Lifestyle Medicine for Healthcare Professionals in Viet Nam: Personal Health, Burnout, and the Role of Individual and Organizational Action

Lifestyle Medicine for Healthcare Professionals in Viet Nam: Personal Health, Burnout, and the Role of Individual and Organizational Action

Last reviewed: 29 September 2026

Healthcare professionals routinely advise other people to sleep well, be physically active, eat well, manage stress, avoid harmful substances, and maintain supportive relationships. Doing those things consistently while working in healthcare can be much harder.

Night shifts, long or unpredictable hours, high patient volumes, emotional demands, administrative work, difficult clinical decisions, exposure to suffering and death, workplace conflict, violence or harassment, and limited control over how work is organized can all affect the health of healthcare workers. The World Health Organization identifies time pressure, lack of control over work tasks, long working hours, shift work, lack of support, and moral injury among important psychosocial risks for health workers. [2–4]

Lifestyle Medicine has something useful to contribute here. Its 2025 Core Competencies explicitly address practitioners' personal health, wellness, resilience, and burnout. [1] But this part of Lifestyle Medicine needs to be handled carefully. A clinician's health matters, yet burnout cannot be reduced to whether someone exercises enough, sleeps well enough, meditates, or eats the “right” food.

A responsible approach holds two ideas together: healthcare professionals can be supported to protect and improve their own health, and healthcare organizations need to address working conditions that contribute to occupational distress. Personal action and organizational action are complementary. One should not be used to replace the other.

What is burnout, and what is it not?

The World Health Organization includes burnout in the International Classification of Diseases, 11th Revision, as an occupational phenomenon, not as a medical condition. It describes burnout as a syndrome resulting from chronic workplace stress that has not been successfully managed, characterized by feelings of energy depletion or exhaustion, increased mental distance from one's job or feelings of negativism or cynicism related to one's job, and reduced professional efficacy. The concept applies specifically to the occupational context. [2]

Burnout is therefore more than ordinary tiredness after a difficult week, but it is not synonymous with depression, anxiety, insomnia, post-traumatic stress disorder, or another mental disorder. These conditions may coexist with burnout and some symptoms may overlap, but they are not interchangeable. A healthcare professional may become exhausted after repeated night shifts, increasingly detached from work, and less confident in professional effectiveness. Another person may experience persistent low mood, loss of interest, hopelessness, severe anxiety, panic, trauma-related symptoms, or a sleep disorder. Calling every form of distress “burnout” can obscure what kind of support or clinical assessment is actually needed.

Burnout is useful as an occupational concept, but it should not become a catch-all diagnosis for every difficulty experienced by healthcare workers.

Why does this matter in Viet Nam?

Available Vietnamese studies show that burnout and occupational well-being deserve attention, but a nationally representative burnout prevalence estimate for the healthcare workforce is not currently available.

Studies have been conducted in different hospitals, professional groups, and clinical settings using different definitions and measurement tools. A 2025 study of 485 female nurses and midwives at Tu Du Hospital reported burnout in 27.0% of participants using the Maslach Burnout Inventory-Human Services Survey. [14] A 2026 cross-sectional study of 383 clinical nurses at Thong Nhat Hospital reported occupational burnout in 36.3% using the Burnout Assessment Tool. [15] Another 2026 study of 71 healthcare workers at the National Institute of Mental Health, Bach Mai Hospital, reported burnout in 25.4% using the Maslach Burnout Inventory-Human Services Survey. [16]

These figures are useful local signals, but they should not be combined or interpreted as the prevalence of burnout among healthcare professionals in Viet Nam. The populations, settings, instruments, scoring approaches, and study designs differ. For example, the Bach Mai study involved only 71 healthcare workers in one specialized institute, while the Tu Du study focused specifically on female nurses and midwives.

Earlier research also shows how working conditions may relate to professional well-being. A study of 316 doctors and nurses at University Medical Center Ho Chi Minh City found moderate average burnout scores on the Professional Quality of Life scale. Participants working more than eight hours per day had higher burnout scores than those working an average of eight hours per day. Perceived adequate income and more than 10 years of professional experience were associated with lower burnout scores. Because the study was cross-sectional and conducted in a single hospital, these are associations rather than evidence of causation. [12]

A separate cross-sectional study involving 660 healthcare workers at Hung Vuong Hospital found substantial levels of self-reported symptoms of anxiety, depression, and stress using the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales 21. Administrative pressure, intensive work, relationships with colleagues, and perceived fairness in work-performance evaluation were among the associated workplace factors. [17] The study did not use clinical diagnostic interviews, so these questionnaire results should not be interpreted as prevalence estimates of diagnosed psychiatric disorders.

The useful message from the Vietnamese evidence is not that a particular percentage of healthcare workers are “burned out.” It is that occupational well-being warrants systematic measurement, local research, and organizational attention.

Why does Lifestyle Medicine include the health of the practitioner?

The 2025 Lifestyle Medicine Core Competencies include a specific domain addressing the practitioner's personal health and community advocacy. They ask healthcare professionals to examine evidence relating their own health behaviors to counseling and patient care, develop sustainable personal health patterns, understand personal wellness in healthcare settings, and explore the role of Lifestyle Medicine in practitioner resilience and reducing burnout. [1]

This should not be interpreted as requiring healthcare professionals to become models of perfect health. A physician living with obesity can still provide excellent obesity care. A nurse working rotating night shifts may not be able to maintain an ideal sleep schedule. A clinician managing a chronic illness does not become less credible as a health professional, and an organization should not imply that staff experiencing exhaustion have failed to practice what they teach.

A more useful interpretation is that healthcare professionals deserve the same evidence-based support for health that they offer to patients. Understanding their own sleep, physical activity, nutrition, stress, social connection, and use of harmful substances may help them protect their health and have more realistic conversations with patients. Professional well-being, however, should never become a test of personal virtue.

Sleep and recovery are particularly important in healthcare work

Sleep is one area where individual behavior and work design are difficult to separate. A clinician cannot simply “practice better sleep hygiene” if the work schedule repeatedly restricts the opportunity to sleep.

Night work, rotating shifts, long duty periods, inadequate recovery between shifts, and unpredictable schedules can affect sleep duration, circadian rhythms, fatigue, mood, and cognitive performance. A 2025 mixed-methods systematic review of 30 studies among healthcare workers found that short sleep duration and poor sleep quality were generally associated with poorer patient-safety and quality-of-care outcomes, while long and irregular shifts were also linked with worse safety outcomes. The evidence came from heterogeneous studies and does not establish a simple causal pathway, but it reinforces the importance of considering sleep and work design together. [6]

Lifestyle Medicine can help healthcare professionals understand sleep health, recognize possible chronic insomnia or obstructive sleep apnea, and develop practical approaches to sleep and recovery where circumstances allow. Organizations, however, influence important determinants of sleep through staffing, shift design, workload, rest periods, scheduling predictability, and whether workers can take meaningful breaks.

World Health Organization guidance for the health sector highlights work organization, workload, working hours, staffing, schedules, regular breaks, communication, and teamwork as important areas for addressing psychosocial risk and fatigue. [4,5] Sleep support without attention to working conditions can therefore address only part of the problem.

Physical activity, nutrition, and other health behaviors support health, but they are not complete treatments for burnout

Regular physical activity has well-established cardiovascular, metabolic, musculoskeletal, and mental health benefits. Nutritious eating supports health and functional capacity. Avoiding tobacco and harmful alcohol use, maintaining supportive relationships, and using appropriate stress-management strategies are also important to long-term health.

These Lifestyle Medicine domains remain relevant for healthcare professionals. The problem arises when “these behaviors support health” becomes “these behaviors will solve burnout.”

A hospital might improve access to nutritious food, provide suitable rest facilities, enable physical activity, support social connection, or make evidence-based stress-management programs available. These can be worthwhile measures. But if workers simultaneously face chronic understaffing, excessive workload, unpredictable scheduling, bullying, poor supervision, violence, or unnecessary administrative burden, an individual wellness program alone is unlikely to address the underlying occupational problem.

Even positive interventions can become counterproductive if the message received by exhausted staff is simply that they need to become more resilient. Lifestyle Medicine in this context should help support health and recovery, not medicalize reasonable reactions to unhealthy working conditions or transfer responsibility from organizations to individuals.

What do we know about individual interventions for burnout?

Some individual-level interventions can help, but their effects should not be overstated.

A 2026 systematic review and meta-analysis in Annals of Internal Medicine included 99 randomized or cluster-randomized trials involving 9,330 healthcare professionals. Effects varied by intervention and professional group. Professional coaching probably reduced some dimensions of burnout among physicians, while mindfulness-based interventions showed benefits for emotional exhaustion in some healthcare-professional groups. The evidence was heterogeneous, many trials could not blind participants, and certainty varied substantially across comparisons. [7]

A separate 2026 systematic review of systematic reviews focused specifically on nurses. Seven reviews representing 132 studies and 7,432 participants were included. Person-directed interventions, particularly mindfulness, coping-skills training, and relaxation, were associated with reductions in emotional exhaustion and depersonalization, while effects on personal accomplishment were inconsistent and heterogeneity remained substantial. Evidence on long-term effects was limited. [8]

These findings support making appropriate individual support available. They do not support requiring mindfulness, exercise, coaching, or resilience training as if these interventions were a complete answer to unhealthy work design. Choice also matters. One healthcare professional may value coaching, another physical activity, another counseling or peer support, and another protected recovery time. No single personal intervention fits everyone.

Organizational action matters, but evidence also needs careful interpretation

Burnout develops in an occupational context, so working conditions cannot be treated as background.

The World Health Organization's Guidelines on Mental Health at Work state that organizational interventions addressing psychosocial risks, such as workload reduction, schedule changes, and improvements in communication and teamwork, may be considered for health, humanitarian, and emergency workers. This is a conditional recommendation based on very low-certainty evidence. [3]

The same guideline separately gives a strong recommendation with moderate-certainty evidence for training managers to support the mental health of health, humanitarian, and emergency workers, with the aim of improving managers' knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors toward mental health. [3] This is relevant because leadership behavior can influence whether workers feel able to raise concerns, seek help, or discuss workload and mental health without fear of stigma.

World Health Organization and International Labour Organization operational guidance for health workers is more practical, emphasizing work organization, workload, staffing, schedules, regular breaks, occupational health support, communication, teamwork, and reasonable accommodations for workers with mental health conditions. [4,5]

This does not mean that every organizational intervention works. A 2025 systematic review in EClinicalMedicine identified 54 studies of organization-directed interventions among healthcare professionals. The overall certainty of evidence was rated very low and findings were mixed. Some interventions produced favorable outcomes, others were neutral, and some were associated with worse outcomes. The authors emphasized conducting a needs assessment, understanding local contributors to poor well-being, and considering context before selecting an intervention. [9]

“Organizational action” should therefore not mean launching another generic wellness initiative. It means identifying what is actually making work difficult in a particular setting and addressing what can reasonably be changed. In one hospital the dominant issue may be staffing. Somewhere else it may be inefficient documentation, poor rostering, workplace violence, a punitive culture, lack of autonomy, inadequate communication from leadership, or repeated exposure to distressing clinical events without sufficient support. Different problems require different responses.

Burnout, quality of care, and patient safety: an important but nuanced relationship

Healthcare-worker well-being and patient care are related, but the evidence needs careful interpretation.

A 2024 systematic review and meta-analysis included 85 studies involving 288,581 nurses in 32 countries. Nurse burnout was associated with poorer safety climate, more medication errors, patient falls, adverse events, missed care, lower patient satisfaction, and lower nurse-assessed quality of care. However, 81 of the 85 studies were cross-sectional and only four were longitudinal. Association does not establish that burnout directly caused these outcomes. [10]

A 2026 critical review examined the evidence behind claims linking burnout directly to patient-safety failures and found that some conclusions in the literature were stronger than the underlying evidence warranted. The authors argued that burnout cannot currently be justified as a direct predictor of patient-safety outcomes and may be better understood as one condition within a complex healthcare system. [11]

Workforce well-being deserves attention because healthcare workers themselves deserve healthy and safe working conditions, not merely because healthier staff may provide safer care. At the same time, persistent workforce distress may be an important signal that the system in which care is delivered is under strain. Burnout measures should therefore sit alongside, rather than replace, information on staffing, workload, turnover, sickness absence, safety culture, patient experience, incident reporting, and clinical quality.

Personal health and organizational responsibility should not compete with one another

Discussions about healthcare-worker well-being can become polarized. One side emphasizes resilience and self-care; the other argues that only structural reform matters. Neither position fully reflects healthcare work.

Healthcare organizations cannot sleep, exercise, eat, or maintain relationships on behalf of employees. Individuals retain agency over many parts of their lives and may benefit from evidence-based support. But individuals cannot personally resolve chronic understaffing, remove unnecessary administrative processes, redesign unsafe schedules, prevent workplace violence, create psychologically safe leadership, or change a culture in which seeking help is stigmatized.

The practical answer is therefore not “individual or organization.” It is individual and organization, with responsibility placed where the ability to change the problem actually sits.

This is particularly relevant to Lifestyle Medicine. The field can offer useful tools for personal health, behavior change, and recovery while recognizing that health behaviors occur within social, economic, organizational, and environmental conditions. The addition of social determinants of health to the 2025 Lifestyle Medicine Core Competencies strengthens this broader perspective. [1]

Burnout should not hide a mental health condition

Because burnout has become such a familiar term, healthcare professionals may sometimes use it to describe symptoms that deserve clinical assessment. Persistent depressed mood, marked loss of interest or pleasure, severe anxiety, panic, trauma-related symptoms, problematic alcohol or substance use, prolonged insomnia, significant impairment in everyday functioning, or thoughts of self-harm should not simply be labeled “burnout.”

Healthcare professionals can experience mental disorders just as anyone else can. Professional knowledge does not make someone immune from needing care, so confidential access to appropriate mental health assessment and treatment should form part of a comprehensive workforce-health approach.

The reverse is also important. Occupational distress should not automatically be psychiatricized. A clinician exhausted by an unsustainable workload may not have a mental disorder. Changing workload or work design may be more relevant than medical treatment alone. The task is to distinguish, as far as reasonably possible, among occupational stress, burnout, fatigue, sleep disorders, mental health conditions, and other medical problems, recognizing that they can overlap.

What does the Vietnamese legal context mean?

Viet Nam's legal framework increasingly recognizes workplace health and prevention of mental health problems, but burnout itself should not be assigned a legal status that current law does not provide.

The Law on Disease Prevention No. 114/2025/QH15, effective from 1 July 2026, includes prevention of mental disorders within the community. Article 31 includes group-based prevention in workplaces and identifies workers among priority populations. Measures include increasing awareness and education, recommending healthy lifestyles, early identification, monitoring, and appropriate psychological and social support. [18] This provision concerns prevention of mental disorders; it does not redefine burnout as a mental disorder.

The Law on Occupational Safety and Hygiene No. 84/2015/QH13, as currently effective and amended, continues to provide the broader statutory framework for protecting workers from occupational hazards and harmful workplace factors. Among other duties, employers are required to organize periodic health examinations for employees in accordance with applicable law. [19]

A separate legal distinction is important. Circular No. 60/2025/TT-BYT, effective from 15 February 2026, regulates occupational diseases eligible for social insurance benefits and currently lists 35 occupational diseases. Burnout is not included in that list. [20] This should not be confused with the World Health Organization classification of burnout as an occupational phenomenon. The two frameworks serve different purposes.

These laws and regulations support taking workforce health seriously, but they do not establish a specific statutory “burnout program” for hospitals. Healthcare organizations still need to comply with the broader requirements of occupational safety, labor, healthcare, professional regulation, and other applicable law.

Measurement is useful, but confidentiality and data protection matter

A responsible workforce-health program should begin by understanding the local problem rather than selecting an intervention first. Appropriately designed surveys, staff interviews, workload and staffing data, turnover patterns, working-hours information, incident data, and qualitative feedback can help identify where strain is occurring.

The measurement method matters. Burnout estimates vary substantially depending on the instrument, scoring method, professional group, and definition used. A Vietnamese version of the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory was validated among 587 hospital nurses and showed good reliability and validity. [13] A Vietnamese version of the Professional Quality of Life scale was also translated and psychometrically evaluated before being used among doctors and nurses at University Medical Center Ho Chi Minh City. [12] Local studies have additionally used the Maslach Burnout Inventory and the Burnout Assessment Tool. These instruments do not measure exactly the same construct, and their prevalence estimates should not be treated as directly interchangeable.

Measurement should also be designed so that workers do not reasonably fear that disclosing distress will damage their employment, promotion, professional reputation, or relationships at work. Anonymous or appropriately de-identified organizational monitoring can often reduce this concern, although individual clinical care necessarily operates differently.

Viet Nam's Law on Personal Data Protection No. 91/2025/QH15 has been in force since 1 January 2026. [21] Article 26 specifically regulates personal-data protection for health information. Consent is required for the collection and processing of such information except where a statutory exception applies, including relevant cases provided under Article 19.

Where workforce surveys, occupational-health programs, or mental-health services collect identifiable personal or health information, healthcare organizations therefore need appropriate data-governance arrangements. In practice, this means being clear about what is collected and why, limiting access to those who genuinely need it, protecting confidentiality and security, and avoiding unnecessary collection or disclosure of identifiable staff health information.

What could healthcare organizations in Viet Nam actually do?

Once local problems are better understood, action can occur at several levels. Work-design measures may include reviewing staffing, workload, shift patterns, recovery opportunities, administrative burden, and inefficient processes. Team and leadership measures may address communication, psychological safety, respectful behavior, bullying or harassment, fairness, and opportunities for workers to raise concerns. Support systems may include confidential mental health services, occupational health services, peer support, and structured assistance after particularly distressing clinical events.

Lifestyle-oriented support can sit alongside these measures. Examples might include access to healthier food during night as well as day shifts, suitable rest facilities, opportunities for physical activity, sleep and fatigue education, social connection, and voluntary stress-management or coaching programs.

The word voluntary matters. A healthcare worker experiencing distress related to the work environment should not first have to demonstrate completion of a resilience course before an organization examines workload, staffing, schedules, leadership, or other potentially modifiable conditions.

Organizations should also evaluate whether interventions work. Depending on the setting, useful measures may include validated well-being or burnout scores, staff experience, turnover intention, retention, sickness absence, workload, ability to take breaks, perceived organizational support, psychological safety, and relevant quality or safety outcomes. The aim should be improvement, not the creation of another reporting burden for already overloaded workers.

What should Lifestyle Medicine not become in this area?

Lifestyle Medicine should not become a way of asking exhausted healthcare professionals to optimize themselves so that unhealthy working conditions can continue unchanged.

It should not imply that someone experiencing burnout failed to sleep, exercise, eat, meditate, or connect socially well enough. It should not define resilience as an unlimited capacity to tolerate increasing demands. It should not confuse burnout with a psychiatric diagnosis, and it should not use a burnout questionnaire as a substitute for an appropriate mental health assessment.

At the same time, rejecting individual support altogether would also be a mistake. Sleep, physical activity, nutrition, relationships, recovery, and psychological skills remain relevant to health. Coaching, mindfulness, counseling, relaxation, peer support, and other interventions may benefit some healthcare professionals, although the magnitude and durability of effects vary across interventions and populations. [7,8]

The more credible position is that Lifestyle Medicine supports the individual without individualizing the entire problem.

The central question is not “How can healthcare workers become more resilient?”

A better question is: “What is placing strain on healthcare professionals, which factors can individuals influence, which factors require organizational action, and what support is needed at each level?”

For one clinician, obstructive sleep apnea, depression, or harmful alcohol use may require individual clinical assessment and care. Another may benefit from physical activity, coaching, counseling, or peer support. A team may need better communication. A department may need workload redesign. A hospital may need better staffing, safer schedules, less administrative burden, improved violence prevention, or a more psychologically safe leadership culture. These interventions are not interchangeable.

Lifestyle Medicine can contribute by helping healthcare professionals protect their health, understand sustainable behavior change, and use practical tools related to sleep, physical activity, nutrition, stress management, social connection, and avoidance of harmful substances. Healthcare organizations can contribute by creating conditions in which healthy behaviors, professional support, and adequate recovery are actually possible.

For Viet Nam, the opportunity is not to import another generic corporate wellness model. It is to develop workforce-health approaches suited to Vietnamese healthcare settings, measure local problems properly, protect staff confidentiality, respect professional and legal boundaries, evaluate what works, and recognize that the health of healthcare professionals is both a human issue and a health-system issue.

Healthcare professionals should not have to choose between caring well for their patients and caring for their own health. A sustainable healthcare system needs to make room for both.

References

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

2. World Health Organization. Burn-out an “occupational phenomenon”: International Classification of Diseases. World Health Organization.

3. World Health Organization. Guidelines on Mental Health at Work. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2022.

4. World Health Organization. Psycho-social Risks and Mental Health: Occupational Hazards in the Health Sector. World Health Organization.

5. World Health Organization, International Labour Organization. Caring for Those Who Care: Guide for the Development and Implementation of Occupational Health and Safety Programmes for Health Workers. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2022.

6. Fox J, McGrail M, Cha YJ, Cho D, Lu RW, Yi R, Martin P. A Mixed-methods Systematic Review of Sleep Duration and Quality in Healthcare Workers: Impacts on Patient Safety and Quality of Care. Behavioral Sleep Medicine. 2025;23(5):698–714. doi:10.1080/15402002.2025.2522682.

7. Collett G, Gupta J, Eltayeb A, et al. Efficacy of Individual-Level Interventions to Mitigate the Risk for Burnout Among Health Care Professionals: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2026;179(1):51–66. doi:10.7326/ANNALS-25-00469.

8. Salcedo Sampedro C, Fernández-Peña R, Ruiz Pellón N, Martín Melón R, Ortego-Maté C. Effectiveness of burnout interventions in nursing: A systematic review of systematic reviews with meta-analysis. Nursing Outlook. 2026;74(2):102715. doi:10.1016/j.outlook.2026.102715.

9. Boskma A, van der Braak K, Hooft L, Oerbekke M, Franx A, van der Laan M. Effectiveness of organization-directed interventions on healthcare professionals' well-being: a systematic review. EClinicalMedicine. 2025;88:103496. doi:10.1016/j.eclinm.2025.103496.

10. Li LZ, Yang P, Singer SJ, Pfeffer J, Mathur MB, Shanafelt T. Nurse Burnout and Patient Safety, Satisfaction, and Quality of Care: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. JAMA Network Open. 2024;7(11):e2443059. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.43059.

11. Montgomery A, Chalili V, Maliousis I, Lainidi O. Burnout and patient safety: navigating between exaggerated evidence and warranted assertability. Frontiers in Psychology. 2026;17:1801061. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1801061.

12. Tran ANP, To QG, Huynh VAN, et al. Professional quality of life and its associated factors among Vietnamese doctors and nurses. BMC Health Services Research. 2023;23:924. doi:10.1186/s12913-023-09908-4.

13. Tran TTT, et al. Psychometric properties and factor structure of the Vietnamese Copenhagen Burnout Inventory. Journal of Occupational Health. 2023;65(1):e12425. doi:10.1002/1348-9585.12425.

14. Pham TH, Vo MT, Nguyen PN. Burnout Syndrome and Sexual Disorders Among Vietnamese Female Nurses and Midwives at Tu Du Hospital: A Frontline Hospital-Based Cross-Sectional Study. Women's Health Reports. 2025;6(1):660–670. doi:10.1089/whr.2024.0193.

15. Tran QC, Nguyen TB, Cao TH, Huynh THT. The Status of Occupational Burnout Among Nurses at Thong Nhat Hospital. Vietnam Journal of Community Medicine. 2026;67(Special Issue 1). doi:10.52163/yhc.v67iCD1.4279.

16. Dang TT, Tran TH, Trinh TH, et al. Burnout Among Medical Staff at the National Institute of Mental Health, Bach Mai Hospital in 2025. Vietnam Journal of Community Medicine. 2026;67(Special Issue 2):279–282. doi:10.52163/yhc.v67iCD2.4465.

17. Nguyen PS, Le TTH, Nguyen DD, Tran H, Nguyen TD. Prevalence of Mental Disorders Among Healthcare Workers After the Pandemic in Vietnam and Associated Factors: a Cross-sectional Study. Acta Informatica Medica. 2024;32(3–4):225–231. doi:10.5455/aim.2024.32.225-231.

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

19. National Assembly of Viet Nam. Law on Occupational Safety and Hygiene No. 84/2015/QH13 dated 25 June 2015, as currently effective and amended.

20. Ministry of Health of Viet Nam. Circular No. 60/2025/TT-BYT dated 31 December 2025 regulating occupational diseases eligible for social insurance benefits and providing guidance on diagnosis and assessment of work-capacity impairment due to occupational disease; effective 15 February 2026.

21. National Assembly of Viet Nam. Law on Personal Data Protection No. 91/2025/QH15 dated 26 June 2025; effective 1 January 2026.

This article is intended for professional education and general information. It does not provide an individual diagnosis, mental health assessment, employment determination, or treatment plan. Burnout is an occupational phenomenon and should not be used as a substitute for assessment of depression, anxiety, sleep disorders, substance-use disorders, or other medical or mental health conditions. Healthcare professionals experiencing persistent or severe psychological symptoms, significant impairment, or thoughts of self-harm should seek timely assessment and appropriate professional support.

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.