Personal mobility is more than simply moving from one place to another. For people living with mobility impairments, sensory disabilities, or other impairments, mobility and accessibility are cornerstones of independence, dignity, and full participation in society.
Assistive devices: from wheelchairs and walking frames to white canes, hearing aids, screen readers, prosthetics, and other assistive technologies — are not “one size fits all.”
Surprisingly so, even individuals with apparently similar impairments may have vastly different needs depending on their body structure or lifestyle, daily routines, social and work environments, and personal preferences.
Likewise, for persons with visual or hearing impairments, devices such as white canes, hearing aids, braille displays or screen readers, are essential — but their appropriateness and effectiveness also depend heavily on individual circumstances, environment, and user preferences.
It is for this reason that agencies, organizations, and policymakers must treat the choice of assistive devices as a deeply personal decision. This approach respects individual autonomy, promotes dignity, and aligns with broader principles of human rights, inclusion, equality, and social justice.
Understanding the Importance of Choice: International and National Commitments respecting personal choice in assistive devices is not just a moral stance — it is a legal, social, and human rights imperative.
At the global level, the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) recognizes the right of persons with disabilities to personal mobility. The CRPD framework mandates that states ensure access to mobility aids, assistive technologies, and support services — and that such support should be delivered in a manner that preserves dignity, autonomy, and the freedom to choose. This underscores that mobility devices are not mere medical or charitable aids, but enablers of fundamental human rights.
At the national level in Kenya, the Persons with Disabilities Act 2025 explicitly enshrines these rights. The Act stipulates that “every person with disability has a right to personal mobility and the use of assistive devices of his or her choice, including assistance by guide animals,” and further provides that no person with disability shall be denied access to any public place because of the nature of his or her assistive devices. Public and private institutions are required to implement minimum accessibility standards in infrastructure, transport, communication services, and public facilities.
Additionally, the Act calls for adequate allocation of resources, capacity building, and measures to integrate persons with disabilities into public services, employment, and mainstream programs, emphasizing respect for choice, accessibility, and inclusion.
Practically, this means that choice of assistive device should not be predetermined or standardized by institutions. Rather, individuals must be consulted, their preferences and needs assessed, and their autonomy respected — aligning with both CRPD principles and national law.
Disability and Assistive Device Landscape in Kenya: Data and Gaps must be analyzed to understand why personal choice and autonomy are critical.
According to the 2019 national census for instance, approximately 2.2% of Kenyans — roughly 900,000 people live with some form of disability.
Among persons with disabilities in Kenya, mobility impairments are the most common type, accounting for around 42%. Visual impairments follow, then cognitive, hearing, selfcare, and communication impairments.
A nationwide survey of assistive technology (AT) access showed that while many people with disabilities perceive lack of assistive devices as a serious problem, only about 32% of respondents currently use any assistive product or support service. Among those, mobility aids are reported by only 13%.
The gap in access is particularly stark in rural areas, where many rely on informal coping mechanisms due to cost, limited availability, and lack of supportive infrastructure.
These statistics highlight two critical facts: first, a substantial number of Kenyans rely on assistive devices for mobility and accessibility; second, a significant proportion still lack access to appropriate devices or not using them, often because available devices do not fit their needs, or because support services are inadequate.
Given this context, the right to choose a device that truly meets an individual’s needs, not merely a “standard issue”, is even more important.
Why Needs Differ: One Size Does Not Fit All
It may seem logical to assume that people with similar impairments would use identical assistive devices. However, real life tells a different story — since human needs and contexts are diverse. Consider the following factors:
Body size, shape, and ergonomics: Two individuals with similar mobility impairment may have different heights, limb lengths, body weight, or posture. A wheelchair, cane, or orthotic that “fits” one person may be uncomfortable, even harmful, to another.
Daily routines and environment: One person might need a device for maneuvering around their home; another might commute long distances in urban or rural settings, take public transport, or navigate rough terrain. The mobility aid must match the daily context— accessibility, durability, portability.
Lifestyle and activity levels: Some individuals are active — participating in sports, community events, work, or entrepreneurship. Others may need devices primarily for basic mobility within the home or local community. For example, someone using a white cane may need a lightweight, durable cane for frequent walking in busy urban areas; while someone in a quieter environment may prefer a different assistive tool.
Sensory and communication needs: For persons with visual or hearing impairments, appropriate devices — white canes, braille displays, hearing aids, screen readers — must be tailored to their sensory profile, living environment, and communication needs.
Customization and modification needs: Off-the-shelf devices may not cater to posture support, comfort, control mechanisms, or terrain challenges. Some may require adjustable seating, custom fittings, or technological enhancements.
Psychological, social and identity factors: Assistive devices also carry dignity, identity, and self-confidence. A device that aligns with someone’s self-image can encourage participation — while a poorly chosen device can contribute to stigma, isolation, or non-use.
It is essential to emphasize that the selection of assistive devices should always prioritize the user's input through thorough consultation and assessment. Respecting their autonomy ensures that these tools truly address individual needs, rather than being assigned without considering personal preferences or circumstances.
In the next edition, we will explore practical approaches and best practices for fostering this collaborative process between users and providers, aiming to enhance the effectiveness and acceptance of assistive technology solutions.
