Questions From Practice: How VLMA Aims to Identify and Prioritize Evidence Needs in Vietnamese Healthcare
LIFESTYLE MEDICINE IN VIET NAMRESEARCH & IMPLEMENTATION
Questions From Practice: How VLMA Aims to Identify and Prioritize Evidence Needs in Vietnamese Healthcare
Primary category: Lifestyle Medicine in Viet Nam
Secondary category: Research & Implementation
Article type: VLMA Perspective
Last reviewed: October 22, 2026
A healthcare professional may understand an international recommendation, recognize the scientific evidence behind it, and still have an important question: How relevant is this information to the people I care for?
A physician working in a Vietnamese outpatient clinic may wonder whether a lifestyle intervention studied in another healthcare system is appropriate for a particular patient population. A nurse may find that existing educational materials do not adequately address the difficulties patients face after leaving the hospital. A clinical nutrition professional may encounter recommendations that are scientifically reasonable but difficult to explain using familiar Vietnamese foods and everyday circumstances.
These questions do not always require new research. Sometimes a reliable answer already exists but is difficult to find. Sometimes the evidence is available but needs clearer explanation. In other situations, important uncertainties remain.
Recognizing these differences is part of connecting scientific knowledge with healthcare practice.
The Vietnam Lifestyle Medicine Alliance (VLMA) develops Knowledge & Evidence resources to support professional learning, scientific discussion, and the responsible development of Lifestyle Medicine in Viet Nam.
As this knowledge library grows, we face a question of our own: Which topics deserve our attention, and how can we ensure that the resources we develop respond to meaningful professional needs?
We do not want to select subjects simply because they are popular, frequently discussed on social media, or likely to attract a large audience. Public interest can reveal important concerns, but popularity alone does not establish clinical relevance or the need for another educational resource.
Our intention is to give greater consideration to questions arising from professional practice, particularly those where a clearer understanding of scientific evidence could support more informed decisions within Vietnamese healthcare.
This article explains the approach we hope to develop. It presents VLMA's intended editorial direction, not a claim that we have conducted a nationally representative assessment of healthcare professionals' knowledge needs or established a formal system for collecting and ranking their questions.
Why Questions From Practice Deserve Attention
Scientific research and everyday healthcare do not always begin with the same questions.
Researchers may study an intervention in a defined population under specified conditions. Healthcare professionals must consider how those findings relate to people whose circumstances may differ from those of the research participants.
A clinical guideline may provide a recommendation supported by several studies. Yet a clinician may still need to understand which patients were included, what outcomes were measured, which safety considerations apply, and whether the recommendation assumes access to services or professional support that may not be available locally.
These questions do not necessarily challenge the quality of the original research. They reflect the work required to understand its relevance in a different setting.
Viet Nam's healthcare system includes facilities with different responsibilities, patient populations, workforce capabilities, and available resources.
The World Health Organization's December 2025 review of Viet Nam's commune health system examined important challenges and opportunities in primary healthcare delivery, financing, and governance. These conditions form part of the broader context in which healthcare professionals access information and consider how evidence may inform their work.
A specialist working in a large hospital may have access to multidisciplinary colleagues and supporting services that are less readily available in smaller facilities. A professional working in primary care may need information that is concise, relevant to common healthcare questions, and clear about when additional expertise is required.
These differences matter when developing professional educational resources.
For VLMA, a useful knowledge library should not be shaped only by new publications appearing in international journals. It should also pay attention to questions that arise when healthcare professionals encounter scientific recommendations in their everyday work.
The purpose is not to provide answers to individual patient cases. It is to recognize broader educational and evidence-related questions that may benefit from reliable explanation.
An Evidence Need Is Not Always a Research Gap
An evidence need arises when the information available does not adequately meet a particular professional knowledge requirement.
The difficulty may involve access, clarity, relevance, or scientific uncertainty.
A healthcare professional may be unfamiliar with an authoritative guideline that already addresses a question. Another may have read the guideline but remain uncertain about the strength of its recommendations or the population to which they apply.
Sometimes different publications appear to offer conflicting messages, and the real need is to understand why their conclusions differ.
In other situations, the research itself may be reasonably clear, but available educational materials do not explain its relevance to Vietnamese food culture, professional responsibilities, healthcare resources, or practical constraints.
There are also questions for which the scientific literature remains genuinely incomplete.
These situations should not be treated as though they require the same response.
Producing another lengthy article may add little value when a trustworthy and accessible source already provides a clear answer. Conversely, directing readers to an international guideline may not address their difficulty if the main concern is understanding how its findings relate to a different healthcare context.
An evidence need is therefore not defined only by the absence of published research.
It may also reflect a gap between what is already known and what healthcare professionals need to understand for a particular educational or professional purpose.
This distinction matters because new research, better access to existing guidance, and clearer interpretation of available evidence are different ways of addressing a knowledge need.
For VLMA, identifying the nature of that need is an important step in deciding whether a new resource would be useful.
Listening to Professional Questions Without Assuming They Represent Everyone
Healthcare professionals can help identify important knowledge needs because they encounter practical questions that may not be apparent from research publications alone.
Their experiences may reveal confusing recommendations, difficulties interpreting scientific findings, or limitations in existing educational materials.
VLMA may learn about such questions through professional discussions, feedback on published resources, educational exchanges, and conversations with interested healthcare professionals or organizations.
These interactions can offer useful insights, but they are not necessarily representative of the wider healthcare workforce.
Professionals who participate in online discussions or contact a professional platform may differ from those who do not. Their interests and opportunities to engage may be influenced by specialty, geographical location, institutional resources, career stage, or familiarity with Lifestyle Medicine.
A question raised repeatedly within one professional network should not automatically be described as a leading concern among healthcare professionals throughout Viet Nam.
At the same time, a question raised by only one person should not necessarily be dismissed.
It may concern an important patient safety issue, reveal a limitation in a widely used educational resource, or identify a problem experienced in a healthcare setting that receives relatively little attention.
The value of professional feedback lies in helping VLMA recognize questions worth examining, not in treating informal feedback as a national survey.
We should also be careful about whose perspectives receive attention. A professional working in a well-resourced specialist setting may have different information needs from someone working in a smaller healthcare facility or community setting.
Neither perspective should automatically determine VLMA's priorities.
If we develop a more systematic approach to understanding professional evidence needs in the future, its design, participants, methods, and limitations would need to be described transparently.
Until then, we should distinguish insights arising from professional interactions from findings that can legitimately be generalized to a wider population.
That distinction is part of responsible scientific communication.
From a Broad Concern to a Question We Can Address
Questions arising from practice are often broader than they initially appear.
A healthcare professional might ask whether an international Lifestyle Medicine recommendation is appropriate for Viet Nam.
That question could involve several different concerns.
The uncertainty may relate to the population studied, the type or intensity of the intervention, the outcomes measured, relevant safety considerations, or the healthcare resources assumed by the recommendation.
The professional may also be looking for clearer educational information rather than a new clinical recommendation.
Before deciding what to publish, it is useful to understand what the question is actually asking.
Consider an international recommendation based on an intervention delivered through several professional counseling sessions and coordinated follow-up.
A clinician working in a Vietnamese outpatient setting may wonder whether the research provides sufficient information about applying the intervention under different service arrangements.
The question becomes more useful when it identifies what is uncertain. Is the concern about the effectiveness of the intervention itself? Does it involve uncertainty about which patients were studied? Is the clinician asking whether particular components can be modified or whether the evidence applies when professional follow-up is less intensive?
These are related but different issues.
Not every professional question needs to become a formal research question or protocol. A clearly framed educational question may be sufficient to guide a proportionate examination of available sources.
The World Health Organization's 2018 methods guide on evidence synthesis for health policy and systems emphasizes careful question formulation, stakeholder engagement, and consideration of the context in which evidence will be used.
These principles offer useful guidance for VLMA, although our educational publications should not be confused with formal health policy research or systematic evidence synthesis.
The objective is to understand what information would help address the professional question before investing resources in preparing another publication.
Sometimes this process may reveal that the underlying problem concerns staffing, workflow, referral arrangements, or institutional policy rather than a gap in scientific evidence.
In that situation, preparing another evidence summary may not be the most appropriate response.
Recognizing what a question does and does not require is part of responsible knowledge development.
How Should VLMA Choose Which Questions to Address?
Not every worthwhile question can become a new VLMA publication.
Preparing accurate and useful knowledge resources requires time, access to scientific literature, relevant professional expertise, and appropriate editorial attention.
As a developing professional platform, we need to make choices about where these resources can be used most meaningfully.
The potential usefulness of a question should therefore matter more than its popularity alone.
One important consideration is its relevance to healthcare practice in Viet Nam. A question may deserve attention when it concerns an issue healthcare professionals are likely to encounter and where clearer scientific information could support more informed professional decisions.
Clinical importance and patient safety also matter.
Questions involving potentially misleading treatment claims, contraindications, inappropriate substitution of established medical treatment, or uncertainty about professional boundaries may warrant particular attention.
Identifying such an issue does not mean VLMA should provide patient-specific clinical advice. It means recognizing that a broader educational explanation may help clarify relevant evidence and professional responsibilities.
We also need to consider whether reliable information already exists.
If an authoritative and sufficiently current resource provides a clear answer, reproducing its content may offer limited additional value. A concise explanation of the source, its scope, or a frequently misunderstood point may be more useful.
Where evidence exists but is difficult to interpret, a focused educational resource may help clarify its limitations and relevance.
The importance of remaining uncertainty is another consideration.
Some questions arise because studies have produced inconsistent findings. Others concern populations or outcomes that have not been adequately examined. Still others involve claims circulating publicly despite limited scientific support.
In these situations, explaining what is not known can be just as valuable as describing established findings.
Equity and accessibility also deserve attention.
The questions receiving the greatest visibility online may not reflect the concerns of professionals working in less-resourced settings or serving populations with limited access to healthcare.
A responsible approach should remain open to perspectives that may be less visible in established professional networks.
Finally, VLMA must consider whether it has the capability to address the question appropriately.
Some topics require specialized expertise, extensive methodological work, or access to sources that may be beyond our current resources.
Acknowledging those limitations is preferable to publishing an answer that appears authoritative without sufficient scientific support.
These considerations can guide editorial judgment without requiring every question to receive a numerical score.
They describe the principles we hope to develop, not a formal prioritization system that has already been established by VLMA.
Three Ways VLMA Could Respond to an Evidence Question
Once a question is sufficiently clear, the next decision concerns what kind of response would be most useful.
For VLMA, three broad possibilities are particularly relevant.
When a Reliable Answer Already Exists
Sometimes a professional question has already been addressed by a trustworthy source.
A recognized clinical guideline, authoritative evidence summary, or professional resource may provide the necessary information.
In these circumstances, preparing another article is not always the best use of editorial time and resources.
VLMA may instead help readers identify relevant sources, understand their scope, or clarify a specific point that is frequently misunderstood.
If the original source contains clinical recommendations, our explanation should make clear where those recommendations come from.
We should not present guidance developed by another organization as though it were independently issued by VLMA.
This approach can reduce unnecessary duplication and help readers find information that has already undergone appropriate scientific development.
It also reflects an important principle: improving access to reliable knowledge does not always require producing more content.
Sometimes the most useful contribution is helping readers understand an answer that already exists.
When Evidence Exists but Needs Explanation in the Vietnamese Context
A second possibility is that research evidence exists, but its relevance to Vietnamese healthcare requires further explanation.
An international recommendation may draw on studies involving populations, healthcare systems, or service arrangements that differ from those found in Viet Nam.
The findings may remain valuable, but their practical implications may involve considerations that are not immediately apparent to local readers.
In this situation, VLMA could consider developing a focused evidence summary or professional perspective.
Such a resource might explain the population studied, the intervention evaluated, the outcomes reported, the limitations of the evidence, and contextual factors that deserve attention in Vietnamese healthcare.
The World Health Organization's 2023 handbook on guideline contextualization emphasizes that applying evidence-based recommendations in another setting requires more than translating the original text. Available resources, organizational arrangements, and locally relevant evidence also need to be considered.
The GRADE-ADOLOPMENT approach, described in methodological guidance published in 2024, provides a structured method for adopting, adapting, or developing contextualized recommendations from existing guidelines and evidence syntheses.
A 2025 corrigendum to that guidance corrected an omission in the original author list. It did not change the underlying methodological conclusions.
These methods demonstrate why local context matters, but an important distinction must be maintained.
A VLMA article explaining the relevance and limitations of international guidance is not automatically a formal guideline adaptation.
Unless an appropriate guideline development or adaptation process has been undertaken, a professional educational resource should not be described as an officially adapted Vietnamese clinical guideline, a national consensus statement, or a recommendation issued by a competent authority.
Our intended role is to help readers understand the available evidence and the questions involved in applying it.
We do not claim authority to replace established clinical guidance or institutional decision-making.
When the Evidence Is Not Yet Sufficient
A third possibility is that available research cannot provide a sufficiently reliable answer.
Relevant studies may be lacking, findings may be inconsistent, or important outcomes may not have been adequately evaluated.
Sometimes the evidence is too indirect to support conclusions about the population or healthcare setting of interest.
In such circumstances, the appropriate response may be to acknowledge the knowledge gap.
A useful resource could explain what is currently known, what remains uncertain, and why the available evidence cannot support a definitive conclusion.
This is different from making a speculative recommendation or assuming that an intervention will produce the same results in every setting.
It is also important to distinguish an evidence gap from a research priority.
A question may remain unanswered without automatically becoming a priority for research in Viet Nam or creating an obligation for VLMA to undertake a new study.
Some questions may require expertise or resources beyond our capabilities. Others may already be under investigation by established research organizations.
Where appropriate, an unresolved issue may inform future professional discussion or be brought to the attention of researchers with relevant expertise.
For VLMA, the immediate responsibility is to communicate scientific uncertainty accurately rather than present an unsupported answer as established knowledge.
Choosing the Right Type of Knowledge Resource
Identifying a worthwhile question does not automatically mean that VLMA should prepare a comprehensive review.
The format should reflect the complexity of the question, the available evidence, the intended audience, and the resources needed to address it responsibly.
A narrow issue may be suitable for a concise explanation that identifies an authoritative source and clarifies an important point.
A more complex subject may benefit from an evidence summary discussing several relevant studies, their limitations, and the degree of agreement among findings.
Other questions may be better addressed through a professional perspective that distinguishes established evidence from VLMA's interpretation of its implications for Vietnamese healthcare.
Where evidence remains insufficient, a carefully written explanation of the knowledge gap may be more useful than an article attempting to provide a definitive answer.
Whatever the format, the nature of the publication should be described accurately.
A narrative evidence summary should not be presented as a systematic review unless it has been conducted using an appropriate systematic methodology.
Likewise, an educational interpretation should not be described as a clinical practice guideline or formal professional consensus without the necessary development and review processes.
VLMA's existing Knowledge & Evidence principles emphasize credible scientific sources, responsible interpretation, and recognition of uncertainty.
Our separate organizational perspective on editorial accountability also addresses the importance of source verification, review, updates, and correction of material errors.
The purpose of the present article is different.
It concerns the decision that comes before those editorial tasks: whether a particular question deserves a new resource and what type of response would be most useful.
Choosing the right question and preparing a reliable answer are related responsibilities, but they are not the same task.
Keeping Evidence Prioritization Separate From Clinical Advice
Questions from professional practice sometimes involve individual patients.
A clinician may be uncertain about a lifestyle intervention in someone with several medical conditions or may be concerned about how a recommendation interacts with an existing treatment plan.
These situations may raise important educational questions, but they also require appropriate clinical assessment and professional responsibility.
VLMA is not a healthcare service provider or medical licensing authority.
Our Knowledge & Evidence resources are intended for professional information and learning. They do not replace individual clinical judgment, authorized consultations, applicable clinical guidance, or institutional care arrangements.
A patient-specific inquiry should not be treated as an opportunity to provide individualized diagnosis, treatment, medication adjustment, or other clinical instructions through a public knowledge platform.
Where a question concerns an immediate patient safety issue, it should be addressed through the relevant healthcare organization's established clinical and escalation procedures.
The same situation may nevertheless reveal a broader educational need.
For example, uncertainty about when a lifestyle intervention requires additional medical assessment might justify a general evidence-based article discussing relevant safety principles and professional boundaries.
Such a publication should remain educational rather than present itself as a decision about an identifiable patient.
Maintaining this distinction allows VLMA to support professional understanding without assuming responsibilities outside its organizational role.
Protecting Confidentiality When Learning From Professional Experience
A useful educational question rarely requires identifiable patient information.
In many cases, the underlying issue can be described without a patient's name, medical record number, photographs, dates, or other details that could permit identification.
A question about interpreting an international guideline does not need an actual medical record.
VLMA should therefore avoid encouraging the submission of identifiable clinical cases or confidential institutional documents through ordinary website contact channels.
Removing names alone may not provide sufficient protection when other information could identify a person.
If a more structured process for receiving professional questions is developed in the future, the information requested should be limited to what is necessary for the stated educational purpose.
Appropriate safeguards would need to be established before personal information is collected or processed.
In Viet Nam, these responsibilities include compliance with the Law on Personal Data Protection No. 91/2025/QH15 and Decree No. 356/2025/ND-CP, both effective from January 1, 2026, alongside other applicable professional, legal, and institutional requirements.
Healthcare activities must also respect the applicable provisions of the Law on Medical Examination and Treatment No. 15/2023/QH15, as amended, and the responsibilities of authorized healthcare professionals and institutions.
Our intention is to learn from questions encountered in healthcare without turning an educational activity into unnecessary collection of sensitive information.
How We Would Know Whether Our Editorial Choices Are Useful
The value of identifying professional evidence needs cannot be measured simply by the number of questions collected or articles published.
A long list of suggested topics may indicate interest, but it does not establish that the most meaningful questions have been identified.
Similarly, producing more publications does not necessarily mean that professional knowledge needs are being addressed effectively.
As VLMA develops its approach, we want to understand whether our resources respond clearly to their intended questions and whether the information is understandable, scientifically supported, and relevant to the professionals expected to use it.
Constructive feedback can help identify whether an article clarified a difficult issue, explained an important limitation, or drew attention to an uncertainty that readers had not previously recognized.
It may also reveal that a question was framed too broadly, that an important professional perspective was missing, or that the publication did not adequately consider Vietnamese healthcare circumstances.
These insights can help improve future editorial choices.
However, article views, positive comments, or social media engagement should not automatically be interpreted as evidence that clinical practice has changed.
A resource may help readers understand a scientific issue more accurately without producing measurable changes in healthcare delivery.
That can still be a meaningful educational contribution, provided it is described accurately.
We should also pay attention to questions that remain unanswered.
If a topic cannot be addressed responsibly because the evidence or necessary expertise is insufficient, recognizing that limitation may help us avoid repeating work that is unlikely to provide a reliable answer.
Over time, learning from selected topics, reader feedback, and unresolved questions may help VLMA develop more consistent editorial priorities.
These are intended directions for organizational learning, not claims that VLMA currently operates a formal evidence-needs assessment or performance measurement system.
Building a Knowledge Library Around Usefulness, Not Volume
VLMA's Knowledge & Evidence resources already cover a growing range of topics, including scientific foundations, clinical applications, professional education, evidence interpretation, and implementation.
As the library expands, it becomes increasingly important to avoid publishing new material simply to increase the number of articles.
Another broad introduction to a familiar topic may contribute little when existing resources already explain it accurately.
At the same time, a narrower question may deserve attention even when it is unlikely to attract widespread public interest.
A clinically important safety concern, a misunderstood recommendation, or an issue relevant to a less-resourced healthcare setting may be valuable despite receiving relatively little attention online.
The quality of the library should therefore depend increasingly on the relevance and reliability of its resources rather than their number alone.
This requires choices.
Sometimes we should help readers identify an existing authoritative source instead of reproducing it. Sometimes we should develop a focused explanation that addresses an important uncertainty or contextual issue. And sometimes we should acknowledge that the available evidence does not support a reliable answer.
These choices should reflect the expertise and resources available to VLMA.
They should also remain open to feedback from professionals working in different disciplines, career stages, and healthcare settings.
Their experience may help identify important questions, while credible scientific evidence and responsible editorial judgment should remain central to the answers we publish.
We cannot address every worthwhile topic immediately, nor does every unresolved professional question fall within VLMA's responsibilities.
A credible knowledge platform needs to know when to publish, when to direct readers elsewhere, and when not to offer a conclusion that the evidence cannot support.
Questions From Practice: Our Commitment
The development of evidence-based Lifestyle Medicine in Viet Nam depends on more than making additional scientific information available.
It also requires understanding which information healthcare professionals need, where existing resources may be insufficient, and how research findings can be explained in ways that support responsible professional decisions.
For VLMA, this creates an important editorial responsibility as our Knowledge & Evidence library grows.
We want to give serious consideration to questions arising from professional experience while acknowledging that those who interact with VLMA do not necessarily represent the entire Vietnamese healthcare workforce.
We want to select topics because they are scientifically relevant, professionally meaningful, and appropriate for our capabilities, rather than simply because they are popular or easy to publish.
When a reliable answer already exists, helping readers identify and understand it may be the most useful contribution.
When evidence needs contextual explanation, we hope to provide resources that clarify what is known, what remains uncertain, and what deserves consideration in Vietnamese healthcare.
When the research cannot adequately answer a question, we should be willing to say so.
This approach will need to develop gradually. It requires scientific integrity, professional judgment, openness to feedback, and a willingness to recognize the limits of our role.
VLMA does not claim to represent every healthcare professional's knowledge needs, nor do we seek to replace established clinical guidelines, institutional responsibilities, or authorized healthcare decisions.
Our purpose is more focused: to help connect meaningful questions from professional practice with reliable scientific knowledge.
For VLMA, the question is not simply what we should publish next. It is what healthcare professionals need to understand, what the evidence can genuinely tell them, and how our resources can responsibly help close the gap between the two.
That is one way we hope to move from scientific evidence toward more informed Lifestyle Medicine practice in Viet Nam.
Selected References
Vietnam Lifestyle Medicine Alliance. Knowledge & Evidence: How We Work With Evidence. VLMA; 2026.
World Health Organization Regional Office for the Western Pacific. Primary Health Care in Viet Nam: A Review of the Commune Health System. WHO; December 2025.
Langlois EV, Daniels K, Akl EA, editors. Evidence Synthesis for Health Policy and Systems: A Methods Guide. World Health Organization; 2018.
World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe. Strengthening Countries' Capacities to Adopt and Adapt Evidence-Based Guidelines: A Handbook for Guideline Contextualization. WHO; 2023.
Klugar M, Lotfi T, Darzi AJ, et al. GRADE guidance 39: Using GRADE-ADOLOPMENT to adopt, adapt or create contextualized recommendations from source guidelines and evidence syntheses. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2024;174:111494. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111494.
Klugar M, Lotfi T, Darzi AJ, et al. Corrigendum to GRADE guidance 39. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2025;187:111969. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2025.111969. The corrigendum corrected the author list.
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.
National Assembly of Viet Nam. Law on Personal Data Protection No. 91/2025/QH15. Effective January 1, 2026.
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 and intended direction of the Vietnam Lifestyle Medicine Alliance as of October 2026. It is intended for professional information, education, and knowledge exchange. It does not constitute a clinical practice guideline, individualized medical advice, a formal evidence-needs assessment methodology, a national professional consensus statement, or an official regulatory interpretation.
Examples of professional questions, evidence prioritization considerations, and possible educational resources are illustrative unless explicitly identified as established VLMA activities. The article does not imply that VLMA has conducted a nationally representative assessment of healthcare professionals' evidence needs, established a formal question-submission or prioritization system, or undertaken official clinical guideline adaptation.
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. Its educational resources do not replace authorized clinical judgment, applicable professional responsibilities, institutional governance, or relevant Vietnamese legal requirements. Any collection or processing of personal information must comply with applicable confidentiality, ethical, and data protection obligations.
Vietnam Lifestyle Medicine Alliance
Evidence-Based Lifestyle Medicine for Viet Nam.
Contact
contact@vlma.org
Saigon Paragon Building, No. 3 Nguyen Luong Bang Street, Tan My Ward, HCMC
+84 909 228 476
+84 84 9999 911
© 2025 - 2026. Vietnam Lifestyle Medicine Alliance. All rights reserved.
A physician-led professional platform advancing Lifestyle Medicine through education, collaboration, research, and responsible implementation.
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.
