音声ブラウザご使用の方向け: SKIP NAVI GOTO NAVI

NGO PERSPECTIVES for Full Participation and Equality

Task force on Assistive Devices

Report on survey of UNESCAP members

September 2002

Coordinator
Carson Harte. The Cambodia Trust.
Assistant: Beth Knight-Yamamoto

Executive summary.

The provision of an assistive device can considerably improve the quality of life of a person with disablity. The restoration of mobility by a prosthetic or orthotic device, a wheelchair or a simple walking aid can enable a person with a disablity to participate more fully in their community. The restoration or improvement of sight and hearing can have a dramatic effect on life. A recent small survey carried out in a developing country indicates that 85 percent of persons with disablity who have received an assistive device are involved in income generation or are attending school or college.

As such, the value of assistive devices is not recognised by Governments, international agencies or by the disabled themselves. They are often perceived as expensive, ineffective or inappropriate. However, modern techniques, training and materials have raised the standard to such an extent that such devices are becoming more acceptable and desirable.

It is against this background the statement was established within the UNESCAP "Decade of the disabled"goals. :-

"Having the use of appropriate and affordable assistive devices is a matter of entitlement of all persons with disabilities".

This review of the goals established in this decade of the disabled has shown that assitive devices, despite their benefits and value, are not widely available, affordable or of good design, especially in low income countries. The situation in developed countries in the region is very different. Research and development is weak, as is technology transfer, but perhaps most worrying, is the fact that assistive devices are not available to the rural poor. This is the largest grouping of disabled people, and is also the most vulnerable group. In low income rural communities disablity results not just in a lowering of quality of life, but may endanger life itself.

There is little doubt that the broader economic situation in the least developed countries has affected the penetration of assistive devices. There is a direct relationship between service provision and the wealth of the country.

While the NGO and not for profit sectors remain important, their role is not universal, and many countries rely on Governmental or charitable services for the disabled. There has been little penetration of profit oriented organisations into the poorer countries. Training of staff (technical) remains very inconsistent as is the commitment to quality assurance

For these and other reasons we are still along way from the declared aim of making access to an assistive device an entitlement rather than a privilege.

A review of of "assistive devices" in the Asia and Pacific region.

Purpose.

To collect data on progress made by members of UNESCAP towards the implementation of the goals of the Decade of Disabled people, in particular the goals specific to the availability of assistive devices.

Definitions.

Assistive devices are items of equipment used to mitigate and relieve the effects of an impairment caused by disablity. Such devices can restore mobility and function, improve sight, improve hearing or can replace lost function by a separate route. An assistive device should improve the life of a person with disablity and improve their capacity for participation in their community.

Methodology

A questionnaire was developed to highlight the key areas pertaining to the provision of assistive devices in Asia as outlined in the objectives set by the Asian Decade of Disabled people. This questionnaire was circulated to Government and NGOs in the region, May 2002, and was collected though June July and August. Analysis of the responses was undertaken in September 2002. All countries in membership of UNESCAP were contacted.

Only 15 countries have responded.

The questionnaire was divided into two parts. The first section requiring "yes / No" answers gathered information on key aspects of the provision of assistive devices. The second section asked the respondent to make an assessment of their country's progress towards the goals.

The following devices were reviewed

Walking sticks and crutches
Prosthetics, Orthotics,
Wheelchairs
Hearing aids
Electronic devices
Devices for Activities of Daily Living devices.

Low vision devices were overlooked.

Summary of results.

The following is a summary of the results of the analysis of the returned questionnaires. Each decade target will be examined and a short narrative given on the regional progress towards these goals.

A detailed breakdown of the outcomes of the questionnaire will follow this summary.

The Targets for Assistive devices (extract from Decade Goals)

(a) Critical issues

Target

31. The functional independence of persons with disabilities is essential for full participation in development programmes and social activities. Having the use of appropriate and affordable assistive devices is a matter of entitlement of all persons with disabilities. Disabled persons also need to be trained in the effective use of assistive devices.

Outcome
  • The low response from members indicates that assistive devices remain a low priority

  • There is strong linkage between the wealth of the country and the provision of Assistive devices. Wealthy countries have excellent provision, but poorer countries do not.

  • There is no evidence that assistive devices are available to the low income rural population.

  • Low technology devices such as walking canes and wheelchairs are widely available, but high tech hearing aids and electronic devices are only available in wealthy countries

  • Training in the use of such devices remains an issue with little evidence of linkage between community and service providers.

Conclusion.

This objective is only being met in the wealthier countries of the region.

Target

32. Research and development should be promoted on indigenous assistive devices that are culturally appropriate for and affordable by rural and urban disabled persons.

Outcome
  • There is little evidence of ongoing research or development in Assistive devices.

  • There is little evidence of the transfer of technology or in collaborative research between member countries.

Conclusion

Little progress has been made, target may need to be revised to include technology transfer from developed countries.

Target

33. Systems for the production and distribution of low-cost and appropriate assistive devices should be developed and strengthened to meet the needs of the majority of disabled persons

Outcome
  • Reasonable progress in wheelchairs, prosthetic, orthotic and walking devices.

  • Poor progress on high tech products

Conclusion:

Considerable work remains to be done.

(b) Revised targets

Target

10.1 To take immediate action to set up sustainable systems and procedures, including subsidy schemes, to ensure the production and distribution of assistive devices, as well as repair and maintenance services, with due attention to addressing the needs of all, especially the needs of the most marginalized groups of disabled persons

Outcome
  • Sustainable systems have been established in high income countries, but not in less developed.

  • Subsidies and support are available in the high income countries but are not present in low income countries

  • Production, repair and maintenance of assistive devices is good in high income countries but weak in the majority of low income countries.

  • The most marginalized (rural poor) have almost no access to affordable devices across the region.

Conclusion

There is little progress towards this target in low income countries.

Target

10.2 To work with the department responsible for customs duties to introduce exemption of customs and other duties on the import of assistive devices, as well as components, materials and equipment for their production, repair and maintenance, especially items from within the ESCAP region.

Outcome
  • There has been considerable progress in this. However, many countries still impose taxation on imported materials and components.

Target

10.3 To take immediate action to simplify customs clearance procedures to facilitate the import and export of assistive devices, as well as components, materials and equipment for their production, repair and maintenance, especially those items from within the ESCAP region.

Outcome
  • No specific data collected, but overview of responses indicates only small movement of materials and components across borders

Target

10.4 To encourage research, innovation and improvements concerning indigenous assistive devices, especially those using local resources, by associating leading institutions in such activities, allocating funding, personnel and facilities for this purpose, and promoting intercountry exchange of information on related issues

Outcome
  • Little evidence of progress.

  • Some transfer of technology and some research ongoing in special circumstance countries such as Cambodia.

Target

10.5 To encourage immediately the development of appropriate and sustainable local technology to provide quality standard assistive devices for people with disabilities.

Outcome
  • Some progress in prosthetics and orthotics / wheelchairs / walking aids

  • Little progress in electronics

  • Wealthier countries achieving well. Poor countries not achieving.

  • Little or no implementation of national or international quality assurance standards

Target

10.6 To take immediate action to introduce schemes actively to encourage NGOs and private entrepreneurs, through tax incentives and subsidies, to pursue research on, as well as the indigenous production, distribution and maintenance of, assistive devices.

Outcomes
  • Some development of NGO sector, but inconsistent.

  • No evidence of tax breaks, incentives and subsidies

  • Private entrepreneurs not in evidence

Conclusion

Little progress. The supply of assistive devices still regarded as a public service (government) or an act of charity.

Target

10.7 To promote the training of personnel on indigenous technology for assistive devices to improve services at subnational levels where the need is greatest

Outcome
  • Training and training standards remain hap hazard

  • Lack of institutional investment in training.

  • Not enough technical staff to maintain services or increase service penetration

ANALYSIS OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE ON ASSISTIVE DEVICES

Overview

The survey of assistive devices is somewhat limited in its usefulness by the limited response. Only 15 countries responded.

There is no information from important countries such as Indonesia, Bangladesh and Afghanistan, among others. The lack of response is indicative of the level of commitment to people with disability and or the amount of information that can be accessed by the local respondents.

There are discrepancies between the answers given in questionnaires from countries where two or more questionnaires have been returned. For countries such as The Peoples Democratic Republic of Lao, Philippines and India, very different answers given by the two respondents have been returned for the same question. It is obvious therefore to suggest that perhaps even for the countries where only one questionnaire was returned, there could be discrepancies within their answers. This problem can either be from a lack of knowledge or from a wish to perhaps shed the countries management of Assistive Devices in a better light.

Many of the respondents seemed to be unaware of the status of certain (or all) Assistive Devices within their country. Many respondents answered "some", "N/A" or most candidly "I have no idea". This indicates, plainly, that many of the respondents are not fully aware of how, why or what Assistive Devices or Programs are available to the Disabled in their country. In countries such as India and China where the population has exceeded one billion people, it seems almost impossible for the respondents to our questionnaire to fully be aware of the situation of ALL the disabled people within their diverse country. Even if the questionnaire was filled in by a large number of people connected to the production, and maintenance of Assistive Devices, it could still not be relied on to provide an accurate analysis of the situation.

The questionnaire itself had some problems, especially with the interpretations of what some questions meant. The first question in Part 1, "Are these Assistive Devices available in your country," was interpreted by some respondents as a general, sweeping question on availability. Other respondents however seemed to interpret it another way. For example Hearing Aids would be ticked as "Not Available" however in the next question the respondent entered the Hearing Aids as locally manufactured.

There is however some individual concern for individual countries that should be noted. For instance the response from Mongolia highlight a bigger problem that should be considered. The respondent Dulmaa Dashdondog highlights the fact that Mongolia is a nomadic society and therefore there is a problem of accessibility of Assistive devices but also the problem of Prosthesis for nomadic people. These kinds of cultural factors seem to pop up everywhere in these questionnaires.

Mr. Dulmaa, in his letter to coordinator of the Task Force, Mr. Carson Harte, highlights an even bigger concern for those concerned about the disabled in Asia. Many Asian countries are experiencing economic crisis and downturn. This is probably making the lives of the disabled much worse as Government schemes and subsidies could be taken away. This perhaps is a wider issue that needs to be addressed in conjunction with the problems facing the Disabled Asian of the new Millennium.

The questions asked in the first Yes/No section of the questionnaire has been divided into groups of common themes. The first category of Availability encompasses questions 1 and 14. These also tie into the numbered questions in Part 2. The second category of Manufacture, Production and taxing of the devices uses questions 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 13. The Supply and Funding of the devices comes under the third category and these are answered by questions 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12. Regulations and Promotion of devices are categorised under questions 15, 16, 17, 18 and 20. The final category, which examines the development and future planning of the Devices within each country, is answered by questions 19, 21, 22, 23, and 24.

The response from each country has been displayed in order of wealth, not alphabetically, using World Bank data on GNI for each respondent. (See http://www.wbo.org under the World Development Indicators Database (dated April 2002.) The World Bank has used the 'Atlas Method' to decide the GNI per Capita and they are represented in US Dollars).

Analysis

Availability of assistive devices

Ranked by GNI.

Australia (GNI ranking 27th; $20,240 per capita)
*NOTE - Because Australia is federalised; we received responses from individual states rather than a singular response for the whole country. However responses were only received from Victoria, Western Australia, and The ACT.

Victoria - All Assistive Devices are available, as well as available in rural areas.
Western Australia - All Assistive Devices are available, as well as available in rural areas.
ACT - All available, however both respondents were unsure whether the devices were available in the rural areas.

Korea,Rep. (GNI ranking 54th; $8910 per capita)
All Assistive Devices are available; available in rural areas.

Malaysia (GNI ranking 84th; $3380 per capita)
All Assistive Devices are available; none are available in rural areas.

Maldives (GNI ranking 106th; $1960 per capita)
All available except Prosthetic, Orthotic and Electronic Devices; none available in rural areas.

Philippines (GNI ranking 131st; $1040 per capita)
*NOTE - There were two responses from the Philippines
Response 1: All available; none available in rural
Response 2: All Available; None available in rural

Kiribati (GNI ranking 134th; $950 per capita)
All available except Hearing and Electronic Devices; none available in rural areas
China (GNI ranking 141st; $840 per capita)
All available; No Electronic Communication or Activity of Daily Living Devices available in rural areas.

Papua New Guinea (GNI ranking 144th; $700 per capita)
All available except electronic communication and Activity of Daily Living Devices; none available in rural areas.

India (GNI ranking 159th; $450 per capita)
*NOTE - There were two responses from India.
Response 1 - All available except for Electronic Communication Devices; Rural availability is only in a few regions.
Response 2 - All available; Electronic and Activity of Daily Living Devices not available in rural areas.

Pakista (GNI ranking 161st; $440 per capita)
All available except Electronic Comm. and Activity of Daily Devices. None available in rural areas.

Mongolia (GNI ranking 164th; $390 per capita)
All available except Walking, Electronic and Activity Devices; none of the devices are available in rural areas.

The People's Democratic Republic of Lao (GNI ranking 178th; $290 per capita)
*NOTE - There were two responses from The PDR Lao.
Response 1: All available except Electronic and Activity Devices. All Available in rural areas except for Electronic and Activity Devices.
Response 2: All available except for Electronic and Activity Devices; none available in rural areas.

Cambodia (GNI ranking 186th; $260 per capita)

All available except for Hearing Aids and Electronic Devices. All available in rural except for Hearing Aids and Electronic Devices.

Myanmar (GNI ranking e; e = estimated to be low income ($755 or less))
All available except for Electronic and Activity Devices. Only Walking Devices available in rural areas.

Cook Islands (No GNI ranking, however most Pacific Islands such as Kiribati and the Solomon Islands lay between low income ($755 or less) and lower middle income ($756 to $2,995)
None are available; none available in rural areas.

Conclusions

1/ Electronic communication devices, hearing aids and Activity of daily living devices are not widely available except in the richest countries.

2/ Rural populations (where the majority of disabled people live) have no access to any assistive devices except in the richest countries. Cambodia and Laos are exceptions as a result of international development assistance.

The availability of devices in the rural areas is also worrying as 9 out of the 15 (60%) participating countries has NO Assistive Devices availability in rural areas of the country. An interesting correlation can be found between the GNI per Capita Availability and range of Assistive Devices available.

Manufacture, Production and Tax

Australia (GNI ranking 27th; $20,240 per capita)
*NOTE - Because Australia is federalised; we received responses from individual states rather than a singular response for the whole country. However responses were only received from Victoria, Western Australia, and The ACT. There were also two responses from the ACT and Victoria.

Victoria - Devices are all locally manufactured, All are devices and components for devices are imported, Raw materials for all the devices are both imported and sourced in the local markets, the imported tax are not subject to tax and duty.
Western Australia - Devices are all locally manufactured, All are devices and components for devices are imported, Raw materials for all the devices are both imported and sourced in the local markets, Prosthetic and Orthotic Devices are subject to tax and duty.
ACT - Response 1 - Prosthetic and Orthotic devices are locally manufactured, all are devices and components for devices are imported, Information about Raw materials, components and tax was not offered.
Response 2 - All devices are locally manufactured, Devices are not imported into the country, components for Prosthetic and Electronic Devices are imported, and Raw materials are only imported for Prosthetic Devices. NO information was given for Sourcing and taxing of devices.

Korea, Rep. (GNI ranking 54th; $8910 per capita)
All Devices are locally manufactured and imported, Components are imported into the country for all devices although raw materials are imported and sourced in local markets only for Orthotic devices. None of the devices are subject to tax.

Malaysia (GNI ranking 84th; $3380 per capita)
Walking, Prosthetic, Orthotic and activity of daily living devices are locally manufactured. Only prosthetic and Orthotic are not imported into the country. All devices use imported components Raw materials are only imported for prosthetic and Orthotic devices. Answers on sourcing were not available. None of the devices are subjected to tax.

Maldives (GNI ranking 106th; $1960 per capita)
NO Devices are locally manufactured, all devices are imported, Components and raw materials are not imported into the country, Components are not sourced in local markets and all devices are subject to tax.

Philippines (GNI ranking 131st; $1040 per capita)
*NOTE - There were two responses from the Philippines
Response 1: All devices are locally manufactured except for Hearing Aids. All Devices except for Walking, Prosthetic, Orthotic and Activity of Daily Living devices are imported. Components and raw materials are imported for all devices except for Walking devices. Tax is subjected to all.
Response 2: All devices except for Hearing, Electronic, and Activity of Daily Devices are locally manufactured. All devices other than prosthetic and Orthotic are imported. All devices use components, which are imported. Raw materials are imported for Orthotic, hearing aids, electronic and activity devices. All raw materials are sourced in local markets except for hearing, electronic and activity devices. Tax is subject to all.

Kiribati (GNI ranking 134th; $950 per capita)
Only Activity Daily living devices are locally manufactured, all devices are imported except for hearing, electronic and activity devices, No components are imported. Only raw materials for wheelchairs and activity devices are imported, No sourcing takes place in local markets, No devices are subjected to tax.

China (GNI ranking 141st; $840 per capita)
All Devices are both locally manufactured and imported into the country. Components are imported for all the devices. Raw materials are only imported for Prosthetic and Orthotic devices. All devices use raw materials sourced from local markets and the devices are not subject to tax.

Papua New Guinea (GNI ranking 144th; $700 per capita)
All devices are locally manufactured or imported except for Hearing Aids, Electronic and Activity devices. Components are imported for Prosthetic, Orthotic and wheelchairs. Raw materials are imported for Hearing, electronic and activity devices. Raw materials sourced in the local markets were used in walking prosthetic and wheelchair devices. No tax was imposed on the devices.

India (GNI ranking 159th; $450 per capita)
*NOTE - There were two responses from India.
Response 1 - All devices except for Electrical devices are locally manufactured, All devices are imported except for walking and activity devices, Components use in all devices except for walking and activity of daily living devices are imported. Raw materials are imported for Prosthetic, Orthotic and electronic devices. Materials for all devices except for electronic devices are sourced in the local markets. There is tax imposed on all devices.
Response 2 - All devices are locally manufactured, NO devices are imported into the country, Components are imported for all devices except for electronic devices. Raw materials are all imported except for those used in Hearing and electronic devices. All devices use raw materials sourced in local markets. Tax is subjected to all devices.

Pakistan (GNI ranking 161st; $440 per capita)
All devices are locally manufactured except for Hearing, Electronic and Activity Devices. All devices and components used in the devices are imported except for Electronic and Activity. All Raw materials used in the devices are imported and locally sourced except for those used in Electronic and Activity devices. All devices that are imported are subject to tax or duty except Electronic and Activity devices.

Mongolia (GNI ranking 164th; $390 per capita)
Only Prosthetic devices are locally manufactured. All devices are imported except for electronic and activity devices. All components are imported except for electronic and activity devices. Raw materials for only prosthetic and Orthotic devices are imported into the country. Raw materials for Walking, prosthetic and Orthotic devices are locally sourced. Finally all devices are not subject to tax.

The People's Democratic Republic of Lao (GNI ranking 178th; $290 per capita)
*NOTE - There were two responses from The PDR Lao.
Response 1: All devices are locally manufactured except for electronic and activity. Hearing, and Second hand wheelchairs and walking frames are imported into the country. Prosthetic, Orthotic, wheelchair and hearing devices have components which are imported into laos. Raw materials for Prosthetic, Orthotic, wheelchair and hearing devices are also imported but also locally sourced. There is no tax given to any of the devices.
Response 2: All devices are locally manufactured except electronic and activity devices. Hearing, Electronic and Activity devices are all imported. All devices use imported components as well as imported raw materials. Raw materials are only locally sourced for walking devices and there is no tax on any of the devices.

Cambodia (GNI ranking 186th; $260 per capita)
All devices are locally manufactured except for Hearing and electronic devices. None of the devices are imported and none of the components used are imported. Some raw materials are imported and sourced locally. Activity Devices solely uses locally courced materials. There was no answer for the tax issue for any of the devices.

Myanmar (GNI ranking e; e = estimated to be low income ($755 or less))
Only wheelchairs are locally manufactured. All devices are imported except for prosthetic and Orthotic devices. Components are imported for all devices except for wheelchairs. Raw materials are imported and locally sourced for all devices except for wheelchairs. There is no tax burden to any of the devices.

Cook Islands (No GNI ranking, however most Pacific Islands such as Kiribati and the Solomon Islands lay between low income ($755 or less) and lower middle income ($756 to $2,995)
None of the devices are locally manufactured. All devices are imported. Components are imported only for walking. Raw materials are also only imported for walking devices. None of the devices use materials sourced in the local markets. However all devices are NOT subject to tax.

Conclusion.

There is considerable movement of materials and products between countries. This will however reflect the increased traffic in goods and services in the mainstream economy.

There is little progress towards local manufacture of assistive devices in general.

In the majority of countries, assistive devices are subject to taxation.

Supply and Funding of assistive devices.

Australia (GNI ranking 27th; $20,240 per capita)
*NOTE - Because Australia is federalised; we received responses from individual states rather than a singular response for the whole country. However responses were only received from Victoria, Western Australia, and The ACT.

Victoria - The Private, Government and NGO sectors all supply all of the devices. Although people all pay for their devices, Government subsidies are also given to all devices. While one respondent said that there are revolving loans available, another said that no loans were available.

Western Australia - The Private and Government sectors supply all of the devices. NGO supply all of the devices except for Orthotic and Prosthetic Devices. Some people do pay for their devices, however the government does supply subsidies to all except for Hearing and activity Devices.

ACT - Respondent 1 - The Private, Government and NGO sectors supply all of the devices. For "Do disabled people pay for their devices" there was no answer given. All devices are given subsidies however no loans are available for the disabled.
Respondent 2 - The Government funds all of the devices while the Private and NGO sector supply only some of the devices. All disabled must pay for their devices however government subsidies are given and loans are available.

Korea, Rep. (GNI ranking 54th; $8910 per capita)
The government, Private sector and NGO's, supplies all the devices. People with disabilities do have to pay for their devices, however the devices are subsidised. No loan schemes are available to the disabled.

Malaysia (GNI ranking 84th; $3380 per capita)
The Private, NGO and Governmental sectors supply all devices. The disabled do not pay for their devices and all are subsidised devices. All Assistive Devices are available; none are available in rural areas.

Maldives (GNI ranking 106th; $1960 per capita)
The Public sector, Government and NGO groups supply all devices. The disabled do not pay for the devices however the devices are not subsidised by the government and no loans are available to the disabled.

Philippines (GNI ranking 131st; $1040 per capita)
*NOTE - There were two responses from the Philippines
Response 1: The Private sector and NGO groups supply all the devices. The Government only supplies Prosthetic, Orthotic devices and wheelchairs. Everyone must pay for their devices, there are no subsidies from the government and only Walking devices are available to loans.
Response 2: The private and NGO sector supply all of the devices, while the government only supply walking and prosthetic devices. NO loans are available and all must pay for their device except for those using walking, prosthetic and wheelchairs. The government only partially subsidies these devices by only subsidising, walking, prosthetic and wheelchair devices.

Kiribati (GNI ranking 134th; $950 per capita)
The Private and NGO based organisations supply all devices except for Hearing and Electronic devices. The Government supplies none of the devices. The disabled do not have to pay for their devices although no subsidies or loans exist in Kiribati.

China (GNI ranking 141st; $840 per capita)
The Government, Private sector and NGO groups supply all devices. All disabled must pay for their devices; also no government subsidies are available. Loan schemes are only available for Prosthetic and Hearing Devices.

Papua New Guinea (GNI ranking 144th; $700 per capita)
The Private sector supplies all devices except for Walking Devices and Wheelchairs. The Government supplies only Prosthetic, Orthotic and Wheelchairs. The NGO sector only provides Prosthetic and Wheelchairs. The disabled must pay for walking, Hearing electronic and activity devices while Government subsidies are available for walking, prosthetic, Orthotic, wheelchairs and Hearing Aids. No loans are available.

India (GNI ranking 159th; $450 per capita)
*NOTE - There were two responses from India.
Response 1 - The NGO and Private sector supply all devices while the government supplies all devices except for electronic devices. All disabled are made to pay for their devices however the devices are government subsidised and loans are available.
Response 2 - The Government and Private sector supply all the devices while the NGO supplies all but electronic devices. People do not have to pay for their devices and all are subsidised by the government. Loans are also available.

Pakistan (GNI ranking 161st; $440 per capita)
No Electronic or Activity Devices are available at all in Pakistan. The Private, NGO groups and Government however do supply all the rest of the devices. There are government subsidies available for all devices however all devices must be paid for and no loan schemes are available.

Mongolia (GNI ranking 164th; $390 per capita)
The government, private sector or NGO groups supply none of the devices. (However then how are they supplied?) The disabled must pay for their devices. Only Prosthetic and Orthotic devices are subsidised by the government, there are no schemes to help pay for the devices.

The People's Democratic Republic of Lao (GNI ranking 178th; $290 per capita)
*NOTE - There were two responses from The PDR Lao.
Response 1: Electronic and Activity Devices are NOT available at all. The Government and NGO groups supply all the devices however the private sector only supplies wheelchairs. All costs are subsidised and the disabled do not have to pay for their devices.
Response 2: Private sector and NGO groups' supply all the devices while the government only supply walking devices. The disabled do not have to pay for their devices and all devices are subsidised. Loans are not available but also not needed.

Cambodia (GNI ranking 186th; $260 per capita)
There are no Hearing Aids and Electronic Devices available at all in Cambodia. The private sector or government officials supply no devices while the NGO groups supply all assistive devices except hearing and electronic devices. No government subsidies are offered and no loan schemes are available however, the disabled do not have to pay for their devices.

Myanmar (GNI ranking e; e = estimated to be low income ($755 or less))
Electronic, Hearing, and Activity devices are totally not available in Myanmar. The private sector only supplies walking devices and wheelchairs, while the government only supplies Orthotic, Prosthetic and walking devices. NGO's supply all but Electronic, Hearing and Activity devices. The disabled do pay for their devices however all costs are subsidised by the government except for Wheelchairs. No loans are available.

Cook Islands (No GNI ranking, however most Pacific Islands such as Kiribati and the Solomon Islands lay between low income ($755 or less) and lower middle income ($756 to $2,995)
The Government does not supply any devices while only Walking devices are supplied by the Private and NGO sectors. People with disabilities are made to pay for their devices except for wheelchairs. The government only subsidises walking, wheelchairs and activity devices and no loan schemes are available.

Conclusion.

The situation is mixed across the region. There is a strong reliance on the NGO sector for supply of assistive devices. Credit facilities are not available in the majority of countries where recipients must pay.

Wealthy countries subsidise, but poorer countries do not.

Economics are a limiting factor. Private sector (for profit) organisations are not prevalent. NGO or 'charitable' organisations (not for profit ) are more common.

The services for assistive devices are generally under funded.

Regulation and Promotion of assistive device services.

Australia (GNI ranking 27th; $20,240 per capita)
*NOTE - Because Australia is federalised; we received responses from individual states rather than a singular response for the whole country. However responses were only received from Victoria, Western Australia, and The ACT.

Victoria - Technicians are trained to a recognised standard for all devices. A central authority coordinates the supply and quality of all of the devices. National statistics are available for all devices, and pamphlets and educational material is available for all concerning all of the devices.

Western Australia - Respondent 1 - Technicians are trained for all of the devices, however a central authority coordinates the supply and quality of only Prosthetic and Hearing Aids. National statistics are only available for Prosthetic users however educational material is available on all of the devices.
Respondent 2 - Technicians are trained in all devices except for walking hearing and activity devices. The Supply is only centrally coordinated for Hearing Aids while the quality is only centrally coordinated by the Prosthetic, Orthotic and Hearing Devices. Accurate statistics are only available for Walking, Wheelchairs, Hearing Aids, and Electronic Devices. Pamphlets are not available for Prosthetic and Orthotic Devices.

ACT - Respondent 1 - Technicians are trained in all devices except Hearing, Electronic and Activity devices. The supply of all devices is handled centrally. No answer was given for the Quality control, Statistical data availability and Educational Material availability on any of the devices.

Respondent 2 - Technicians are trained to handle all of the devices, and a central body coordinates the supply of all of the devices. No answers were given for the quality control, or Availability of statistical data or Educational material for any of the devices.

Korea, Rep. (GNI ranking 54th; $8910 per capita)
Technicians are trained for all devices except Walking devices, Wheelchairs and Activity devices. The Supply is not coordinated centrally, however quality is monitored for Hearing, Electronic and Activity devices. No statistical data is available however educational material is available for all devices except for Activity Devices.

Malaysia (GNI ranking 84th; $3380 per capita)
Educational material is available for all devices. Trained technicians are available for all devices except for Electronic and Activity devices. The supply is not coordinated for any of the devices. Quality control from the government is only done for Prosthetic and Orthotic devices. Statistics are not available however

Maldives (GNI ranking 106th; $1960 per capita)
There are no trained technicians available for any of the devices. Supply however is centrally coordinated for all devices. No quality control is done for any of the devices. Statistics are not available for any of the devices and educational material is not available for any of the devices.

Philippines (GNI ranking 131st; $1040 per capita)
*NOTE - There were two responses from the Philippines
Response 1: Trained technicians for all devices. Supply is coordinated for all devices except for Prosthetic devices. Quality for the devices is only controlled for Activity of daily living devices. No Statistics are available for any of the devices. Educational material is only available for Walking, Prosthetic and Orthotic devices.
Response 2: Trained Technicians are available for all devices except for Electronic and Activity devices. The supply and quality are not controlled/monitored for any of the devices. No statistics are available for any of the devices and Educational material is not made for any of the devices.

Kiribati (GNI ranking 134th; $ 950 per capita)
Technicians are not trained for any of the devices. Supply and quality are not centrally or governmentally controlled for any of the devices. Statistics are only available for Walking, Prosthetic and Orthotic devices. Educational Pamphlets are not available for any of the devices.

China (GNI ranking 141st; $840 per capita)
The government centrally controls the quality of all the devices and all the devices have educational material about them available. However Trained technicians are only available for walking devices and accurate statistics are only available for Prosthetic and Orthotic devices. A central body coordinates the supply of only the Prosthetic, Orthotic and Hearing Devices.

Papua New Guinea (GNI ranking 144th; $700 per capita)
Trained technicians are only available for Walking, Prosthetic and Orthotic devices. The supply is centrally coordinated for all devices and quality is also controlled for all by the government. Up to date statistics are only available for Prosthetic, Orthotic, Hearing, and Wheelchair devices. Educational material is only available for Prosthetic and Orthotic devices.

India (GNI ranking 159th; $450 per capita)
*NOTE - There were two responses from India.
Response 1 - Trained technicians are only available for Hearing, Orthotic, and Prosthetic devices. The Supply and quality of all devices are not handled or controlled by a central body. Current statistics are not available for any of the devices and no educational materials are produced for any of the devices.
Response 2 - Trained Technicians are available for all devices. A central body coordinates the Supply while the government examines the quality. Educational materials are produced for all devices. However, accurate statistics are only available for walking, wheelchairs, prosthetic, Orthotic and hearing devices.

Pakistan (GNI ranking 161st; $440 per capita)
Technicians are trained in all of the devices except for Electronic and Activity Devices, The supply and quality of the devices is not regulated by anybody, and no statistical data or educational material is available to the public.

Mongolia (GNI ranking 164th; $390 per capita)
Technicians are not trained and available for any of the devices. Current Statistics and Educational Pamphlets are not available. However the supply of all the devices is coordinated by a central authority and the quality of all devices is regulated by the government.

The People's Democratic Republic of Lao (GNI ranking 178th; $290 per capita)
*NOTE - There were two responses from The PDR Lao.
Response 1: Trained technicians are available for all devices except electronic and activity devices. The supply and quality of the all devices except electronic and activity is controlled by a central body. Accurate statistics are only available for 1996 and educational material is only made for Prosthetic, Orthotic and Wheelchair devices.
Response 2: Trained technicians are available for all devices except Electronic and Activity of Daily Living devices. The supply of devices is centrally coordinated for all devices except for activity devices. Quality is controlled by the government for all devices except Electronic and activity devices. Accurate statistics are available for all devices except electronic and activity devices. No Educational material is made for any of the devices.

Cambodia (GNI ranking 186th; $260 per capita)
Trained technicians are only available for Prosthetic and Orthotic Devices. The Supply and Quality of all the devices is not controlled or coordinated by anyone. Accurate statistics are not available for any of the devices and Educational Pamphlets are not available for any of the devices.

Myanmar (GNI ranking e; e = estimated to be low income ($755 or less))
There is only one trained technician in Myanmar and he/she is for prosthetic devices. The supply and quality of all devices are not controlled. Statistics for all devices are not available and no educational material is made for any of the devices.

Cook Islands (No GNI ranking, however most Pacific Islands such as Kiribati and the Solomon Islands lay between low income ($755 or less) and lower middle income ($756 to $2,995)
No trained technicians for any of the devices. The supply and quality of the devices are not controlled. Statistics for all devices are not available and educational material is also not available.

Conclusions

Very few countries actually have trained technicians for the commonly available devices, let alone the rare devices such as the electronic or hearing devices.

The statistics relating to prevalence of disability or the supply of assistive devices are generally very weak.

Quality control of assistive devices is very weak.

Quality control of training of assitive device technicians is generally very poor.

Development and Future Plans for assistive devices

Australia (GNI ranking 27th; $20,240 per capita)

*NOTE - Because Australia is federalised; we received responses from individual states rather than a singular response for the whole country. However responses were only received from Victoria, Western Australia, and The ACT.

Victoria - For all devices there is research and development going on. However there is no national plan of action on assistive devices. The government has no policy in place to encourage new technology on Assistive devices. No answers were given for if there is any international exchange of personnel, technology or ideas. There is no national training scheme or school for any of the Assistive devices.

Western Australia - Respondent 1 - For all Assistive devices there is research and development going on. There is a national plan for only Prosthetic and Hearing Devices. The government has no policy to encourage new technology on Assistive devices. However there is international exchange of personnel, technology and ideas for all devices and There is a national training scheme or school for all Assistive devices.
Respondent 2 - For all Assistive devices there is research and development going on. There is no National Plan present except for Hearing devices. There is no government policy to encourage new technology except for Hearing Devices. However there is International exchange of personnel, technology and ideas for all devices and there is a national training scheme or school for all of the Assistive devices.

ACT - Respondent 1 - No answers were given for any of the questions. Except to say that there is only a National Training scheme or school for Prosthetic and Orthotic Devices.

Respondent 2 - No answers were given for any of the questions except for the answer that there is international exchange or personnel, technology and ideas for all of the devices.

Korea, Rep. (GNI ranking 54th; $8910 per capita)
There is research and development going on for all of the devices. There is a national plan of action for all of the devices. However there is only a Government policy to encourage new technology in devices except for Walking, Orthotic and Activity devices. There is international exchange of personnel and ideas for all devices except for walking devices and there is a national training scheme or school for all devices except for walking, wheelchairs and activity devices.

Malaysia (GNI ranking 84th; $3380 per capita)
There is no research and development going on for any of the devices. There is a national plan available for all devices. There is a government policy to encourage new technology in all Assistive devices except for Prosthetic and Orthotic devices. There is no international exchange and there is only a National training scheme or school for Prosthetic and Orthotic devices.

Maldives (GNI ranking 106th; $1960 per capita)
There is no research and development going on for any of the devices. There is no national plan to encourage new technology for any of the devices. There is no international exchange or ideas, personnel or technology and there is no national training scheme or school for any of the devices mentioned in the questionnaire.

Philippines (GNI ranking 131st; $1040 per capita)
*NOTE - There were two responses from the Philippines
Response 1: There is a national plan in all of the devices. There is also a government plan to encourage new technology in all devices. However there is no research and development being done in any of the Assistive devices. There is international exchange of personnel, ideas and technology in all devices except for Prosthetic, Orthotic and Wheelchair devices. There is a National Training scheme or school for all devices except Hearing and Activity Devices.
Response 2: There is no research and development being done for any of the Assistive devices. There is no national plan of action and there is no governmental scheme to encourage new technology in any devices. There is not international exchange and there is a training scheme or school for only Walking Devices.

Kiribati (GNI ranking 134th; $950 per capita)
Research and development is only being done in Orthotic, Prosthetic and Walking devices. There is no national plan of action and the government has no plan of encouragement for any of the devices. There is international exchange of ideas etc but not for Hearing, Electronic and Activity devices. There is no national training scheme or school for any of the devices.

China (GNI ranking 141st; $840 per capita)
There is research and development going on for all of the devices. There is also a governmental plan of action for all of the devices. There is international exchange of personnel etc for all for all of the devices. However there is a national plan of action, but only for Prosthetic, Orthotic and Wheelchair devices. There is a national training scheme but only for Prosthetic, Orthotic, Hearing and Electronic devices.

Papua New Guinea (GNI ranking 144th; $700 per capita)
There is research and development going on but only for prosthetic devices. There is a national plan of action and a government scheme of encouragement in new technology however only for Electronic and Activity devices. There is no international exchange of ideas etc. However there is a national training scheme/school but only for walking, prosthetic and Orthotic devices.

India (GNI ranking 159th; $450 per capita)
*NOTE - There were two responses from India.
Response 1 - There is research and development going on for all devices. There is a national plan of action and a governmental scheme of encouragement for all devices. However there is no International exchange for any of the devices. There is a national training scheme/school for only Prosthetic, Orthotic and Hearing Devices
Response 2 - There is a research and development going on for all devices. There is also a National Plan of action and a Governmental plan of encouragement for all devices. There is also international exchange of ideas, personnel and technology for all devices. There is also a national training scheme/school for all of the devices.

Pakistan (GNI ranking 161st; $440 per capita)
There is no research and development going on for any of the devices. There is also no National Plan of action for any of the devices. There is a government scheme of encouragement however not for the Electronic and Activity devices. There is no international exchange for any of the devices. There is a National training scheme/ school for all the devices except Electronic and Activity Devices.

Mongolia (GNI ranking 164th; $390 per capita)
There is no research and Development for any of the devices. There is also no National Plan or Governmental Scheme of encouragement for any of the devices. NO international exchange or national training scheme/school for any of the devices.

The People's Democratic Republic of Lao (GNI ranking 178th; $290 per capita)
*NOTE - There were two responses from The PDR Lao.
Response 1: There is research and development for all devices except for Electronic and Activity devices. There is a National Plan of action and a governmental scheme of encouragement toward technology for all devices except for Electronic and Activity devices. There is International exchange and a national training scheme/school for all devices except for Electronic and Activity devices.
Response 2: There is no research and development going on for any of the devices. There is a national plan of action and a governmental plan of encouragement for all devices except for Electronic and Activity devices. There is also international exchange on all devices except for Electronic and activity devices. There is no National training scheme/school for any of the devices.

Cambodia (GNI ranking 186th; $260 per capita)
There is research and development for Prosthetic, Orthotic devices and Wheelchairs. There is a national plan of action for Walking, Prosthetic, Orthotic devices and Wheelchairs. There is no governmental scheme of encouragement. There is international exchange for only Prosthetic, Orthotic and Activity devices. There is a National training scheme/school only for Prosthetic and Orthotic devices.

Myanmar (GNI ranking e; e = estimated to be low income ($755 or less))
There is no research and development for all of the devices. There is also no National Plan or governmental initiative of encouragement toward technology for any of the devices. There is international exchange of ideas etc, however only for Walking, Prosthetic and Orthotic devices. There is no national training scheme/school for any of the devices.

Cook Islands (No GNI ranking, however most Pacific Islands such as Kiribati and the Solomon Islands lay between low income ($755 or less) and lower middle income ($756 to $2,995)
There is no research and development for any of the devices. There is no national plan or governmental scheme for any of the devices. There is no international exchange or national training scheme for any of the devices.

Conclusions

Training of technical staff for assistive devices is generally weak.

There is little or no exchange of ideas and technology between countries.

Few countries have any sort of 'plan of action' on disability or assitive devices.

Section 2. Progress to Goals.

In this section, correspondents were asked to grade their country's progress towards stated objectives on a 0-3 scale. It is recognised that this method is very subjective, and not directly transferable between countries. It is recognised that limited conclusions can be drawn from these findings.

Key

3 = Assistive Devices are available to the whole of the population;
2 = Assistive devices are available to a considerable amount of the whole population;
1 = Assistive devices are only available to a small number of the population;
0 = Assistive Devices are not available to the whole of the population.

"Assistive Devices are available to the whole of the population"

Australia had five responses to the questionnaire:
  1. Victoria - All devices were listed as 2.

  2. Victoria - Prosthetic and Hearing Aids were ranked as 3

  3. Walking, Orthotic, Wheelchairs, Electronic and Activity Devices were listed as 2

  4. Western Australia - All Devices were listed as 3

  5. ACT - Walking, Wheelchairs, and Activity Devices were listed as 3, while

    Prosthetic, Orthotic and Electronic Devices were listed as 2. There were no answers given for Hearing Aids

  6. ACT - All devices except for Electronic Devices were listed as 3. There was no answer for Electronic Devices.

Korea - Walking Devices were ranked as 3, Prosthetic, Orthotic, Wheelchairs, and Hearing Aids were ranked as 2. Electronic and Activity Devices were ranked as 1=

Malaysia - All Devices were ranked as 2.

Maldives - Prosthetic, Orthotic, Electronic and Activity Devices 0, and the rest of the devices (Walking, Wheelchairs, and Hearing Devices) were only marked at a 2.

Philippines #1 - All Devices were ranked as 0

Philippines #2 - Walking Devices and Wheelchairs were ranked as 2, while Prosthetic, Orthotic, Hearing Aids, Electronic and Activity Devices were ranked as 1.

Kiribati - Hearing Aids and Electronic Devices were ranked as 0,. Walking, Prosthetic, Orthotic, Wheelchairs and Activity devices were ranked as 1.

China - Walking Devices were ranked as 2, the rest of the devices (Prosthetic, Orthotic, Wheelchairs, Hearing Aids, Electronic and Activity Devices) were ranked as 1.

Papua New Guinea - The Electronic and Activity devices are rated at 0.

India #1 - All devices were ranked as 0.

India #2 - Walking, Prosthetic, Orthotic, Wheelchair and Hearing Aids were ranked as 3, while Electronic and Activity Devices were ranked as 2.

Pakistan - While Electronic and Activity devices were ranked as 0, Walking, Prosthetic, Orthotic Devices, Wheelchairs and Hearing Aids were ranked as 1

Mongolia - The Electronic and Activity Devices were ranked at 0, while the rest of the devices (Walking, Prosthetic, Orthotic, Wheelchairs and Hearing Aids) were ranked at 1.

Laos # 1 - No answers were given for Electronic and Activity Devices, Wheelchairs were ranked as 1, Walking, Prosthetic, Orthotic Devices and Hearing Aids were ranked as 3

Laos #2 - Walking, Prosthetic, Orthotic Devices, Wheelchairs and Hearing Aids were ranked as 2, while Electronic and Activity Devices were ranked as 0,

Cambodia - Walking, Prosthetic and Orthotic Devices were ranked as 2/3, while Activity Devices were ranked as 1, and Hearing and Electronic Devices were not answered.

Cook Islands - Electronic, Orthotic, Prosthetic Devices and Hearing Aids were ranked as 0 while Walking, Wheelchairs and Activity Devices were ranked as 1

Myanmar - No answers were given for any of the devices

"Assistive devices are available to the rural population of my country"

Key

3 = Assistive Devices are available to the whole of the population;
2 = Assistive devices are available to a considerable amount of the whole population;
1 = Assistive devices are only available to a small number of the population;
0 = Assistive Devices are not available to the whole of the population.

Australia had five responses to the questionnaire:
  1. Victoria - All devices were listed as 2

  2. Victoria - Prosthetic and Hearing Aids were ranked as 3, Walking, Wheelchairs, Electronic and Activity Devices were listed as 2, while Orthotic devices were listed as 1

  3. Western Australia - Walking and Hearing Devices were listed as 3, Prosthetic, Orthotic, Wheelchairs, Electronic and Activity Devices were listed as 2

  4. ACT - Walking, Wheelchairs were listed as 3 while Prosthetic, Orthotic were listed as 2. There were no answers given for Hearing Aids, Electronic and Activity Devices.

  5. ACT - There was no answer for all Devices.

Korea - Walking Devices were ranked as 3, Prosthetic, Orthotic, Wheelchairs, and Hearing Aids were ranked as 2. Electronic and Activity Devices were ranked as 1.

Malaysia - All Devices were ranked as 2.

Maldives - Prosthetic, Orthotic, Electronic and Activity Devices were a worrying 0 (Walking, Wheelchairs, and Hearing Devices) were only marked at a 2.

Philippines #1 - Walking, Prosthetic, Orthotic, Wheelchairs and Hearing Aids were ranked as 1. while Electronic and Activity Devices were ranked as 0.

Philippines #2 - Walking, Prosthetic, Wheelchairs were ranked as 1 , while Orthotic, Hearing Aids, Electronic and Activity Devices were ranked as 0.

Kiribati - All devices were ranked as 0 'Not implemented' which means that the Assistive Devices are not available to the rural population

China - Walking and Prosthetic Devices were ranked as 1, while the rest of the devices (Orthotic, Wheelchairs, Hearing, Electronic and Activity Devices) were ranked as 0.

Papua New Guinea - Electronic and Activity of daily living devices were ranked at 0. and the rest of the devices (Walking, Prosthetic, Orthotic, Wheelchairs and Hearing Aids) were ranked at 1.

India #1 - All devices were ranked as 1.

India #2 - Walking, Orthotic, Wheelchair were ranked as 3, while Prosthetic and Hearing Aids were ranked as 2, while Electronic and Activity Devices were ranked as 1.

Pakistan - All Devices were ranked as 0.

Mongolia - The Electronic and Activity Devices were ranked at 0. while the rest of the devices (Walking, Prosthetic, Orthotic, Wheelchairs and Hearing Aids) were ranked at 1.

Laos # 1 - No answers were given for Electronic and Activity Devices, Wheelchairs were ranked as 1, Walking, Prosthetic, Orthotic Devices and Hearing Aids were ranked as 3.

Laos #2 - Walking, Prosthetic, Orthotic Devices, Wheelchairs and Hearing Aids were ranked as 2, while Electronic and Activity Devices were ranked as 0.

Cambodia - Walking, Prosthetic and Orthotic Devices were ranked as 2/3, while Activity Devices were ranked as 1, and Hearing and Electronic Devices were not answered.

Cook Islands - Electronic, Orthotic, Prosthetic Devices and Hearing Aids were ranked as 0, while Walking, Wheelchairs and Activity Devices were ranked as 1,

Myanmar - No answers were given for any of the devices

"Assistive devices are affordable for the average urban dwellers"

Key

3 = Assistive Devices are available to the whole of the population;
2 = Assistive devices are available to a considerable amount of the whole population;
1 = Assistive devices are only available to a small number of the population;
0 = Assistive Devices are not available to the whole of the population.

Australia had five responses to the questionnaire:
  1. Victoria - All devices were listed as 1

  2. Victoria - Prosthetic and Hearing Aids were ranked as 3, Walking, Orthotic, Wheelchairs, and Activity Devices were listed as 2. Electronic Devices were listed as 1

  3. Western Australia - Walking devices were listed as 3, Prosthetic, Orthotic, Hearing, Electronic and Activity Devices were listed as 2.while Wheelchairs were listed as 1.

  4. ACT - All Devices were listed as 3.

  5. ACT - All devices were ranked as 3

Korea - Walking Devices were ranked as 3, Prosthetic, Orthotic, Wheelchairs, and Hearing Aids were ranked as 2. Electronic and Activity Devices were ranked as 1

Malaysia - All Devices were ranked as 3

Maldives - Prosthetic, Orthotic, Electronic and Activity Devices were ranked a worrying 0 (Walking, Wheelchairs, and Hearing Devices) were only marked at a 2

Philippines #1 - Walking, Prosthetic, Orthotic, Wheelchairs and Hearing Aids were ranked as 2, while Electronic and Activity Devices were ranked as 0

Philippines #2 - Walking devices and Wheelchairs were ranked as 2 , while Prosthetic, Hearing, Orthotic, Electronic and Activity Devices were ranked as 0

Kiribati - All devices were ranked as 0'

China - Activity Devices were ranked at 1, Orthotic, Wheelchair, Hearing and Electronic Devices were ranked as 2 and Walking Devices were ranked as Fully Implemented

Papua New Guinea - Electronic and Activity of daily living devices were ranked at 0 and the rest of the devices (Walking, Prosthetic, Orthotic, Wheelchairs and Hearing Aids) were ranked at 2

India #1 - Walking, Prosthetic, Orthotic, Hearing Aids were ranked as 2 while Wheelchairs, Electronic and Activity devices were ranked as 1

India #2 - Walking, Prosthetic, Orthotic, Wheelchair and Hearing Aids were ranked as 3 while Electronic and Activity Devices were ranked as 2

Pakistan - Electronic and Activity Devices were ranked as 0, While Walking, Prosthetic, Orthotic Devices, Wheelchairs and Hearing Aids were ranked as 1

Mongolia - The Electronic and Activity Devices were ranked at 0 while the rest of the devices (Walking, Prosthetic, Orthotic, Wheelchairs and Hearing Aids) were ranked at 1

Laos # 1 - No answers were given for Electronic and Activity Devices, Walking, Prosthetic, Orthotic Devices, Wheelchairs and Hearing Aids were ranked as 3

Laos #2 - Walking, Prosthetic, Orthotic Devices, Wheelchairs and Hearing Aids were ranked as 1, while Electronic and Activity Devices were ranked as 0

Cambodia - Activity Devices were ranked as 1, while the rest of the devices (Walking, Prosthetic, Orthotic, Wheelchairs, Hearing and Electronic devices) were all ranked as 0

Cook Islands - Electronic, Orthotic, Prosthetic Devices, Wheelchairs and Hearing Aids were ranked as 0 while Walking and Activity Devices were ranked as 1

Myanmar - No answers were given for any of the devices

"Assistive devices are affordable to the majority of rural dwellers"

Key

3 = Assistive Devices are fully affordable to the majority of rural dwellers;
2 = Assistive Devices are fairly affordable to the majority of rural dwellers
1 = Assistive devices are very expensive
0 = Assistive devices are unaffordable

Australia had five responses to the questionnaire:
  1. Victoria - All devices were listed as 1

  2. Victoria - Prosthetic and Hearing Aids were ranked as 3, Walking, Orthot

    ic, Wheelchairs, and Activity Devices were listed as 2. Electronic devices were listed as 1

  3. Western Australia - Walking Devices were listed as 3, Prosthetic, Orthotic, Electronic and Activity Devices were listed as 2, Wheelchairs and Hearing Aids were listed as 1

  4. ACT - All Devices were listed as 3

  5. ACT - The answer given was "Because of funding available I assume that it should be"

Korea - Walking Devices were ranked as 3, Prosthetic, Orthotic, Wheelchairs, and Hearing Aids were ranked as 2. Electronic and Activity Devices were ranked as 1

Malaysia - All Devices were ranked as 3

Maldives - Prosthetic, Orthotic, Electronic and Activity Devices were not affordable at all, ranked at 0. And the Walking, Wheelchair and Hearing Devices were only ranked as 1.

Philippines #1 - All devices were ranked as 0

Philippines #2 - Wheelchairs were ranked as 1 , while the rest of the devices, Walking, Prosthetic, Orthotic, Hearing Aids, Electronic and Activity Devices were categorized as 0.

Kiribati - All devices were ranked as 0 'Not implemented' which means that the Assistive Devices are not affordable to the majority of rural dwellers

China - Walking and Prosthetic Devices were ranked at 1 , while the rest of the devices (Orthotic, Wheelchairs, Hearing, Electronic and Activity Devices) were ranked at 0.

Papua New Guinea - Electronic and Activity of daily living devices were ranked at 0, while Hearing Aids were ranked as 1 , and the rest of the devices (Walking, Prosthetic, Orthotic and Wheelchairs) were ranked at 2.

India #1 - All devices were ranked as 0.

India #2 -, Orthotic Devices were ranked as 3 . while Walking, Prosthetic, Wheelchairs, Electronic, Activity Devices were ranked as 2

Pakistan - All Devices were ranked as 0

Mongolia - The Electronic and Activity Devices were ranked at 0 , while the rest of the devices (Walking, Prosthetic, Orthotic, Wheelchairs and Hearing Aids) were ranked at 1.

Laos # 1 - No answers were given for Electronic and Activity Devices, Walking, Prosthetic, Orthotic Devices, Wheelchairs and Hearing Aids were ranked as 3

Laos #2 - Walking, Prosthetic, Orthotic Devices, Wheelchairs and Hearing Aids were ranked as 1, while Electronic and Activity Devices were ranked as 0 .

Cambodia - Activity Devices were ranked as 1.while the rest of the devices (Walking, Prosthetic, Orthotic, Wheelchairs, Hearing and Electronic devices) were all ranked as 0

Cook Islands - All Devices were ranked as 0 = Not Implemented

Myanmar - No answers were given for any of the devices

"Disabled people living in rural areas are aware of the range of available Assistive devices"

Key

3 = Fully aware ;
2 = mostly aware;
1 = slightly aware;
0 = not aware.

Australia had five responses to the questionnaire:

  1. Victoria - All devices were listed as 3

  2. Victoria - Hearing Aids were ranked as 3, Walking, Orthotic, Prosthetic, Wheelchairs, Electronic and Activity Devices were listed as 2

  3. Western Australia - Prosthetic and Orthotic Devices were listed as 2. Walking, Wheelchairs, Hearing, Electronic and activity devices were listed as 1

  4. ACT - There were no answers given for all Devices

  5. ACT - The answer given was "I imagine so..."

Cambodia - Walking, Prosthetic and Orthotic Devices were ranked as 2/3, while Activity Devices were ranked as 1 and Hearing and Electronic Devices were not answered

China Walking,Prosthetic and Wheelchairs were ranked at 1 while Orthotic, Hearing, Electronic and Activity devices were ranked at 0

Cook Islands - Electronic, Orthotic, Prosthetic, Activity Devices and Hearing Aids were ranked as 0 while Walking, and Wheelchairs Devices were ranked as 1

Philippines #1 - All devices were ranked as 1

Philippines # 2 - Walking and Wheelchairs were ranked as 1 while Prosthetic, Orthotic, Hearing, Electronic and Activity Devices were ranked as 0

Korea - Walking, Orthotic, Wheelchairs and Hearing Devices were ranked as 3, while Prosthetic, Electronic and Activity Devices were ranked as 2,

Laos # 1 - No answers were given for Electronic and Activity Devices, Wheelchairs, Walking, Prosthetic, Orthotic Devices and Hearing Aids were ranked as 1

Laos #2 - Walking, Prosthetic, Orthotic Devices, Wheelchairs and Hearing Aids were ranked as 1, while Electronic and Activity Devices were ranked as 0

Papua New Guinea - Electronic and Activity of daily living devices were ranked at 0 and the rest of the devices (Walking, Prosthetic, Orthotic, Wheelchairs and Hearing Aids) were ranked at 2

Kiribati - All devices were ranked as 0 'Not implemented' which means that the Assistive Devices are not promoted adequately so that the rural disabled don't know about them

India #1 - All devices were ranked as 1

India #2 - Walking, Orthotic, Wheelchair, Electronic and Activity Devices were ranked as 2, Prosthetic and Hearing Aids were ranked as 1

Malaysia - All Devices were ranked as 1

Maldives - Prosthetic, Orthotic, Electronic and Activity Devices were not promoted, ranked at 0. And the Walking, Wheelchair and Hearing Devices were only ranked as 1 which means that they were only made slightly available.

Mongolia - All devices were ranked at 0

Myanmar - No answers were given for any of the devices

Pakistan - All Devices were ranked as 0 = Not Implemented

"The quality (fit and/or function) of the available Assistive devices is adequate"

Key

3 = Assistive Devices are high quality
2 = Assistive devices are reasonable quality;
1 = Assistive devices are poor quality;
0 = Assistive Devices are unacceptable.

Australia had five responses to the questionnaire:
  1. Victoria - All devices were listed as 3

  2. Victoria - Prosthetic, Orthotic, Electronic and Hearing Aids were ranked as 3, Walking, Wheelchairs, and Activity Devices were listed as 2

  3. Western Australia - Walking, Wheelchairs, Electronic and Activity devices were listed as 3 , while Prosthetic, Orthotic and Hearing Aids were ranked as 2.

  4. ACT - There were no answers given for all devices

  5. ACT - The answer given for the devices was "I think so..."

Cambodia - Walking, Prosthetic and Wheelchairs were all ranked at 3, while Orthotic and Activity Devices were ranked at 2 while Hearing and Electronic Devices were not ranked at all

China - Walking, Prosthetic, Orthotic, Wheelchairs, Hearing, Electronic Devices were ranked as 2 while Activity Devices were ranked as 1

Cook Islands - All Devices were ranked as 0

Korea - Walking, Wheelchairs and Hearing Devices were ranked as 3 Implemented while Prosthetic, Orthotic, Electronic and Activity Devices were ranked as 2.

Laos #1 - No answers were given for Electronic and Activity Devices, Hearing Aids were ranked as 1, Walking, Prosthetic, Orthotic Devices and Wheelchairs were ranked as 2

Laos #2 - Walking, Prosthetic and Orthotic Devices were ranked as 3 while Wheelchairs and Hearing Aids were ranked as 2, while Electronic and Activity Devices were ranked as 0

Philippines #1 - All devices were ranked as 1

Philippines #2 - Walking and Wheelchair devices were categorized as 2; Prosthetic, Orthotic and Hearing Aids were ranked as 1 while Activity and Electronic Devices were ranked as 0

India #1 - The Electronic Devices were ranked as 0 while the rest of the devices (Walking, Orthotic, Prosthetic, Hearing Aids, Wheelchairs and Activity Devices) were ranked as 1

India #2 - Walking Devices were ranked as 3 while Prosthetic, Orthotic, Wheelchairs, Hearing Aids and Activity Devices were ranked as 2 while Electronic Devices were ranked as 1

Papua New Guinea - Electronic and Activity of daily living devices were ranked at 0 and the rest of the devices (Walking, Orthotic, Wheelchairs and Hearing Aids) were ranked at 2 except for Prosthetic Devices which were ranked at 3

Kiribati - Only Walking, Orthotic and Wheelchair Devices were ranked as 1 slightly adequate while the rest of the devices were ranked as 0. Not adequate at all

Malaysia - All Devices were ranked as 3

Maldives - The quality of the Prosthetic, Orthotic, Electronic and Activity Devices are presumably bad because the quality was not adequate at all, ranked at 0. And the Walking, Wheelchair and Hearing Devices were only ranked as 1 which means they were of poor quality.

Mongolia - The Electronic and Activity Devices were ranked at 0 while the rest of the devices (Walking, Prosthetic, Orthotic, Wheelchairs and Hearing Aids) were ranked at 1

Myanmar - No answers were given for any of the devices

Pakistan - Electronic and Activity Devices were ranked as 0 while Walking, Prosthetic, Orthotic Devices, Wheelchairs and Hearing Aids were ranked as 2

"The range of available Assistive devices is adequate"

Key

3 = Excellent
2 = Acceptable
1 = Poor
0 = Unacceptable

Australia had five responses to the questionnaire:
  1. Victoria - All devices were listed as 3.

  2. Victoria - All Devices were listed as 2

  3. Western Australia - Walking, Prosthetic, Orthotic and Hearing devices were listed as 3, while Wheelchairs, Electronic and Activity devices were ranked as 2.

  4. ACT - There were no answers given for all devices

  5. ACT - The answer given for the devices was "Certainly in the ACT."

Cambodia - Walking, Prosthetic and Wheelchairs were all ranked at 3, while Orthotic and Activity Devices were ranked at 1 while Hearing and Electronic Devices were not ranked at all

China - Orthotic Devices were ranked as 1 while the rest of the devices (Walking, Prosthetic, Wheelchairs, Hearing Aids, Electronic and Activity devices) were ranked as 2

Cook Islands - All Devices were listed as 0 = Not Implemented

Korea - Walking, Orthotic, Wheelchairs and Hearing Devices were ranked as 3, while Prosthetic, Electronic and Activity Devices were ranked as 2.

Laos #1 - No answers were given for Electronic and Activity Devices, Walking, Hearing Aids and Wheelchairs Devices were ranked as 2, Prosthetic and Orthotic Devices were listed as 3

Laos #2 - Walking, Prosthetic, Orthotic Devices were ranked as 2 while Wheelchairs and Hearing Aids were ranked as 1, while Electronic and Activity Devices were ranked as 0

Philippines #1 - All devices were ranked as 0

Philippines #2 - Walking and Wheelchair devices were categorized as 2; Prosthetic, Orthotic and Hearing Aids were ranked as 1 while Activity and Electronic Devices were ranked as 0

India #1 - Walking, Prosthetic, Orthotic Devices and Hearing Aids were ranked as 2 while Wheelchairs, Electronic and Activity Devices were ranked as 1

India #2 - All devices were ranked as 3

Papua New Guinea - Electronic and Activity of daily living devices were ranked at 0 and the rest of the devices (Walking, Orthotic, Wheelchairs and Hearing Aids) were ranked at 2 except for Prosthetic Devices which were ranked at 3

Kiribati - All devices were ranked as 0 'Not implemented', which means that there is not an adequate range of Assistive Devices available to the country.

Malaysia - All Devices were ranked as 3

Maldives - Prosthetic, Orthotic, Electronic and Activity Devices were not affordable at all, ranked at 0. And the Walking, Wheelchair and hearing Devices were only ranked as 1

Mongolia - The Electronic and Activity Devices were ranked at 0 while the rest of the devices (Walking, Prosthetic, Orthotic, Wheelchairs and Hearing Aids) were ranked at 1

Myanmar - No answers were given for any of the devices

Pakistan -Activity and Electronic devices were ranked as 0 while Prosthetic, Orthotic, Walking Devices, Wheelchairs and Hearing Aids were ranked as 1

"There are adequate numbers of skilled technicians in the country to supply and maintain these devices"

3 = There are fully the adequate numbers of skilled technicians...
0 = No technicians

Australia had five responses to the questionnaire:
  1. Victoria - The answer given was "Varies in different states between 1/2"

  2. Victoria - All Devices were listed as 3

  3. Western Australia - Prosthetic, Orthotic and Hearing devices were listed as 2 , while Walking, Wheelchairs, Electronic and Activity devices were ranked as 1.

  4. ACT - All devices were listed as 3 = Fully Implemented

  5. ACT - The answer given for the devices was "Yes for the ACT."

Cambodia - Walking, Prosthetic and Wheelchairs were all ranked at 3, while Orthotic and Activity Devices were ranked at 1 while Hearing and Electronic Devices were not ranked at all

China - Prosthetic Devices were ranked as 2, the rest of the devices (Walking, Orthotic, Wheelchairs, Hearing Aids, Electronic and Activity Devices) were ranked as 1

Cook Islands - All Devices were ranked as 0

Korea - Walking, Wheelchairs and Hearing Devices were ranked as 3 while Prosthetic, Orthotic, Electronic and Activity Devices were ranked as 2.

Papua New Guinea - Electronic and Activity of daily living devices were ranked at 0 while Orthotic, Wheelchair and Hearing Aid Devices were ranked as 1, while Prosthetic Devices were ranked as 2 and Walking Devices are ranked as 3

Philippines #1 - Walking, Wheelchairs and Hearing Aids were ranked as 1 while Prosthetic, Orthotic, Electronic and Activity Devices were ranked as 0

Philippines #2 - Walking Devices were ranked as 2 while Wheelchairs were 1 = Slightly Implemented and Prosthetic, Orthotic, Hearing, Electronic and Activity Devices were ranked as 0

Laos #1 - No answers were given for Electronic and Activity Devices, Wheelchairs and Hearing Devices were ranked as 1, Walking, Prosthetic, and Orthotic Devices were ranked as 2

Laos #2 - Walking, Prosthetic, Orthotic Devices were ranked as 2 while Wheelchairs and Hearing Aids were ranked as 1, while Electronic and Activity Devices were ranked as 0

India #1 - Walking Devices were ranked as 2 while Prosthetic, Orthotic, Wheelchairs, Hearing, Electronic and Activity Devices were ranked as 1

India #2 - Walking, Prosthetic, Orthotic, Wheelchairs, Hearing Aids and Activity Devices were ranked as 3, while Electronic Devices were ranked as 1

Kiribati - All devices were ranked as 0 'which could be interpreted to mean that there are NO technicians in this country.

Malaysia - All Devices were ranked as 2

Maldives - Disturbingly All devices were ranked under 0 in this category, which could be construed, that there are NO technicians to deal with any of the devices.

Mongolia - The Electronic and Activity Devices were ranked at 0 = Not Implemented while the rest of the devices (Walking, Prosthetic, Orthotic, Wheelchairs and Hearing Aids) were ranked at 1

Myanmar - No answers were given for any of the devices

Pakistan - All Devices were ranked as 0

"The private and NGO sector have taken a greater role in the supply of Assistive devices over the past decade"

3 = The NGO and private sector Have fully taken a greater role in.....
2 = The private and NGO sector have taken up a fairly greater role...
1 = There is little NGO and private sector role
0 = There is no NGO or private sector role...

Australia had five responses to the questionnaire:
  1. Victoria - All devices were listed as 1

  2. Victoria - All Devices were listed as 2

  3. Western Australia - Hearing devices were listed as 3, while Wheelchairs, Walking, Prosthetic, Orthotic, Electronic and Activity devices were ranked as 2

  4. ACT - There were no answers given for all devices

  5. ACT - The answer given for the devices was "Not so much in the ACT but definitely in NSW and maybe in QLD and Victoria and SA."

Cambodia - Walking, Prosthetic and Wheelchairs were all ranked at 3, while Orthotic and Activity Devices were ranked at 2 while Hearing and Electronic Devices were not ranked at all

China - Wheelchairs , Hearing Aids, Electronic and Activity Devices were all ranked at 1. While Walking, Prosthetic and Orthotic Devices were ranked as 2.

Cook Islands - Electronic, Orthotic, Prosthetic Devices and Hearing Aids were ranked as 0 while Activity Devices were ranked as 1. Walking Devices and Wheelchairs were ranked as 2

Laos #1 - No answers were given for Electronic and Activity Devices, Walking, Prosthetic, Orthotic Devices, Wheelchairs and Hearing Aids were ranked as 3

Laos #2 - Walking, Prosthetic, Orthotic Devices, Wheelchairs and Hearing Aids were ranked as 1, while Electronic and Activity Devices were ranked as 0

Philippines #1 - All devices were ranked as 1

Philippines #2 - Walking and Wheelchairs were placed as 3 while Prosthetic devices received a good 2, Orthotic, Hearing, Electronic and Activity Devices were all ranked as 1

India #1 - Walking, Prosthetic, Orthotic, Wheelchairs, Hearing and Activity Devices were ranked as 2 while Electronic Devices were ranked as 1

India #2 - Walking, Orthotic and Wheelchairs were ranked as 3 while Prosthetic Devices and Hearing Aids were ranked as 2 and finally Electronic and Activity Devices were ranked as 1

Korea - Prosthetic, Orthotic, Hearing, Electronic and Activity Devices were ranked at 1 While Wheelchairs were ranked at 2, Walking devices were ranked as 3 implemented

Papua New Guinea - Electronic and Activity of daily living devices were ranked at 0 while the Walking, Prosthetic, and Orthotic Devices were ranked at 1 and the rest of the devices Wheelchairs and Hearing Aids were ranked at 2 = Fairly Implemented.

Kiribati - Walking Devices and Activity of Daily Living Devices were ranked as a 2 However Hearing Aids and Electronic received a 0, while Prosthetic, Orthotic and Wheelchairs only received a 1.

Malaysia - All Devices were ranked as 3

Maldives - All devices were ranked as 0, which means that the private sector and NGO have not taken any role to help the supply of Assistive devices

Mongolia - All Devices were ranked at 0

Myanmar - No answers were given for any of the devices

Pakistan -Activity and Electronic Devices were ranked as 0, while Prosthetic, Orthotic, Walking Devices, Wheelchairs and Hearing Devices were ranked as 1

"Assistive device providers are working in close collaboration with CBR and other community groups"

3 = The Assistive Device providers are working in close collaboration...
2 = The Assistive device provider are reasonably working in
1 = The Assistive Device providers have few links with CBR
0 = The assistive device providers have no CBR contacts

Australia had five responses to the questionnaire:
  1. Victoria - All devices were listed as 1

  2. Victoria - All Devices were listed as 2 except for Hearing Aids which was ranked as 3

  3. Western Australia - Walking, Prosthetic, Orthotic Wheelchairs, Electronic and Activity devices were ranked as 1 = Slightly implemented, while Hearing devices were listed as 3, while

  4. ACT - There were no answers given for all devices

  5. ACT - The answer given for the devices was "Not sure."

Cambodia - Hearing and Electronic Devices were not ranked while the rest of the devices (Walking, Prosthetic, Orthotic, Wheelchairs, and Activity Devices) were ranked as 1

China - All Devices were ranked as 1

Cook Islands - Electronic, Orthotic, Prosthetic Devices and Hearing Aids were ranked as 0 while Activity Devices were ranked as 1. Walking Devices and Wheelchairs were ranked as 2

Korea -Hearing Aids, Wheelchairs, Orthotic, Prosthetic and Walking devices were ranked as 2 whereas Electronic and Activity Devices were ranked as 1

Laos #1 - No answers were given for Electronic and Activity Devices, Wheelchairs and Hearing Aids were ranked as 2, Walking, Prosthetic, Orthotic Devices were ranked as 1

Laos #2 - Walking, Prosthetic, Orthotic Devices, Wheelchairs and Hearing Aids were ranked as 1, while Electronic and Activity Devices were ranked as 0

Philippines #1 - All devices were ranked as 1

Philippines # 2 - Walking and Wheelchairs were ranked as 2, Prosthetic, Orthotic, Hearing Aids and Activity Devices were ranked as 1, while electronic was ranked at 0

India #1 - Walking, Prosthetic, Orthotic, Wheelchair, Hearing and Activity Devices were ranked as 1 while Electronic Devices were ranked as 0

India #2 - Walking, Orthotic and Wheelchairs were ranked as 3 while Prosthetic Devices and Hearing Aids were ranked as 2 and finally Electronic and Activity Devices were ranked as 1

Papua New Guinea - Electronic and Activity of daily living devices were ranked at 0 while the walking devices were ranked at 1, the rest of the implements (Prosthetic, Orthotic, Wheelchairs, and Hearing Aids) were ranked at 2.

Kiribati - All devices were ranked as 0 'Not implemented' which means that providers are not working at all with community groups etc.

Malaysia - All Devices were ranked as 2

Maldives - All devices were ranked as 0, which means no collaboration is going on.

Mongolia - Prosthetic, Wheelchairs, Hearing Aids, Electronic and Activity Devices were ranked at 0. While Walking Devices were ranked as 1 and Orthotic devices were ranked as 2

Myanmar - No answers were given for any of the devices

Pakistan - All Devices were ranked as 0