unsuccessful.

This does not mean that primary care teams are expected to solve poverty, housing or every other social problem. It means the clinical plan should not pretend those factors do not exist.

Referral pathways matter as much as the consultation

A primary care organization does not have to employ every professional internally, but it needs a reliable way to connect patients with services that lie outside the team's own competence.

A clinic might develop referral relationships with clinical nutrition services, clinical psychology, rehabilitation, smoking cessation services, sleep specialists, community physical activity programs or specialist medical services. Depending on the condition, referral to endocrinology, cardiology, sleep medicine or metabolic surgery may also be appropriate.

Family, peer and community resources can also support behavior change.

From an implementation perspective, a stronger model is a closed-loop referral rather than simply giving the patient a telephone number. The receiving service is identified, the reason for referral is clear, responsibility is understood and clinically relevant information returns to the referring team where appropriate.

Closed-loop referral is presented here as an implementation principle, not as a new Vietnamese legal requirement.

Its value is continuity: the primary team can still understand how the different parts of care fit together.

Follow-up is where implementation often succeeds or fails

Lifestyle change develops over months and years. A service that conducts an excellent initial assessment but has no reliable mechanism for follow-up is unlikely to produce sustained results.

Follow-up does not always require another long physician appointment. Depending on the patient's needs and professional scopes, it may involve nursing follow-up, clinical nutrition review, group care, telephone contact, digital communication or a shorter medical review.

The purpose is practical: Was the agreed action possible? Did the behavior change? Did the clinical outcome change? Did the intervention create any new risk? Does the patient need more support, a different intervention or referral?

The timing should reflect clinical risk. Someone whose glucose or blood pressure is changing rapidly and whose medication may need adjustment requires different monitoring from someone gradually increasing physical activity.

Follow-up should therefore be designed when the intervention begins rather than added later as an afterthought.

Digital tools can support care, but they do not sit outside healthcare regulation

Digital tools can make Lifestyle Medicine easier to deliver at scale. Electronic questionnaires may collect lifestyle information before a consultation. Home blood pressure, glucose data, physical activity measures and patient-reported outcomes may support follow-up. Telehealth can reduce travel and make multidisciplinary care easier to coordinate.

But technology should solve a clinical problem rather than merely create more data.

Not every digital interaction is, by itself, remote medical examination and treatment. The legal classification depends on whether the activity in substance constitutes medical examination or treatment and how it is delivered.

When an activity does constitute remote medical examination or treatment, Vietnamese healthcare regulation applies. Article 87 of Decree No. 96/2023/NĐ-CP requires remote medical examination and treatment to be performed by practitioners of eligible healthcare facilities, within a professional scope appropriate to the service, with sufficient practitioners and suitable information technology infrastructure. The infrastructure must support secure transmission, display, processing, storage and backup of data. The decree also establishes a notification process before eligible services are provided remotely.

This distinction matters because an educational message, a consumer activity tracker and a remote medical consultation are not necessarily the same type of activity under law.

Health data governance should be treated as clinical governance

A Lifestyle Medicine program may collect more longitudinal information than a conventional episodic consultation: nutrition questionnaires, physical activity data, sleep information, mental health information, laboratory values, wearable-device data and patient-reported outcomes.

These data need governance.

The Law on Personal Data Protection No. 91/2025/QH15, effective January 1, 2026, contains specific requirements for health information. As a general rule, consent is required for collection and processing of health-related personal data, subject to statutory exceptions, and organizations in the health sector must comply with the broader personal-data protection framework. The law also specifically addresses health applications.

The Government's Decree No. 356/2025/NĐ-CP, issued on December 31, 2025 and effective January 1, 2026, provides detailed rules and implementation measures for the Personal Data Protection Law.

A Lifestyle Medicine program collecting health questionnaires, wearable data or outcome measures should therefore treat consent, access, retention, disclosure, security and data-processing responsibilities as part of clinical governance rather than solely as technical issues for the information technology department.

Outcome measurement should begin before the program launches

A Lifestyle Medicine program cannot demonstrate value if nobody has decided what success means.

Weight loss is not an adequate outcome for every service. Neither is the number of patients who received lifestyle counseling.

The primary-care Lifestyle Medicine consensus supports the use of patient-reported measures, biometrics and laboratory outcomes to assess treatment effectiveness. The 2025 Core Competencies also include measurement of intervention effectiveness and quality improvement.

A useful measurement framework can examine several dimensions.

Reach: Did the intended population actually receive the service? A clinic might record the number of eligible patients identified, the proportion completing assessment and the proportion who began the intervention.

Behavior: Did clinically relevant behavior change? Measures might include physical activity, dietary pattern, tobacco use, sleep, sedentary time or completion of agreed action plans.

Clinical outcomes: Did health improve? A hypertension pathway may monitor blood pressure control. A prediabetes program may track glycemic measures and progression to diabetes. An obesity service might monitor metabolic risk, waist measures, physical function or quality of life rather than body weight alone.

Patient experience: Did the patient experience benefit or excessive burden? Quality of life, confidence in self-management, goal attainment, treatment burden and satisfaction can provide information that laboratory results cannot.

Safety: Did the intervention create new risk? Depending on the pathway, relevant measures might include hypoglycemia, symptomatic hypotension, falls, nutritional problems or other adverse events.

Equity: Did outcomes differ among groups? A program that works well for digitally connected urban professionals but poorly for older adults, lower-income patients or people living farther from the clinic may look successful in aggregate while still widening disparities.

These are examples for program design, not proposed national Lifestyle Medicine indicators.

Implementation outcomes are different from patient outcomes

Clinical improvement alone does not demonstrate that a model can be implemented reliably.

Implementation science distinguishes outcomes such as acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, feasibility, fidelity, implementation cost, penetration and sustainability from clinical and service outcomes. This distinction helps explain why an intervention can be clinically effective in a research study but fail when introduced into everyday practice.

For a Lifestyle Medicine pilot, this means asking questions beyond whether blood pressure, weight or glycated hemoglobin improved.

Do clinicians actually use the pathway? Do they consider it practical? Are referrals completed? Does the service fit existing workflow? Are patients willing to participate? Is the intervention being delivered as intended? How much staff time and cost are required? Does the model continue functioning after the original project team reduces its involvement?

These are implementation questions.

They matter because a pilot can produce excellent clinical results while depending on one unusually motivated physician working several unpaid hours each week. That may be a successful intervention for a small number of patients, but it is not yet a scalable healthcare model.

The 2026 international Lifestyle Medicine white paper similarly emphasizes workforce development, governance, clinical pathways, resources and adaptation to local health-system conditions when discussing health-system integration.

Do not measure everything simply because it can be measured

Measurement can itself become a barrier.

A common implementation mistake is to build a dashboard containing dozens of indicators before asking whether anyone will use them. Documentation increases, while clinical decisions remain unchanged.

A more sustainable approach is to select a small core set of measures linked directly to the objective of the pathway.

For a hypertension pilot, this might include blood pressure control, one or two relevant lifestyle measures, follow-up completion, clinically relevant medication changes and one patient-reported outcome. A diabetes prevention program would need a different set. An obesity pathway would need another.

Every measure should also have an owner. Someone needs to know who collects it, where it is recorded, how often results are reviewed and what action occurs when performance worsens.

A metric that never changes a decision is usually documentation rather than improvement.

Start with a pilot, learn and then decide whether to scale

There is no requirement that a healthcare organization establish a comprehensive Lifestyle Medicine department before it can begin integrating Lifestyle Medicine principles into care.

For many organizations, one practical approach is to begin with a defined pilot: one patient population, one site and one clinical pathway.

Before the first patient enters the pathway, the team can define eligibility, assessment, professional roles, referral criteria, follow-up intervals and a small number of clinical and implementation outcomes.

The 2025 Lifestyle Medicine Core Competencies explicitly include designing quality-improvement projects and refer to methods such as Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles.

That principle is highly applicable to implementation. The first version of a workflow does not have to be perfect. The organization can test whether screening takes too long, whether patients complete referrals, whether follow-up intervals are realistic, whether clinicians understand their roles and whether outcome data can actually be collected.

The next version should improve because the first one produced information.

Expansion to additional patients, diseases or sites should then be based on what the organization has learned rather than on enthusiasm alone.

Workforce training should focus on competence, not branding

A service is unlikely to become routine if only one or two highly engaged clinicians understand how it works.

Different team members need different competencies.

A physician may need stronger skills in assessing, prescribing and monitoring lifestyle interventions for chronic disease. A nurse may require skills in assessment, education, follow-up and behavior-change support. Clinical nutrition and clinical psychology professionals require their own role-specific competencies.

Not every person in the service needs an international Lifestyle Medicine certification.

International education and certification can provide valuable professional development, but they do not replace Vietnamese practising-licence requirements and do not automatically expand an individual's legally authorized professional scope.

The more important implementation question is whether each member of the team can reliably perform the tasks required by the pathway.

Training should therefore be linked to service design. Teaching staff about the six pillars without changing assessment, documentation, referral and follow-up is unlikely to produce meaningful integration.

Leadership and governance determine whether integration becomes routine care

Clinical enthusiasm can start innovation, but governance determines whether it lasts.

A Lifestyle Medicine pathway should have a clearly identified clinical owner, defined responsibilities, documentation standards, appropriate protocols or pathways, referral criteria and a process for reviewing safety, quality and outcomes.

The organization also needs to know what happens when a patient's needs exceed the pathway, when recommendations from different professionals conflict, when treatment causes an adverse effect or when clinical deterioration requires escalation.

Governance does not mean creating unnecessary bureaucracy. It means removing ambiguity from clinical responsibility.

Lifestyle Medicine should be governed with the same seriousness as other clinical services.

Integration should complement established medical treatment

Integrating Lifestyle Medicine into primary care does not mean replacing conventional primary care with a lifestyle-only model.

The expert consensus on Lifestyle Medicine in primary care specifically recognizes that lifestyle intervention should complement pharmacological treatment when medication is necessary to achieve appropriate clinical outcomes.

This matters in diabetes, severe hypertension, established cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, obesity requiring pharmacotherapy and many other conditions in which delaying indicated treatment may cause harm.

Lifestyle interventions may sometimes reduce medication requirements. But medication adjustment is itself a clinical decision and requires appropriate monitoring.

The objective should not be to maximize the number of patients who stop medication.

The objective is better health.

An evidence-informed framework for Viet Nam

Putting these elements together, a practical implementation cycle for Viet Nam could be described as follows:

Define the population and clinical objective → assess medical risk, lifestyle factors and relevant social context → agree on patient-centered priorities → match intervention intensity to need → deliver or refer through the appropriate professional pathway → follow over time → measure clinical, behavioral, patient-reported, safety, equity and implementation outcomes → review the data through quality improvement → adapt the pathway before scaling.

This framework is not presented as a Ministry of Health guideline, a national Lifestyle Medicine standard or a new legal model of healthcare delivery.

It is an evidence-informed synthesis of international Lifestyle Medicine literature, implementation science and the current Vietnamese health-system and regulatory context.

Its purpose is to make Lifestyle Medicine operational rather than merely aspirational.

What could this mean for Viet Nam?

Viet Nam already has many of the structures on which this approach could build: commune-level healthcare, outpatient clinics, hospitals, family medicine services, national programs for noncommunicable diseases, expanding digital health infrastructure and a healthcare workforce increasingly responsible for long-term chronic disease management.

The Disease Prevention Law and its implementing instruments strengthen the legal context for prevention, early detection, counseling, follow-up and community management of noncommunicable diseases. At the same time, national policy is placing renewed emphasis on stronger grassroots healthcare and earlier disease management.

Lifestyle Medicine does not need to replace any of these structures.

Its more useful contribution may be to help make lifestyle assessment, behavior-change support, multidisciplinary collaboration, longitudinal follow-up and outcome measurement more systematic within them.

That is very different from opening a new service simply because the term “Lifestyle Medicine” is becoming more visible.

Integration should ultimately be judged by what changes for patients

A successful Lifestyle Medicine program is not necessarily the one that holds the most workshops, trains the largest number of staff or records the greatest number of lifestyle assessments.

Those may be useful activities, but they are means rather than outcomes.

The stronger test is whether patients receive more appropriate care, whether clinically relevant behaviors improve, whether disease outcomes change, whether those improvements can be sustained and whether the model reaches patients fairly without creating an unsustainable burden on the workforce.

Primary care is particularly well suited to this work because it can connect prevention with long-term clinical relationships. The same healthcare system may identify someone's risk before disease develops, manage the condition after diagnosis and continue supporting that person for many years.

Lifestyle Medicine adds value when it strengthens that continuity rather than creating another disconnected service.

The future of Lifestyle Medicine in Viet Nam may therefore depend less on how often the term appears in healthcare and more on how reliably its evidence can be translated into routine care, measured, improved and sustained.

That is the difference between promoting Lifestyle Medicine and actually integrating it into a health system.

References

1. Grega ML, Shalz JT, Rosenfeld RM, et al. American College of Lifestyle Medicine Expert Consensus Statement: Lifestyle Medicine for Optimal Outcomes in Primary Care. American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine. 2024;18(2):269–293. doi:10.1177/15598276231202970.

2. Rea BL, Cheema S, Lanza S, et al. Lifestyle Medicine Core Competencies: 2025 Update. American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine. 2026;20(3):443–451. First published online October 28, 2025. doi:10.1177/15598276251379821.

3. Cheema S, Abraham A, Mechley A, et al. Building on the Doha Declaration: A White Paper on Advancing Lifestyle Medicine for Non-Communicable Disease Prevention and Health System Transformation. Frontiers in Public Health. 2026;14:1873047. doi:10.3389/fpubh.2026.1873047.

4. Proctor E, Silmere H, Raghavan R, et al. Outcomes for Implementation Research: Conceptual Distinctions, Measurement Challenges, and Research Agenda. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research. 2011;38:65–76. doi:10.1007/s10488-010-0319-7.

5. World Health Organization Viet Nam. Strengthened grassroots health care brings NCD services to 10 million in Viet Nam. September 8, 2026.

6. National Assembly of Viet Nam. Law on Disease Prevention No. 114/2025/QH15, dated December 10, 2025, effective July 1, 2026.

7. Government of Viet Nam. Decree No. 165/2026/NĐ-CP detailing and guiding implementation of certain provisions of the Law on Disease Prevention. May 15, 2026, effective July 1, 2026.

8. Ministry of Health of Viet Nam. Circular No. 15/2026/TT-BYT detailing certain provisions of the Law on Disease Prevention. May 17, 2026, effective July 1, 2026.

9. Office of the National Assembly of Viet Nam. Consolidated Document No. 26/VBHN-VPQH, Law on Medical Examination and Treatment. February 26, 2026.

10. Government of Viet Nam. Decree No. 96/2023/NĐ-CP detailing certain provisions of the Law on Medical Examination and Treatment, including requirements for remote medical examination and treatment.

11. Ministry of Health of Viet Nam. Circular No. 32/2023/TT-BYT detailing provisions of the Law on Medical Examination and Treatment and professional scopes of healthcare practitioners, as subsequently amended.

12. National Assembly of Viet Nam. Law on Personal Data Protection No. 91/2025/QH15, dated June 26, 2025, effective January 1, 2026. Article 26 specifically addresses health information and related personal-data processing.

13. Government of Viet Nam. Decree No. 356/2025/NĐ-CP detailing certain provisions and implementation measures of the Law on Personal Data Protection. December 31, 2025, effective January 1, 2026.

14. Politburo of the Communist Party of Viet Nam. Resolution No. 72-NQ/TW on breakthrough solutions to strengthen the protection, care and improvement of people's health. September 9, 2025. Included as health-policy context, not as a clinical guideline, legal authorization for Lifestyle Medicine practice or national Lifestyle Medicine standard.

This article is intended for professional education and general information. The implementation framework described above is an evidence-informed model, not an official Vietnamese Lifestyle Medicine guideline, regulatory standard or legal opinion. Healthcare organizations should adapt any implementation model to their licensed activities, professional scopes, workforce capabilities, patient population, clinical governance, data-protection obligations and other Vietnamese laws and regulations in force at the relevant time.

Privacy Policy and Personal Data Protection Notice

Terms and Conditions

VLMA is operated by Vietnam Lifestyle Medicine Alliance Company Limited, Enterprise Registration Number 0318902666.

VLMA is a Sister Organization of the Lifestyle Medicine Global Alliance and a Member Organization of the Planetary Health Alliance.

VLMA is not a medical service provider and does not issue medical licenses or IBLM certification.