Lifestyle Medicine and Irritable Bowel Syndrome in Viet Nam: Dietary Safety, Gut-Directed Psychological Therapies, and Diagnostic Red Flags

Lifestyle Medicine and Irritable Bowel Syndrome in Viet Nam: Dietary Safety, Gut-Directed Psychological Therapies, and Diagnostic Red Flags

Primary category: Evidence & Clinical Practice
Secondary category: Lifestyle Medicine in Viet Nam
Article type: VLMA Perspective
Last reviewed: October 31, 2026

A person experiencing recurrent abdominal pain, bloating, and unpredictable bowel movements may begin changing what they eat. First, they avoid milk. Then certain vegetables, fruits, and other foods seem to make symptoms worse. Eventually, eating outside the home becomes difficult, and the list of foods they consider safe grows shorter.

Despite these restrictions, the symptoms continue. The person may undergo several investigations, be reassured that no serious disease has been identified, and receive advice to reduce stress or eat more carefully. Yet they still lack a clear understanding of their condition or a practical plan for managing it without making everyday life increasingly difficult.

This is one of the challenges of irritable bowel syndrome. Dietary changes can improve symptoms for some people, but excessive restriction may introduce new problems. Psychological therapies directed at gastrointestinal symptoms have evidence of benefit, but they are not equivalent to general advice about relaxation. Meanwhile, although irritable bowel syndrome can often be diagnosed without extensive investigation, warning signs suggesting another condition must not be overlooked.

For Lifestyle Medicine, the question is not simply which foods or behaviors should change. It is how to combine appropriate clinical assessment, safe and proportionate interventions, patient preferences, and follow-up to improve symptoms without creating avoidable harm.

Several developments in 2026 make this discussion particularly relevant. The introduction of the Rome V diagnostic framework, new evidence concerning gut–brain treatments, and an updated review of irritable bowel syndrome research in Viet Nam provide an opportunity to examine how Lifestyle Medicine can contribute to more individualized and responsible care.

Understanding Irritable Bowel Syndrome as a Disorder of Gut–Brain Interaction

Irritable bowel syndrome is a chronic gastrointestinal disorder characterized by recurrent abdominal pain or discomfort associated with changes in bowel habits. Symptoms may include diarrhea, constipation, alternating bowel patterns, bloating, urgency, and a sensation of incomplete evacuation.

For many people, the consequences extend beyond gastrointestinal discomfort. Some avoid long journeys because they worry about finding a toilet. Others miss work, limit social activities, or become increasingly concerned about eating outside the home. These effects on daily functioning deserve attention even when routine investigations do not identify a structural gastrointestinal disease.

Irritable bowel syndrome is understood as a disorder of gut–brain interaction. This describes disturbances in the complex communication between the gastrointestinal tract and nervous system, including mechanisms involved in intestinal motility, sensation, and pain processing.

Research has identified several potentially relevant processes, including altered gastrointestinal motility, visceral hypersensitivity, intestinal barrier dysfunction, immune signaling, changes in the gut microbiome, and altered processing of gastrointestinal signals within the central nervous system.

These mechanisms do not operate identically in every patient. Some people develop symptoms following an episode of infectious gastroenteritis. Others experience longstanding bowel disturbances without a clearly identifiable initiating event. Biological, psychological, social, and environmental factors may contribute in different ways.

A comprehensive review published in Nature Reviews Disease Primers on October 1, 2026, emphasizes this heterogeneity and supports an individualized approach involving clinical assessment, dietary interventions, medication when indicated, and gut–brain behavioral therapies.

Describing irritable bowel syndrome as a disorder of gut–brain interaction does not mean that symptoms are imaginary or that the condition is simply caused by anxiety. Psychological and social factors can influence symptom severity, attention to bodily sensations, and coping, but this does not diminish the biological basis of the disorder.

For patients who have repeatedly been told that nothing is wrong because their investigations were normal, this distinction is particularly important. Normal investigations may help exclude certain diseases, but they do not invalidate persistent gastrointestinal symptoms.

What Rome V Changes in the Diagnosis of Irritable Bowel Syndrome

The Rome Foundation introduced Rome V in 2026, updating the international diagnostic framework for disorders of gut–brain interaction.

One important change concerns how irritable bowel syndrome is recognized in adults.

Under Rome IV, the diagnostic criteria required recurrent abdominal pain occurring, on average, at least one day per week during the preceding three months, associated with changes related to defecation or bowel habits.

Rome V broadens the symptom definition to include abdominal pain or discomfort and reduces the minimum symptom-frequency threshold.

The updated criteria describe recurrent, but not continuous, abdominal pain or discomfort occurring on average at least three days per month during the preceding three months. Symptoms must be associated with at least two of three features: a relationship with defecation, a change in stool frequency, or a change in stool form. Symptom onset must have occurred at least six months before diagnosis.

Rome V also includes a supportive consideration that abdominal pain or discomfort should not occur exclusively in relation to menstruation. This is not an additional mandatory diagnostic criterion, but it may help clinicians consider alternative explanations for symptoms.

The return of abdominal discomfort to the definition is clinically relevant because some people describe their symptoms as pressure, uneasiness, or unpleasant abdominal sensations rather than pain.

The clarification that symptoms should be recurrent rather than continuous also deserves attention. A person experiencing abdominal pain throughout the waking day, every day, may require assessment for another disorder of gut–brain interaction or a different gastrointestinal or non-gastrointestinal condition.

These changes may influence which patients meet the diagnostic criteria. However, a revised definition does not automatically mean better diagnostic performance in every clinical setting.

A diagnostic accuracy study published in The Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology in 2026 evaluated Rome V among patients referred to a specialist service in the United Kingdom.

Among 726 participants with complete Rome V symptom data, the criteria demonstrated sensitivity of 66.1% and specificity of 80.1%. The corresponding values for Rome IV were 78.9% and 81.0%.

Rome V therefore demonstrated lower sensitivity in this particular specialist population, while specificity was relatively similar. These findings warrant attention, but their implications for primary care, community settings, and other populations remain uncertain.

A separate international epidemiological study published in Gut in 2026 surveyed 28,771 adults across 15 countries using the Rome V framework.

The proportion meeting criteria for irritable bowel syndrome was 8.5%, compared with 3.9% in the earlier Rome IV global epidemiology study.

This difference should not be interpreted as evidence that the number of people living with irritable bowel syndrome has more than doubled.

The surveys were conducted at different times, and the diagnostic definitions differed. The inclusion of abdominal discomfort and the lower frequency threshold contributed to the higher proportion identified under Rome V. Differences between the study populations and survey periods may also have influenced the results.

The overall proportion of participants meeting criteria for at least one disorder of gut–brain interaction remained relatively similar between the surveys, at 40.9% under Rome V and 40.5% under Rome IV.

These findings illustrate how changes in diagnostic criteria can influence reported disease frequency without necessarily representing an equivalent change in underlying disease occurrence.

For healthcare professionals in Viet Nam, Rome V provides an important update, but its criteria remain tools to support clinical assessment rather than a stand-alone test that automatically confirms or excludes disease.

International prevalence estimates should also not be treated as representative of Vietnamese populations without locally appropriate evidence.

A Positive Diagnosis Still Requires Clinical Judgment

Historically, some people with irritable bowel syndrome underwent repeated investigations before receiving a diagnosis. The condition was sometimes approached as something that could only be identified after every possible alternative had been excluded.

Current professional guidance increasingly supports a positive diagnostic strategy.

This involves recognizing a characteristic symptom pattern, taking an appropriate clinical history, conducting a focused examination, and selecting investigations according to the likelihood of alternative diagnoses.

Such an approach can reduce unnecessary testing and allow treatment to begin earlier. However, a positive diagnosis should not become an assumption made without adequate assessment.

The clinician needs to understand the duration and pattern of symptoms, their relationship to bowel movements, changes in stool frequency or form, medication use, previous gastrointestinal infections, family history, and any concerning associated features.

The predominant bowel pattern also matters. Constipation-predominant, diarrhea-predominant, and mixed irritable bowel syndrome may require different investigations and treatment approaches.

For patients with diarrhea-predominant symptoms, professional guidance such as that of the American College of Gastroenterology recommends appropriate consideration of testing for celiac disease and inflammatory bowel disease.

C-reactive protein and fecal calprotectin may help assess the likelihood of intestinal inflammation in suitable clinical circumstances. However, neither test independently confirms irritable bowel syndrome, and abnormal results require interpretation rather than an automatic diagnosis of inflammatory bowel disease.

Testing decisions should also reflect local disease patterns, test availability, and individual clinical circumstances. A recommendation developed in a population with a particular prevalence of celiac disease, for example, should not automatically be converted into an identical testing policy for every Vietnamese patient.

Other possible explanations for chronic altered bowel habits may include gastrointestinal infections, medication-related diarrhea, malabsorption, microscopic colitis, and other gastrointestinal conditions.

Routine colonoscopy is not necessary solely to confirm irritable bowel syndrome in every patient with typical symptoms and no concerning features. Nevertheless, appropriate colorectal cancer screening and investigations prompted by individual risk factors or warning signs should not be omitted.

The aim is to avoid both unnecessary investigations and the failure to recognize another disease.

Diagnostic Red Flags Should Change the Clinical Response

Recurrent abdominal symptoms should not automatically be attributed to irritable bowel syndrome, particularly when the presentation includes findings that suggest another gastrointestinal or systemic condition.

Rectal bleeding, black stools, unexplained iron-deficiency anemia, unintended weight loss, persistent fever, progressively worsening symptoms, or a relevant family history of colorectal cancer or inflammatory bowel disease warrant additional consideration.

New bowel symptoms beginning at an older age may also require a different diagnostic approach, especially when accompanied by other concerning findings.

Nocturnal symptoms that repeatedly awaken a person from sleep, particularly persistent diarrhea, may raise concern for alternative diagnoses. Their significance depends on the overall clinical picture rather than the presence of one symptom alone.

Abnormal physical examination findings or laboratory results may similarly influence the need for further investigation.

Not every warning sign indicates a serious disease, and individual findings vary in diagnostic significance. Their presence should nevertheless prompt appropriate reassessment rather than automatic reassurance.

Some presentations require urgent evaluation. Rapidly worsening severe abdominal pain, substantial gastrointestinal bleeding, signs of an acute abdominal illness, fainting, or severe dehydration may require immediate medical attention rather than routine outpatient follow-up.

Diagnostic safety also extends beyond the initial consultation.

A person previously diagnosed with irritable bowel syndrome may later develop another gastrointestinal condition. New bleeding, unexplained weight loss, progressive symptoms, or other concerning changes should not be dismissed simply because the person already has an irritable bowel syndrome diagnosis.

Appropriate reassurance follows clinical assessment. It should not replace assessment when new findings suggest that the diagnosis or management plan needs reconsideration.

Dietary Treatment Should Improve Symptoms Without Compromising Nutrition

Food-related symptoms are common among people with irritable bowel syndrome. Meals may be followed by bloating, abdominal pain, urgency, or altered bowel movements, leading patients to experiment with dietary restrictions.

Dietary assessment can be valuable, but the process should begin with understanding existing eating patterns rather than immediately recommending a restrictive diet.

Meal timing, portion size, dietary variety, fluid intake, and the relationship between particular foods and symptoms may all be relevant. Some people benefit from more regular meals, adjustments to portions, or changes involving foods they consistently find difficult to tolerate. Others may require a more structured intervention.

Fiber provides a useful example of why individualized advice matters.

Soluble fiber, particularly psyllium or ispaghula, has evidence supporting improvement in overall irritable bowel syndrome symptoms. However, the amount and rate of introduction should be appropriate because increasing fiber too rapidly may aggravate bloating or discomfort.

Insoluble fiber, particularly coarse wheat bran, may worsen symptoms in some individuals. Simply advising everyone with bowel symptoms to consume more fiber therefore overlooks differences in fiber type, tolerance, and predominant bowel symptoms.

A more important concern arises when patients have already restricted their diets substantially.

Someone who has unintentionally lost weight, has nutritional deficiencies, has a history of disordered eating, or has difficulty obtaining adequate food may be harmed by further exclusions.

The American Gastroenterological Association's clinical practice update identifies people at risk of malnutrition, those experiencing food insecurity, and those with eating disorders or uncontrolled psychiatric conditions as potentially poor candidates for restrictive dietary interventions.

These factors should be considered before recommending substantial dietary changes.

A diet that reduces bloating but creates nutritional inadequacy, distress about eating, or withdrawal from important social activities should not automatically be considered successful treatment.

Meaningful improvement should include symptom relief without sacrificing nutritional health or making everyday life unnecessarily difficult.

A Low-FODMAP Diet Is Not Intended to Be Permanent

The low-FODMAP diet is one of the most extensively studied dietary interventions for irritable bowel syndrome.

FODMAPs are fermentable oligosaccharides, disaccharides, monosaccharides, and polyols. These short-chain carbohydrates may be incompletely absorbed in the small intestine and can influence intestinal water movement and fermentation.

In susceptible individuals, these processes may contribute to bloating, abdominal discomfort, and changes in bowel habits.

Clinical studies have found that reducing FODMAP intake can improve overall symptoms for some people with irritable bowel syndrome. However, the evidence does not support treating the diet as universally effective or appropriate for everyone.

The 2025 Seoul Consensus on Clinical Practice Guidelines for Irritable Bowel Syndrome gives the low-FODMAP diet a weak recommendation based on low-certainty evidence. The guideline acknowledges potential benefits while recognizing uncertainty about long-term outcomes.

The American Gastroenterological Association describes the intervention as a structured process with three phases.

The first is a time-limited restriction phase, generally lasting no longer than four to six weeks. This is followed by systematic reintroduction of FODMAP-containing foods to assess individual tolerance. The final phase involves personalizing the diet so that unnecessary restrictions can be removed.

The distinction between these phases is central to safe treatment.

The purpose is not to eliminate the greatest possible number of foods. It is to understand which dietary components contribute to symptoms, in what amounts, and which foods can be returned without unacceptable discomfort.

Prolonged restriction may reduce dietary variety and compromise nutritional adequacy. Some studies have also reported changes in the gut microbiome, including reductions in certain beneficial bacterial groups during the restrictive phase. The long-term clinical significance of these changes remains uncertain.

For these reasons, a low-FODMAP intervention is best undertaken with support from an appropriately qualified professional experienced in gastrointestinal nutrition.

When specialist dietary support is unavailable, high-quality educational resources may help clinicians provide appropriately limited advice. However, complex dietary restrictions should not be undertaken without adequate consideration of nutritional risks.

If a patient does not improve after a properly conducted trial, continuing increasingly restrictive eating is unlikely to be a useful response. The diagnosis, dietary intervention, and alternative treatment options should instead be reconsidered.

The same caution applies to commercial food intolerance testing.

Measurements of food-specific immunoglobulin G antibodies should not routinely be used to identify foods responsible for irritable bowel syndrome symptoms or justify broad elimination diets. Such testing does not provide a reliable basis for routine dietary management.

Commercial microbiome testing and unvalidated biomarkers should also not replace established clinical assessment or be used to justify increasingly restrictive treatment without appropriate evidence.

The success of dietary treatment should be judged by meaningful symptom improvement, safety, nutritional adequacy, and sustainability rather than by how extensively food has been eliminated.

Adapting Dietary Advice to Vietnamese Eating Patterns

Applying international dietary guidance in Viet Nam requires attention to how food is prepared, shared, and consumed locally.

Many Vietnamese meals contain several ingredients, sauces, herbs, seasonings, and different preparation methods. The composition and portion size of a dish may vary considerably between home cooking, restaurants, and commercially prepared foods.

A person who experiences symptoms after a particular meal may not know which ingredient, portion, or combination of factors was relevant.

This makes generalized lists of prohibited Vietnamese dishes unreliable.

Rather than classifying familiar meals such as phở, bún, or other traditional dishes as inherently unsuitable for people with irritable bowel syndrome, dietary assessment should consider the actual ingredients, preparation methods, amounts consumed, and the individual's response.

International food-composition resources can provide useful information, but they should not be applied mechanically to local dishes without considering differences in ingredients and portions.

The social role of meals also matters. For many people, eating with family, colleagues, or friends is an important part of daily life. A dietary program that makes shared meals difficult or creates persistent anxiety about food may impose a burden greater than its expected benefit.

Food availability and cost are equally relevant. A plan requiring expensive specialty products or ingredients that are difficult to obtain may be less practical than a simpler approach using familiar foods.

Where specialist dietary services are available, appropriately qualified nutrition professionals can help adapt interventions to Vietnamese eating patterns. Where resources are limited, accurate education, manageable changes, and clear follow-up may be more useful than an elaborate restriction program that the person cannot sustain.

There is currently insufficient evidence to recommend one standardized restrictive diet for all Vietnamese patients with irritable bowel syndrome.

The challenge is to preserve the scientific principles of an intervention while adapting its delivery to the person's health needs, food preferences, and daily circumstances.

Gut-Directed Psychological Therapies Are More Than Stress-Management Advice

The relationship between the gastrointestinal tract and nervous system provides opportunities for treatments that address symptom perception, pain processing, and behavioral responses to chronic gastrointestinal symptoms.

These approaches are commonly described as gut-directed psychological therapies or brain–gut behavioral therapies. They include structured interventions such as cognitive behavioral therapy adapted for irritable bowel syndrome and gut-directed hypnotherapy.

Their purpose is not to persuade patients that symptoms are imaginary. Rather, they aim to address processes that can intensify symptom burden, including heightened attention to bodily sensations, fear of symptoms, avoidance behavior, and responses to gastrointestinal pain or urgency.

Consider a person who has experienced several episodes of urgent diarrhea while away from home. Over time, they may become increasingly worried about traveling, attending meetings, or entering situations where a toilet may not be readily available.

This anticipation can affect daily decisions and may contribute to a cycle of symptom monitoring, anxiety, and avoidance. An appropriately delivered gut-directed intervention may help the person respond differently to gastrointestinal sensations, reduce symptom-related distress, and regain participation in ordinary activities.

Evidence supporting these therapies has developed, although important limitations remain.

A systematic review and network meta-analysis published in The Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology in 2025 identified benefits from several forms of behavioral therapy, including cognitive behavioral therapy and gut-directed hypnotherapy.

A further systematic review and network meta-analysis published in Gut in June 2026 examined 68 randomized controlled trials involving 6,694 participants.

The analysis found evidence that several gut–brain neuromodulating medications and brain–gut behavioral therapies were more effective than waiting-list control for improving overall irritable bowel syndrome symptoms or abdominal pain.

However, none of the included trials was judged to have a low risk of bias, and the certainty of evidence was low or very low for most comparisons.

The rankings produced by the analysis should therefore not be interpreted as establishing one universally superior treatment. Comparisons with waiting-list control also require caution because they do not necessarily provide the same information as direct comparisons with other active treatments.

These limitations do not mean that gut-directed psychological therapies lack clinical value. They mean that treatment selection should reflect the available evidence, individual symptoms, patient preferences, professional expertise, and the availability of suitable services.

The British Society of Gastroenterology recommends considering psychological therapies for patients with persistent symptoms that have not improved after conventional treatment, while recognizing that earlier referral may be appropriate when services are available and consistent with patient preference.

An important distinction is that structured cognitive behavioral therapy or gut-directed hypnotherapy should not be equated with general relaxation advice, informal health coaching, or brief counseling about stress.

These interventions require specific therapeutic methods and appropriately trained practitioners.

Equally, a patient does not need to have a separate psychiatric diagnosis to be considered for an evidence-based gut-directed intervention. Such therapies may be used specifically to help manage gastrointestinal symptoms and their effects on daily functioning.

Medication and Specialist Care Remain Important

Lifestyle Medicine should complement established irritable bowel syndrome care rather than be presented as a replacement for it.

Some people experience adequate improvement through education, dietary adjustments, and behavioral support. Others continue to have significant abdominal pain, constipation, diarrhea, or disruption of daily life despite these measures.

Medication may be appropriate, and in some circumstances it may be indicated earlier according to symptom severity and clinical needs.

Treatment selection generally depends on the predominant bowel pattern and the symptoms causing the greatest difficulty.

Constipation-predominant and diarrhea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome may require different approaches. Depending on the presentation, clinicians may consider selected bowel-directed treatments, antispasmodic medicines, or other pharmacological options supported by relevant guidance.

Some patients may benefit from medicines that influence gastrointestinal pain signaling, including appropriately selected low-dose tricyclic antidepressants.

When used for irritable bowel syndrome, these medications may function as gut–brain neuromodulators rather than being prescribed solely for depression.

This distinction can help patients understand the rationale for treatment. However, prescribing still requires attention to potential adverse effects, contraindications, interactions, and individual clinical circumstances.

The availability and authorization of particular medicines vary between countries. A treatment recommended in an international guideline should not automatically be assumed to be approved, available, or suitable for use in Viet Nam.

Probiotics require similarly careful interpretation.

Although some studies suggest potential benefits from particular strains or preparations, findings remain heterogeneous. Differences in microorganisms, doses, formulations, patient populations, and measured outcomes make it difficult to generalize results across products.

Evidence supporting one probiotic preparation should not be presented as proof that all probiotics are effective treatments for irritable bowel syndrome.

Small exploratory studies involving herbal products or other complementary interventions also require cautious interpretation. Preliminary improvements in symptoms do not necessarily establish effectiveness, long-term safety, or suitability for routine care.

For patients with severe or persistent symptoms, particularly when the original diagnosis remains uncertain or treatment has not helped, reassessment may be more valuable than continuing to add interventions without a clear rationale.

The aim is to identify what the person needs, which interventions have a reasonable evidence base, and whether another condition or management issue has been overlooked.

What Research From Viet Nam Shows

A relevant contribution to understanding irritable bowel syndrome in Viet Nam was published on March 16, 2026, when researchers from the University of Medicine and Pharmacy at Ho Chi Minh City published Exploring IBS in Vietnam: An Updated Review of Current Trends and Treatment Landscape in Frontiers in Medicine.

The scoping review synthesized 21 studies involving Vietnamese populations published between September 2020 and July 2025.

Most included studies used cross-sectional designs and were conducted in hospitals or other selected clinical populations. Some examined university students or other specific groups.

Reported frequencies of irritable bowel syndrome varied considerably, ranging from 5.5% among university students to 68.2% in selected gastroenterology clinic populations. This variation reflects differences in participant selection, diagnostic approaches, and clinical settings.

These figures should not be interpreted as providing a nationally representative prevalence estimate for Viet Nam.

The review also identified associations between irritable bowel syndrome, psychological symptoms, and reduced quality of life. Some studies explored potential biomarkers, including fecal calprotectin and anti-vinculin antibodies, while others examined treatment approaches.

However, important gaps remain.

The authors highlighted limited population-based epidemiological evidence, uncertainty surrounding biomarker validation, insufficient research on long-term dietary treatment, and gaps concerning pharmacological interventions, psychological therapies, and economic burden.

The review also identified preliminary Vietnamese research involving probiotics, herbal treatments, and counseling programs. Although some studies reported improvements, their methodological limitations and relatively small scale restrict the conclusions that can be drawn.

These findings may justify further investigation but do not establish routine treatment recommendations for all patients.

Most studies included in the review were conducted before Rome V was introduced. Future Vietnamese research could examine how Rome V performs in local clinical populations and whether changes in diagnostic classification influence healthcare utilization, treatment decisions, or patient outcomes.

The broader research need extends beyond estimating disease frequency.

Studies evaluating culturally adapted dietary interventions, access to qualified nutrition and psychological services, patient-reported outcomes, and the feasibility of different models of care could help inform practice in Viet Nam.

International evidence provides an important foundation, but local research remains necessary to understand how these findings apply within Vietnamese healthcare settings.

Making Irritable Bowel Syndrome Care More Practical in Viet Nam

Improving irritable bowel syndrome care does not necessarily require every patient to attend a dedicated multidisciplinary clinic.

A useful starting point is a clear clinical assessment followed by an understandable explanation of the diagnosis, its likely mechanisms, and available treatment options.

Patients should understand why irritable bowel syndrome is being considered, which findings support the diagnosis, whether further investigations are indicated, and what changes in symptoms should prompt reassessment.

Dietary interventions should have a defined purpose and a realistic plan.

If a particular restriction is recommended, the clinician and patient should understand what improvement is expected, how long the intervention should be evaluated, and what should happen if symptoms do not improve.

For a low-FODMAP intervention, reintroduction and personalization should be part of the plan from the beginning rather than an afterthought once many foods have already been excluded.

When symptoms remain troublesome, clinicians should reconsider which problem is most important to address. Persistent abdominal pain, constipation, diarrhea, bloating, food-related anxiety, and impaired daily functioning may require different combinations of treatment.

Where qualified gut-directed psychological therapy services are available, referral may be appropriate for selected patients. These services should complement gastrointestinal care rather than be presented as an alternative medical system.

A person-centered approach also considers the practical burden of treatment.

Someone working long shifts may struggle with restrictive meal schedules. Another person may have limited access to specialist dietary services or trained psychological therapists. Financial circumstances, transport, family responsibilities, and availability of follow-up can also influence treatment choices.

Where resources are constrained, prioritizing interventions with reasonable evidence, acceptable safety, and realistic feasibility may be more helpful than attempting to implement every treatment described in an international guideline.

Good care is not defined by the number of interventions offered. It depends on whether the selected interventions address the person's needs and can be delivered, evaluated, and adjusted appropriately.

Measuring Improvement Without Increasing Patient Burden

The outcomes that matter in irritable bowel syndrome extend beyond bowel movement frequency or abdominal pain intensity.

For one person, improvement may mean being able to travel without constant concern about urgency. For another, it may mean returning to work regularly, eating a wider variety of foods, or participating in family meals without significant distress.

Clinical research commonly measures gastrointestinal symptom severity, bowel habits, and quality of life. Instruments such as the Irritable Bowel Syndrome Severity Scoring System may be useful in appropriate settings.

However, measurement tools require attention to language, cultural applicability, validation, and the purpose of assessment. A questionnaire translated into Vietnamese should not automatically be assumed to have equivalent measurement properties without appropriate evaluation.

Simple symptom records can also be helpful, particularly when they document changes in abdominal pain, stool consistency, treatment response, and daily functioning.

Excessive monitoring may create unnecessary burden. Asking someone to document every meal, symptom, and bowel movement indefinitely is not always needed and may increase preoccupation with symptoms.

Follow-up should consider whether an intervention has produced meaningful improvement and whether it has introduced new problems.

A restrictive diet that reduces bloating but causes weight loss, nutritional inadequacy, or considerable distress about eating should be reconsidered. Likewise, an intervention that improves symptom-related anxiety should not prevent further clinical assessment if new warning signs or unexplained gastrointestinal findings emerge.

Healthcare organizations may also benefit from examining whether diagnostic assessments were appropriate, concerning symptoms were recognized, indicated referrals occurred, and treatment plans were reviewed when patients did not improve.

These measures should support better care rather than simply increase documentation.

Professional Responsibilities and Legal Boundaries in Viet Nam

Educational discussion of irritable bowel syndrome can support professional learning and public understanding, but individualized diagnosis and treatment remain clinical activities governed by applicable Vietnamese law.

The Law on Medical Examination and Treatment establishes requirements concerning professional licensing, healthcare practice, and the responsibilities of healthcare facilities. Consolidated Document No. 26/VBHN-VPQH, issued by the Office of the National Assembly on February 26, 2026, provides an updated consolidated reference to the relevant legal provisions.

Healthcare professionals must work within their qualifications, legally authorized scope of practice, and the conditions applicable to their clinical activities.

These requirements are relevant to the interventions discussed in this article.

Clinical assessment, diagnostic investigations, prescribing medication, and other regulated medical activities require appropriately authorized professionals and facilities.

Disease-specific nutritional treatment must also be undertaken within the relevant medical or clinical nutrition scope, according to the nature of the service and applicable professional requirements.

Structured psychological treatment, including cognitive behavioral therapy delivered as a clinical intervention, requires appropriate professional competence and compliance with the legal framework governing the activity.

Vietnamese law recognizes clinical psychology among the healthcare professions addressed by the Law on Medical Examination and Treatment. Circular No. 32/2023/TT-BYT and its subsequent amendments form part of the relevant regulatory framework.

However, these provisions should not be interpreted as meaning that every form of health education, supportive conversation, or basic behavior-change counseling automatically constitutes regulated psychological treatment.

The distinction depends on the nature of the activity, its clinical purpose, the professional involved, and the applicable authorization requirements.

Completion of an international Lifestyle Medicine course, health-coaching program, or other educational certificate does not independently expand an individual's legally authorized scope of clinical practice in Viet Nam.

Healthcare organizations must also protect personal health information when collecting symptom records, dietary histories, psychological assessments, or other identifiable patient data.

The Law on Personal Data Protection No. 91/2025/QH15, effective January 1, 2026, and Decree No. 356/2025/NĐ-CP are relevant to the lawful processing and protection of such information.

International professional guidance, including Rome V and recommendations from foreign gastroenterology societies, can inform scientific understanding and clinical discussions. However, these documents should not automatically be presented as binding Vietnamese regulatory requirements or officially adopted national clinical guidelines.

For the Vietnam Lifestyle Medicine Alliance (VLMA), these distinctions are important.

VLMA is a physician-led professional platform operated by Vietnam Lifestyle Medicine Alliance Company Limited. Its intended role is to support evidence-based professional education, scientific knowledge exchange, capability development, and collaboration.

These activities do not mean that VLMA independently provides gastroenterology consultations, diagnostic services, individualized dietary treatment, psychological therapy, or medical prescriptions.

A suitable contribution is to help healthcare professionals understand the evidence, recognize its limitations, and consider its relevance to the Vietnamese healthcare context while respecting the responsibilities of authorized clinical practitioners.

Better Irritable Bowel Syndrome Care Is Not About Eliminating More Foods

Irritable bowel syndrome can create a difficult cycle. Symptoms lead to dietary restrictions, restrictions increase concern about eating, and persistent symptoms encourage further attempts to identify a single cause or solution.

Effective care should help interrupt that cycle rather than reinforce it.

A careful clinical assessment can reduce unnecessary uncertainty. Appropriate investigations can identify conditions requiring different management. Well-selected dietary interventions can improve symptoms without compromising nutrition, while gut-directed psychological therapies may help selected patients manage symptom burden and participate more comfortably in everyday life.

Medication and specialist care remain important when indicated.

The Rome V framework introduced in 2026 and recent treatment research reinforce the complexity of irritable bowel syndrome. They also highlight why general advice to eat better, avoid certain foods, or reduce stress may be insufficient.

For healthcare professionals in Viet Nam, applying Lifestyle Medicine responsibly means understanding what the evidence supports, recognizing when it remains uncertain, and adapting interventions to the person's clinical needs and circumstances.

It also means knowing when symptoms require further assessment rather than continued reassurance or increasingly restrictive treatment.

The goal should not be a longer list of prohibited foods, repeated investigations without a clear purpose, or a growing collection of unproven interventions. It should be a reliable diagnosis, safer treatment choices, meaningful symptom improvement, and better quality of life.

That is where evidence-based Lifestyle Medicine can contribute to the care of people living with irritable bowel syndrome.

Selected References

1. Rome Foundation. Rome V Diagnostic Criteria for Disorders of Gut–Brain Interaction. 2026.

2. Krause A, Chang L. Rome V Criteria for Adults: What's New and Why? United European Gastroenterology Journal. 2026;14(8). DOI: 10.1002/ueg2.70307.

3. Chang L, Corsetti M, Chey WD, et al. Irritable bowel syndrome. Nature Reviews Disease Primers. 2026;12:64. Published October 1, 2026. DOI: 10.1038/s41572-026-00741-7.

4. Staller K, Goodoory VC, Khasawneh M, Black CJ, Ford AC. The Rome V criteria for the diagnosis of irritable bowel syndrome in secondary care: a diagnostic accuracy study. The Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology. 2026;11(9):812–820. DOI: 10.1016/S2468-1253(26)00118-4.

5. Sperber AD, Hreinsson JP, Simrén M, et al. Rome V global epidemiology and validation survey: prevalence of disorders of gut–brain interaction and comparison with the Rome IV global epidemiology study. Gut. 2026;75(10):1887–1897. DOI: 10.1136/gutjnl-2026-339666.

6. Vo TD, Luu ATP. Exploring IBS in Vietnam: an updated review of current trends and treatment landscape. Frontiers in Medicine. 2026;13:1705376. Published March 16, 2026. DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2026.1705376.

7. Choi Y, Youn YH, Kang SJ, et al. 2025 Seoul Consensus on Clinical Practice Guidelines for Irritable Bowel Syndrome. Journal of Neurogastroenterology and Motility. 2025;31(2):133–169. DOI: 10.5056/jnm25007.

8. Khasawneh M, Thakur ER, Goodoory VC, Moayyedi P, Black CJ, Ford AC. Efficacy of gut-brain neuromodulators and brain-gut behaviour therapies for irritable bowel syndrome: systematic review and network meta-analysis. Gut. Published online June 26, 2026. DOI: 10.1136/gutjnl-2026-339311.

9. Thakur ER, Khasawneh M, Moayyedi P, Black CJ, Ford AC. Efficacy of behavioural therapies for irritable bowel syndrome: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. The Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology. 2025;10(12):1075–1088. DOI: 10.1016/S2468-1253(25)00238-9.

10. Chey WD, Hashash JG, Manning L, Chang L. AGA Clinical Practice Update on the Role of Diet in Irritable Bowel Syndrome: Expert Review. Gastroenterology. 2022;162(6):1737–1745.e5. DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2021.12.248.

11. Lacy BE, Pimentel M, Brenner DM, et al. ACG Clinical Guideline: Management of Irritable Bowel Syndrome. The American Journal of Gastroenterology. 2021;116(1):17–44.

12. Vasant DH, Paine PA, Black CJ, et al. British Society of Gastroenterology guidelines on the management of irritable bowel syndrome. Gut. 2021;70:1214–1240. DOI: 10.1136/gutjnl-2021-324598.

13. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Irritable Bowel Syndrome in Adults: Diagnosis and Management. Clinical Guideline CG61.

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

15. Ministry of Health of Viet Nam. Circular No. 32/2023/TT-BYT Detailing Certain Provisions of the Law on Medical Examination and Treatment. As subsequently amended, including by Circular No. 25/2026/TT-BYT, effective August 15, 2026.

16. National Assembly of Viet Nam. Law on Personal Data Protection No. 91/2025/QH15. June 26, 2025. Effective January 1, 2026.

17. Government of Viet Nam. Decree No. 356/2025/NĐ-CP Detailing Certain Articles and Measures for Implementing the Law on Personal Data Protection. December 31, 2025. Effective January 1, 2026.

18. Rea BL, Cheema S, Lanza S, et al. Lifestyle Medicine Core Competencies: 2025 Update. American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine. First published online October 28, 2025. DOI: 10.1177/15598276251379821.

Editorial, Clinical and Legal Disclaimer

This article presents an educational and professional perspective of the Vietnam Lifestyle Medicine Alliance on the role and limitations of evidence-based Lifestyle Medicine in irritable bowel syndrome care, based on information reviewed through October 31, 2026.

It is intended for professional education, scientific knowledge exchange, and general information. It does not constitute an official clinical practice guideline, individualized medical advice, a diagnostic assessment, dietary prescription, psychological treatment, medication recommendation, or medical treatment protocol.

The information should not be used to diagnose irritable bowel syndrome, exclude other gastrointestinal diseases, initiate restrictive dietary interventions, select medication, or determine whether specialist referral is necessary without appropriate professional assessment.

Rome V and other international recommendations discussed in this article do not automatically constitute Vietnamese clinical standards or regulatory requirements. Their applicability must be considered alongside individual clinical circumstances, relevant professional guidance, and Vietnamese law.

Restrictive diets may cause harm in people at risk of malnutrition, those with eating disorders, or those with limited access to adequate food. Gut-directed psychological therapies are structured clinical interventions and should be provided by appropriately trained professionals acting within their lawful scope of practice.

People experiencing gastrointestinal bleeding, unexplained weight loss, iron-deficiency anemia, progressively worsening symptoms, or other concerning findings should receive appropriate medical assessment. Severe or acute symptoms may require urgent or emergency care.

VLMA is a physician-led professional platform operated by Vietnam Lifestyle Medicine Alliance Company Limited. It is not a licensed medical examination or treatment facility and does not independently provide gastrointestinal diagnosis, medical treatment, individualized clinical nutrition services, or psychological therapy.

All regulated clinical activities must be undertaken by appropriately authorized professionals and facilities in accordance with applicable Vietnamese requirements.

This article does not endorse particular commercial diets, diagnostic tests, probiotic products, supplements, psychological therapy providers, or unproven treatments. Scientific evidence, professional guidance, and regulatory requirements may change as further information becomes available.