Users’ Satisfaction with Assistive Devices in Afghanistan

Bikram Keshari Mohapatra


Purpose: The objective of this study was to assess users’ satisfaction and effectiveness of assistive devices in four regions of Afghanistan, namely Mazar-e-Sharif, Ghazni, Jalalabad and Taloqan.

Method: A random sample of 785 users, who were provided with 874 mobility and assistive devices in four regional prosthetic and orthotic workshops of the Swedish Committee for Afghanistan (SCA), participated in the study.

Results: The study revealed that the majority of the participants rated the assistive devices as very useful. While 45% of respondents even described them as excellent, 49% expressed a good level of satisfaction with the services they received at treatment centres. Similarly, the majority of respondents (67%) mentioned a maximum level of improvement, while 15% claimed to have witnessed some improvement in their physical condition. Fitting, comfort, and ease of use, along with durability, weight and appearance were rated as the most important factors of assistive devices. On the other hand, slow service and limited access to maintenance and repair facilities were identified as reasons for dissatisfaction.

Conclusion: The study provided continuous and valuable information to rehabilitation professionals regarding device effectiveness and satisfaction. The findings also recommended a stronger focus on comfort and usefulness of mobility and assistive devices. Lastly, the study suggested that lack of local device-repair service needs to be addressed by rehabilitation professionals.  


Physical rehabilitation; mobility and assistive devices; users satisfaction; improvement in physical condition

Full Text:



Agree EM, Freedman VA, Sengupta M (2004). Factors influencing the use of mobility technology in community-based long-term care. PMid:15030666

Edyburn D (2007). Re-examining the role of assistive devices in learning. Closing the gap 25:5. Available at:

Fuhrer M (1999). Assistive technology outcomes research: Impressions of an interested newcomer. Paper presented at the International Conference on Outcome Assessment in Assistive Technology. Available at:

Fuhrer MJ, Jutai JW, Scherer MJ, DeRuyter (2003). A framework for the conceptual modelling of assistive technology device outcomes. Disability and Rehabilitation, 25 (22): 1243-1251.Available at: PMid:14617441

Jennings B M, Heiner SL, Loan LA, Hemman EA, Swanson KM (2005). What really matters to healthcare consumers. Journal of Nursing Administration; 35: 173-80.

Lee S (2014). Users' satisfaction with assistive devices in South Korea. Journal Physical Therapy Science. 26: 509-512. Available at: PMid:24764622 PMCid:PMC3996410

Magnusson L, Ahlstrom G, Ramstrand N, Frannson EI (2013). Malawian prosthetic and orthotic users' mobility and satisfaction with their lower limb assistive device. J Rehabil Med; 45: 385-91. PMid:23450432

Ministry of Public Health, Afghanistan (2017). The national strategic plan for disability prevention and physical rehabilitation 2017-2021. Available at:

United Nations (2008). Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities [Online]. Available at:

World Health Organisation (2002). International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). Geneva: World Health Organisation. Available at:


Copyright (c) 2019 Bikram Keshari Mohapatra

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Supported by:


© Disability, CBR & Inclusive Development