Partnerships for Better Care: How VLMA Aims to Connect Evidence, Education, and Quality Improvement in Viet Nam

Partnerships for Better Care: How VLMA Aims to Connect Evidence, Education, and Quality Improvement in Viet Nam

Primary category: Research & Implementation

Secondary category: Lifestyle Medicine in Viet Nam

Article type: VLMA Perspective

Last reviewed: October 21, 2026

A partnership may begin with a meeting, a shared interest, or an agreement between organizations. These are useful first steps, but they tell us little about whether the collaboration will address a meaningful problem or produce something of lasting value.

A hospital may want to strengthen lifestyle-related care but be uncertain about what additional support its staff need. A university may be interested in developing Lifestyle Medicine education while ensuring that its curriculum remains relevant to professional practice. A research team may have promising findings but need to understand whether an intervention can be implemented in a Vietnamese healthcare setting.

Each situation presents different needs. The most appropriate collaboration depends on understanding those needs before deciding what activities to undertake.

At the Vietnam Lifestyle Medicine Alliance (VLMA), we want to develop partnerships around this principle. Our aim is to connect scientific evidence, professional education, and healthcare quality improvement in ways that respond to practical challenges in Viet Nam.

We welcome opportunities to work with healthcare organizations, universities, researchers, and other appropriate partners. However, the number of partnerships established is not, by itself, a meaningful measure of progress.

A useful collaboration should have a clear purpose, realistic objectives, appropriately defined responsibilities, and a reasonable way to understand what has been achieved.

For VLMA, the value of a partnership should be reflected in the knowledge it helps develop, the capabilities it may strengthen, and the practical problems it helps address.

Start With the Problem, Not the Proposed Activity

Organizations often approach potential partners with an activity already in mind. They may request a workshop, a training program, or assistance with a new healthcare initiative.

These requests provide a starting point, but the proposed activity may not fully address the underlying problem.

Consider a hospital interested in improving lifestyle counseling for patients with chronic conditions. Its initial request might be for additional professional training. Further discussion, however, could reveal that clinicians already understand many of the relevant recommendations. The greater difficulty may be limited consultation time, inconsistent patient education materials, unclear referral responsibilities, or insufficient follow-up.

In that situation, additional lectures alone may not solve the problem.

A university may face a different challenge. Lifestyle-related topics might already appear throughout its curriculum, but students may have limited opportunities to critically evaluate evidence or apply relevant knowledge through appropriately supervised learning.

Another healthcare organization may have an established clinical process but lack reliable information about how consistently it is being followed.

These circumstances require different responses.

The World Health Organization's Implementation Research Toolkit emphasizes understanding practical barriers, involving relevant stakeholders, and developing questions that respond to actual health system needs. Although not every collaborative activity requires formal implementation research, this problem-centered approach offers useful guidance.

Before considering a particular program, VLMA would want to understand what the organization is trying to improve, who is affected, what evidence is available, and what has already been attempted.

It is also important to hear from the people expected to undertake the work. Institutional leaders may identify an organizational priority, while frontline professionals often understand the daily constraints that influence whether an intervention can be delivered.

Patients and other intended beneficiaries may also offer valuable perspectives when their involvement is appropriate and responsibly organized.

Sometimes an initial discussion may show that a smaller activity would be more useful than a large project. In other situations, further preparation may be necessary, or another organization may have expertise better suited to the problem.

Recognizing these limitations early can prevent unnecessary work and unrealistic expectations.

A partnership should proceed because there is a meaningful reason to work together, not simply because an opportunity to collaborate has arisen.

Choosing Where Collaboration Can Add Value

Not every important healthcare challenge is suitable for VLMA involvement.

VLMA is a physician-led professional platform operated by Vietnam Lifestyle Medicine Alliance Company Limited. Our intended contributions focus on evidence-based Lifestyle Medicine, professional education, evidence translation, knowledge exchange, research collaboration, and responsible implementation.

We do not seek to replace the clinical functions of healthcare institutions, the academic responsibilities of universities, or the oversight required for research.

A potential collaboration should therefore be considered in relation to both the partner's needs and the expertise, resources, and responsibilities VLMA can realistically bring to the work.

An opportunity may be appropriate when it addresses an identified need, draws on credible scientific evidence, involves suitable professional expertise, and can be supported by an institution with the necessary authority and resources.

Organizational readiness also matters.

The updated Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, published in 2022, provides a structured way to examine factors that may influence implementation. These include characteristics of the intervention, organizational conditions, the wider environment, and the people involved.

The framework does not automatically determine whether an organization is ready. It helps identify relevant contextual factors that should be considered before and during implementation.

For example, an educational initiative may attract considerable interest but lack the faculty or institutional support needed for continuity. A proposed pilot may require staff time that is not currently available. Another project may depend on information that cannot readily or lawfully be accessed for the intended purpose.

These concerns do not necessarily rule out collaboration. They may indicate that the proposed activity needs to be adapted, narrowed, or undertaken at a different time.

A focused project that an organization can realistically support may provide more useful learning than a larger initiative whose responsibilities and operational requirements remain uncertain.

For VLMA, deciding where to contribute is therefore just as important as deciding how to contribute.

Agreeing on Objectives and Responsibilities

Organizations can approach the same partnership with different expectations.

A hospital may want to strengthen staff capability. A university may be interested in developing educational resources. A research institution may seek to investigate a question and publish its findings. A funding partner may want to understand what its support has achieved.

These interests can complement one another, but they should be discussed openly before activities begin.

Partners need a shared understanding of the problem, the intended beneficiaries, the expected contribution of each organization, and what would constitute reasonable progress.

An important part of this discussion is distinguishing an activity from its intended outcome.

If a healthcare organization wants to improve clinicians' understanding of evidence-based lifestyle interventions, an appropriate initial objective may be to develop and evaluate a focused educational activity.

The partners could agree on the intended participants, learning objectives, educational methods, and ways to assess selected knowledge or skills.

That would be different from claiming that the program will improve disease control, reduce hospital admissions, or lower healthcare costs. Those outcomes may be relevant to longer-term healthcare improvement, but a short educational activity would not ordinarily provide sufficient evidence to establish them.

Similarly, an implementation pilot might be designed primarily to assess whether a proposed process is feasible, acceptable to patients and staff, or compatible with existing clinical workflows.

Its evaluation should reflect those objectives.

Responsibilities must be equally clear.

In an educational collaboration, the parties may need to agree on scientific content, faculty responsibilities, academic review, educational assessment, use of learning materials, and any applicable requirements for recognized continuing education.

In a healthcare implementation activity, clinical governance, patient safety, professional supervision, operational management, and decisions about care delivery must remain under appropriately authorized institutional and professional responsibility.

Research projects require suitable arrangements for investigators, protocols, scientific and ethical oversight where applicable, data governance, analysis, and reporting.

Formal agreements can help document these responsibilities. Depending on the nature of the work, they may also need to address financing, intellectual property, confidentiality, conflicts of interest, publication rights, use of organizational names, and conditions for modifying or ending the collaboration.

These arrangements should be proportionate to the activity and consistent with applicable Vietnamese legal and institutional requirements.

A signed agreement may be an important administrative milestone. It is not evidence that the partnership has already produced a meaningful result.

Connecting Evidence, Education, and Implementation

Scientific evidence can help establish whether an intervention is beneficial under particular conditions. Professional education can help healthcare workers understand the evidence and develop relevant knowledge or skills.

Implementation introduces another question: what happens when an intervention is introduced into an actual healthcare setting?

A recommendation supported by rigorous research may still be difficult to deliver if staff responsibilities are unclear, follow-up arrangements are inconsistent, or necessary resources are unavailable.

A training program may improve participants' knowledge without producing measurable changes in clinical behavior. A new process may work well in one institution but prove difficult to sustain in another.

These difficulties do not necessarily undermine the scientific evidence supporting an intervention. They may reflect the difference between an intervention's potential effectiveness and the practical conditions required to implement it.

International implementation science provides useful concepts for examining these distinctions.

The implementation outcomes framework developed by Proctor and colleagues identifies acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, feasibility, fidelity, implementation cost, penetration, and sustainability as separate dimensions.

For example, a process may be acceptable to healthcare professionals but difficult to maintain because of limited consultation time. It may be feasible in a specialist clinic but unsuitable for another setting with different staffing or patient needs. It may be delivered consistently while reaching only a small proportion of the intended population.

Each finding raises a different question and may require a different response.

Implementation outcomes should also be distinguished from service quality and clinical outcomes. Establishing that a process can be introduced into routine care does not, by itself, demonstrate that it improves patient health.

For VLMA, these distinctions help explain why collaboration should be designed around the questions participating organizations genuinely need answered.

Not every project requires a complex research design. However, the methods chosen should be appropriate to its purpose, and conclusions should remain within what the collected evidence can support.

What a Practical Collaboration Might Look Like

Consider a hypothetical university interested in strengthening Lifestyle Medicine education for healthcare professionals.

Rather than immediately creating a new course, the university might begin by reviewing existing educational content, relevant professional competencies, and areas where additional learning opportunities would be useful.

VLMA could potentially contribute to evidence review, scientific content development, multidisciplinary discussion, or other educational activities within an appropriately agreed scope.

A focused program might ask learners to critically interpret research findings, recognize important limitations in the evidence, or identify situations in which additional clinical assessment or referral is necessary.

Evaluation could examine knowledge before and after the activity, selected skills demonstrated through appropriate educational assessment, and, where feasible, retention of learning over time.

Feedback from participants and faculty could help identify which aspects of the program are useful and which require improvement.

These findings could support conclusions about educational quality and selected learning outcomes. They would not establish comprehensive clinical competence or demonstrate improved patient outcomes.

A different hypothetical collaboration might involve an outpatient healthcare organization interested in strengthening lifestyle-related counseling and follow-up for selected patients with chronic conditions.

Before introducing a new process, the institution would need to consider existing services, patient eligibility, relevant clinical guidance, professional responsibilities, referral arrangements, and available resources.

The healthcare organization would retain responsibility for clinical governance and patient care. Any role for VLMA would need to be limited to educational, advisory, research, or evaluation activities that it is appropriately qualified and legally permitted to undertake.

A small pilot could examine whether the proposed approach fits existing workflows, whether staff and patients find it acceptable, whether it can be delivered as intended, and what practical barriers emerge.

Evaluation might also consider documentation, continuity of follow-up, resource requirements, relevant safety concerns, and differences in access among patient groups.

If the pilot is designed primarily to evaluate feasibility, its results should be interpreted accordingly.

Assessing clinical effectiveness would require additional methodological considerations, including study design, baseline differences, duration of follow-up, missing information, possible confounding factors, and other relevant limitations.

These examples illustrate possible approaches. They do not describe existing VLMA projects or promise that similar activities will produce particular results.

Their common feature is that the proposed activity follows from a practical question rather than the other way around.

Measuring What Matters Without Overstating Impact

Partnerships need ways to understand their progress, but not every measure has the same meaning.

The number of people attending an educational activity, resources produced, or meetings completed can help describe what took place.

These figures do not necessarily tell us whether professional knowledge improved, whether an intervention was implemented successfully, or whether patient care changed.

For education, evaluation may focus on selected knowledge and skills. Participant satisfaction can provide useful feedback, but positive feedback does not establish clinical competence.

For implementation, partners may examine whether an activity is feasible, acceptable, adopted, delivered as intended, and sustainable within available resources.

Where relevant, evaluation should also consider patient experience, equity, safety, unintended consequences, and the burden placed on healthcare professionals.

A new process may improve documentation while increasing workload elsewhere. An intervention may work well for people who can attend regular appointments but remain difficult to access for those facing financial, geographical, or mobility barriers.

These effects matter because a favorable result in one area may conceal difficulties in another.

International reporting standards can help partners communicate their work more transparently.

SQUIRE 2.0 provides guidance for reporting systematic efforts to improve healthcare quality, safety, and value, including attention to context and the methods used to study improvement.

The Standards for Reporting Implementation Studies, known as StaRI, encourage clear reporting of both the intervention being introduced and the strategy used to support its implementation.

These are reporting guidelines, not substitutes for appropriate study design, ethical oversight, or institutional governance.

The underlying principle is that conclusions should be proportionate to the evidence.

An educational activity that improves selected knowledge scores should be recognized for that achievement without assuming that clinical behavior has changed.

A pilot that demonstrates feasibility can provide useful information about the setting studied. It should not be presented as proof of long-term clinical effectiveness.

A project that identifies an important implementation barrier can also make a meaningful contribution, even if the intervention cannot proceed as originally planned.

For VLMA, evaluation should help partners understand what happened and make better-informed decisions. It should not be treated primarily as a means of producing favorable results for public communication.

Legal, Ethical, and Institutional Responsibilities in Viet Nam

Collaborative activities involving healthcare, education, research, or patient information must operate within the applicable Vietnamese legal and institutional framework.

The requirements depend on the nature of the activity.

A professional workshop, an institutional quality improvement initiative, an observational study, and an interventional clinical research project may involve different responsibilities, approval processes, and levels of risk.

Activities involving clinical care must comply with the applicable provisions of Viet Nam's Law on Medical Examination and Treatment No. 15/2023/QH15, as amended, and related regulations. The healthcare institution and appropriately authorized professionals remain responsible for patient care.

Where biomedical research involving human participants is proposed, the participating organizations must determine the applicable requirements for scientific and ethical review.

Circular No. 43/2024/TT-BYT, effective from February 1, 2025, regulates the establishment, organization, and operation of ethics committees in biomedical research.

An activity's name does not, by itself, determine its regulatory status.

Calling a project a pilot, educational evaluation, or quality improvement activity does not automatically establish that formal research ethics review is required. Equally, those descriptions do not mean that the activity is necessarily exempt.

The appropriate determination should consider its objectives, design, participants, interventions, risks, intended use of the findings, and applicable legal and institutional requirements.

When the classification is uncertain, the participating organization should seek an appropriate institutional or ethics review determination before proceeding.

Personal information requires particular attention.

The Law on Personal Data Protection No. 91/2025/QH15 and Decree No. 356/2025/ND-CP, both effective from January 1, 2026, form important parts of Viet Nam's current data protection framework.

Where personal information is involved, partners must establish an appropriate legal basis, define their respective responsibilities, and implement relevant safeguards for collecting, accessing, using, storing, disclosing, and protecting the information.

Additional obligations may apply when information is shared between organizations or transferred internationally.

Removing a patient's name from a record does not necessarily eliminate the possibility of identification through other details. The risk of re-identification should be considered before information is used or shared.

For VLMA, a prudent approach is to avoid requesting identifiable patient information unless access is necessary for a clearly defined, lawful, and appropriately authorized purpose.

Healthcare institutions, particularly public organizations, may also be subject to requirements concerning internal approval, contracting, procurement, financing, and the use of public resources.

A project intended to support education or healthcare improvement does not automatically create an exemption from these obligations.

Legal and institutional responsibilities should therefore be addressed during project planning, before activities or data-sharing arrangements begin.

Protecting Scientific Independence and Learning From Difficult Results

Partnerships may involve different professional, academic, commercial, or financial interests.

These interests are not necessarily incompatible, but their relationships should be transparent.

Financial support may make an educational or research activity possible. It should not determine scientific conclusions or justify promotional claims that extend beyond the evidence.

Appropriate arrangements should address scientific independence, disclosure and management of conflicts of interest, and responsibilities for communicating findings.

Where publication or other dissemination is anticipated, partners should agree on matters such as authorship, access to relevant information, scientific review, and the use of organizational names and identities.

Participation in a meeting or collaborative activity should not automatically be presented as endorsement of every product, service, or position associated with another organization.

The same commitment to integrity should guide how partners respond when an activity does not proceed as expected.

An educational program may fail to reach its intended audience. A pilot may prove too demanding for the available workforce. A proposed evaluation may reveal that reliable information cannot be collected under existing arrangements.

These experiences can be disappointing, but they may also reveal important limitations in the original plan.

Sometimes the appropriate response will be to revise educational content or modify a workflow. In other cases, the activity may need further preparation, a narrower scope, or additional evaluation.

There may also be situations in which postponing or discontinuing an initiative is the most responsible decision.

Patient safety, scientific integrity, and legal compliance must take precedence over pressure to complete a project or report favorable findings.

A partnership can provide useful learning even when the original proposal proves unsuitable, provided that its limitations are examined honestly and the conclusions are communicated responsibly.

Building Capability That Remains After a Project Ends

A successful initial activity does not automatically mean that the same approach should be continued or expanded.

An educational program may be well received but depend on external faculty who are unavailable for future sessions. An implementation pilot may demonstrate feasibility in one clinic while requiring resources that other facilities cannot provide.

Decisions about continuation should therefore consider what participating organizations have learned and what they can realistically sustain.

This includes the availability of appropriately qualified professionals, ongoing resource requirements, institutional priorities, and the ability to maintain necessary governance and safety arrangements.

Local ownership is particularly important.

If a project develops useful knowledge but leaves an institution unable to use it without continued external involvement, its longer-term value may be limited.

VLMA hopes to contribute to collaborations that strengthen professional knowledge and organizational capability where appropriate, alongside the immediate objectives of the work.

This does not mean every project should become permanent.

Some collaborations may reasonably end after answering a defined question or producing an educational resource. Others may require further evaluation before decisions about continuation or wider implementation can be justified.

The important question is not automatically how to expand an initiative. It is whether its results, relevance, and practical conditions support continuing, adapting, or scaling it.

That decision should remain with the appropriately responsible organizations, informed by the available evidence.

The Role VLMA Hopes to Play

VLMA's contribution to a partnership must reflect its professional purpose, available expertise, and lawful responsibilities.

Depending on the needs of participating organizations, we hope to contribute through evidence translation, educational content development, multidisciplinary knowledge exchange, research collaboration, and appropriate advisory or evaluation activities.

These contributions should complement, rather than replace, the responsibilities of existing institutions.

Healthcare organizations remain responsible for their clinical services and professional governance. Universities retain responsibility for academic and educational requirements. Research activities require appropriately assigned investigator and institutional responsibilities, including scientific and ethical oversight where applicable.

VLMA is not a healthcare service provider or medical licensing authority and does not issue International Board of Lifestyle Medicine certification.

Any involvement in educational, advisory, research, or implementation activities must remain within the agreed scope and applicable professional, legal, ethical, and institutional requirements.

Improvements arising from collaborative work are also rarely attributable to one organization alone.

Healthcare professionals, educators, researchers, administrators, patients, and institutional leaders may all contribute to the work and its outcomes.

VLMA should therefore describe its participation accurately and avoid claiming responsibility for results without a reasonable evidentiary basis.

We want potential partners to understand what VLMA may be able to offer, how responsibilities would be shared, and where our role ends.

That clarity is essential to building professional trust.

Partnerships for Better Care: Our Commitment

Viet Nam already has healthcare professionals, universities, researchers, and healthcare organizations contributing to prevention, chronic disease management, and healthcare quality improvement.

VLMA does not need to duplicate their work to make a useful contribution.

We see an opportunity to help connect scientific knowledge with professional education, practical healthcare needs, and appropriately designed improvement activities.

The partnerships we hope to develop should begin with problems that matter to the organizations and people involved. They should have realistic objectives, clear responsibilities, and suitable ways to understand what has been achieved.

Not every collaboration will lead directly to changes in patient care. Some may strengthen educational resources or professional knowledge. Others may help an institution determine whether an approach is feasible, identify barriers to implementation, or clarify questions requiring further investigation.

These can be worthwhile contributions when they are relevant, responsibly undertaken, and honestly evaluated.

We do not want the value of VLMA's partnerships to be judged primarily by the number of agreements signed, events organized, or institutions associated with our name.

We want the quality of the work to matter more than its announcement, scientific integrity to take precedence over promotional claims, and lessons learned to inform future decisions.

This approach will require patience, suitable expertise, institutional trust, and a willingness to recognize when a proposed activity is not appropriate or feasible.

A focused collaboration may attract less attention than a large initiative. But if it addresses a genuine need, respects professional responsibilities, and produces useful learning, it may provide a stronger foundation for future work.

For VLMA, partnerships for better care begin with understanding a real need, bringing together appropriate expertise, accepting responsibility for the work undertaken, and learning honestly from the results.

That is how we hope to connect evidence, education, and quality improvement in Viet Nam.

Selected References

1. Vietnam Lifestyle Medicine Alliance. Partner With VLMA: Lifestyle Medicine Collaboration in Viet Nam. VLMA; 2026.

2. Ogundahunsi O, Kamau EM, editors. Implementation Research Toolkit. 2nd ed. World Health Organization, Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases; 2018.

3. Damschroder LJ, Reardon CM, Widerquist MAO, Lowery J. The updated Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research based on user feedback. Implementation Science. 2022;17:75. doi:10.1186/s13012-022-01245-0.

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(2):65–76. doi:10.1007/s10488-010-0319-7.

5. Ogrinc G, Davies L, Goodman D, Batalden P, Davidoff F, Stevens D. SQUIRE 2.0 (Standards for QUality Improvement Reporting Excellence): Revised publication guidelines from a detailed consensus process. BMJ Quality & Safety. 2016;25(12):986–992. doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004411.

6. Pinnock H, Barwick M, Carpenter CR, et al. Standards for Reporting Implementation Studies (StaRI) Statement. BMJ. 2017;356. doi:10.1136/bmj.i6795.

7. National Assembly of Viet Nam. Law on Medical Examination and Treatment No. 15/2023/QH15, as amended. Consolidated text No. 26/VBHN-VPQH, February 26, 2026.

8. Ministry of Health of Viet Nam. Circular No. 43/2024/TT-BYT on the Establishment, Organization, and Operation of Ethics Committees in Biomedical Research. Effective February 1, 2025.

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

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

Editorial and Professional Scope Note

This article presents the organizational perspective, partnership principles, and intended direction of the Vietnam Lifestyle Medicine Alliance as of October 2026. It is intended for professional information and knowledge exchange and does not constitute a clinical practice guideline, individualized medical advice, research protocol, or official regulatory interpretation.

Examples of educational partnerships, implementation pilots, evaluation activities, and quality improvement initiatives are illustrative unless explicitly identified as existing VLMA projects. Statements about intended activities do not confirm that agreements have been concluded, programs implemented, or outcomes demonstrated.

VLMA is a physician-led professional platform operated by Vietnam Lifestyle Medicine Alliance Company Limited. It is not a healthcare service provider or medical licensing authority and does not issue IBLM certification. Any educational, research, advisory, or implementation activities must remain within the parties' lawful responsibilities and comply with applicable Vietnamese legal, professional, ethical, institutional, and data protection requirements.