Assistive Technology for Older People in Viet Nam: From Needs Assessment and Appropriate Provision to Safe Use, Follow-Up and Independence Across Care Settings
INTEGRATED CARE & CARE TRANSITIONSAGE-FRIENDLY CARE QUALITYMEASUREMENT, IMPLEMENTATION & LEARNING
INTEGRATED CARE & CARE TRANSITIONS · AGE-FRIENDLY CARE QUALITY
Last reviewed: October 2026
An older person leaves hospital after a stroke with a walking aid that worked well in the rehabilitation corridor but is difficult to use inside a narrow home. Another receives a wheelchair but cannot propel it comfortably, transfer safely or get through the bathroom doorway. Someone with hearing loss owns a hearing aid but stops wearing it because nobody helped them manage the device or troubleshoot difficulties. A family buys a more expensive walker believing that “better equipment” must mean safer care, only to discover that it is poorly matched to the person's balance, strength and home environment.
In each case, the problem is not simply whether an assistive product exists. The real question is whether the right person receives an appropriate product through a service that includes assessment, fitting or adaptation, training, follow-up and support in the environment where the product will actually be used.
That distinction matters increasingly for Viet Nam. Assistive technology can help an older person move, hear, see, communicate, remember, care for themselves and participate in family and community life. It can make caregiving safer and, for some people, help them remain at home for longer. But a poorly selected or badly fitted product may be abandoned, fail to improve function or create new safety risks.
The goal should therefore not simply be “provide more devices.” A better goal is:
“Provide assistive technology that is appropriate, usable, safe, sustainable and connected to what the person wants and needs to be able to do across the care continuum.”
Assistive technology is much broader than wheelchairs and walking aids
WHO defines assistive technology as an umbrella term covering assistive products together with the systems and services related to their provision. Assistive products can maintain or improve functioning in areas such as cognition, communication, hearing, mobility, self-care and vision. They include physical products such as wheelchairs, walking aids, spectacles, hearing aids and prostheses as well as digital solutions that can support communication, cognition and everyday activities.
This definition matters because assistive technology should not be reduced to a catalogue of equipment. A wheelchair without appropriate assessment and fitting is not a complete wheelchair service. A hearing aid handed over without suitable selection, instruction and follow-up does not automatically result in effective hearing support. A simple cognitive aid may help one person remain independent but be insufficient or inappropriate for someone with more complex cognitive needs.
The global need is substantial. WHO estimates that more than 2.5 billion people need one or more assistive products and that this number will rise to about 3.5 billion by 2050 as populations age and noncommunicable diseases increase. The WHO–UNICEF Global Report on Assistive Technology estimates that around two thirds of people aged 60 years and older globally need at least one assistive product. These are global estimates, not prevalence figures for older people in Viet Nam, and they should not be presented as though they describe the Vietnamese population specifically.
Needs also change. Someone who requires a walker after hip surgery may recover and no longer need it. Another person may move from a cane to a different mobility solution as frailty, Parkinsonism or stroke-related disability progresses. Many older people use more than one assistive product—for example spectacles, hearing support and a mobility aid, which is one reason integrated services are so important.
The product is only one part of the intervention
One principle is deceptively simple:
Giving someone a product is not the same as providing assistive technology well.
WHO's Global Report on Assistive Technology emphasizes service elements such as assessment, fitting, user training and follow-up. Weakness in any of these can reduce benefit, contribute to abandonment or create harm.
The 2023 WHO Wheelchair Provision Guidelines demonstrate the principle particularly clearly. Appropriate wheelchair provision involves an individualized process of assessment and selection, preparation and fitting, training in safe and effective use and care, and follow-up. The guidelines explicitly apply to older people as well as other wheelchair users.
The exact pathway varies between products, but the wider logic is similar:
identify functional need → assess the person and environment → select an appropriate solution → fit or adapt → train → use in real life → follow up → reassess.
The quality question is therefore not simply whether equipment was delivered. It is whether the entire pathway worked.
Assessment should begin with the person, not the product catalogue
A good assessment does not start with “Which walker should we give?” It starts with:
“What is this person trying to do, what is getting in the way and where do they need to do it?”
WHO's 2024 Long-term care for older people: package for universal health coverage specifically includes assessment of assistive-product needs. It emphasizes the person's health and functional difficulties, preferences, lifestyle, priorities and goals as well as the environment in which the product will be used. The older person and caregivers should be involved, and needs should be reassessed when circumstances change.
This makes assistive technology inherently person-centered. Two older people with the same diagnosis may require very different solutions. Someone with knee osteoarthritis may benefit from an appropriately selected walking aid alongside rehabilitation. Another person with the same diagnosis may have cognitive or upper-limb limitations that make the same device difficult to use safely. Someone recovering from stroke may need temporary mobility support while function improves, while another person may need long-term wheelchair mobility but still achieve substantial independence.
Assessment should therefore focus on function and goals, not diagnosis alone.
The environment matters just as much. A wheelchair that works perfectly in a hospital corridor may be impractical in a small home with narrow doors or steps. A walker may be difficult to maneuver around furniture. A shower chair has little value if it cannot be positioned safely in the person's actual bathroom.
Assistive technology and environmental adaptation often need to be considered together.
Viet Nam has a stronger practical and policy foundation
Ministry of Health Decision No. 1976/QĐ-BYT of 1 July 2026 provides a useful practical foundation for assistive mobility within older-person care at home and in the community.
The guidance contains procedures for assisting older people using canes, crutches and wheelchairs. It addresses walking on level surfaces, stairs and slopes, different patterns of crutch-assisted walking, bed-to-wheelchair transfers and wheelchair movement over changes in level. Importantly, the stated purpose of wheelchair assistance includes helping older people move more conveniently and flexibly, increase independence and participate in everyday activities.
This is significant because it brings assistive products into routine older-person care rather than treating them only as specialist rehabilitation equipment. Decision 1976 should not, however, be described as a comprehensive national assistive-technology service standard. It does not by itself establish a complete national pathway for needs assessment, financing, product regulation, professional fitting, maintenance, repair, replacement or entitlement to every type of assistive product.
Viet Nam's rehabilitation policy provides a broader system bridge. Decision No. 569/QĐ-TTg of 24 May 2023 approved the Programme for Development of the Rehabilitation System for 2023–2030, with a vision to 2050. The program aims to strengthen access to comprehensive and continuous rehabilitation and to develop community-based rehabilitation nationwide.
Importantly, within its community-based rehabilitation provisions, the program explicitly identifies older people with disabilities among the special groups of persons with disabilities to be addressed. This should not be interpreted as creating a community-based rehabilitation entitlement for every person aged 60 years and older regardless of functional or disability status.
Decision 569 also calls for research and development of health-insurance policies for persons with disabilities using rehabilitation aids, assistive technology, rehabilitation equipment and materials, individualized medical devices and community-based rehabilitation. This demonstrates a clear policy direction, but it does not mean that every assistive product an older person may need is already universally reimbursed by social health insurance.
The Ministry of Health's Decision No. 1768/QĐ-BYT of 27 May 2025 takes implementation further. The plan includes research on cost-effectiveness, budget impact and health-insurance payment policy for rehabilitation aids, assistive technology, rehabilitation materials and equipment, hearing devices, individualized medical devices and community-based rehabilitation during 2026–2027. It also assigns work during 2025–2028 to develop a list of essential rehabilitation aids and assistive technology within the scope of the health-insurance fund, together with work during 2026–2030 on quality standards and quality-control processes for assistive and orthotic products.
These are important implementation commitments. They should not be interpreted as evidence that all such benefit arrangements, reimbursement lists or quality standards have already been finalized and implemented nationwide as of October 2026.
For older people and families, the distinction is practical: clinical need, product availability, legal eligibility, insurance coverage and actual out-of-pocket cost are not necessarily the same thing.
Older age, disability and entitlement are related—but they are not interchangeable
Vietnamese law treats “older person” and “person with disability” as different legal concepts.
The current consolidated Law on Older Persons defines an older person as a Vietnamese citizen aged 60 years or older. The consolidated Law on Persons with Disabilities uses a different definition, based on impairment of one or more body parts or reduced function manifested as disability that causes difficulty with work, everyday living or learning.
An older person can also be a person with a disability, but aging alone should not automatically be treated as legal disability status.
This distinction matters for assistive technology. Functional needs can arise temporarily after surgery or acute illness, develop gradually with aging or result from longer-term disability. Someone may need a walker for several months without entering a long-term disability pathway. Another person may meet the legal criteria for disability and have access to different rehabilitation, social-support or entitlement mechanisms.
The clinical question is:
“What does this person need to function safely and participate in everyday life?”
The legal and financing question is:
“Which available pathway can support access to that solution?”
They are closely connected, but they are not the same question.
Appropriate provision means making the solution work in real life
A technically sound product can still be the wrong product for a particular person.
A cane that does not match someone's balance or upper-limb function may be difficult to use. A walker that is too large for the home may remain folded in a corner. A wheelchair with poor postural fit may create discomfort or make participation harder. A hearing aid that a person cannot insert, clean, charge or troubleshoot may eventually stop being worn.
Preferences also matter. Weight, appearance, portability, charging requirements, maintenance, climate, ease of transport, stigma and the availability of repairs can all influence whether someone actually uses a product.
The most technically sophisticated option is therefore not automatically the best solution. A good solution appropriately meets the person's functional needs and goals, is safe and usable in the real environment and can be supported over time.
Fitting and training are part of that safety system. Someone may receive a walking aid but never be shown how to use it during transfers or on the uneven surfaces around their home. A wheelchair user may not know to secure the brakes appropriately for a transfer. Family members may push, lift or move equipment in ways that put themselves or the older person at risk.
Training should therefore include the older person and, where relevant, the people who support them. It should also preserve autonomy. If the person can perform an activity safely with an assistive product, family members should not automatically take over. One of the purposes of assistive technology is to help people do more for themselves, not become more passive recipients of care.
Assistive technology and rehabilitation should work together
A walking aid and rehabilitation are not competing interventions.
A mobility aid may allow someone to walk more safely while strength, endurance and balance improve. A wheelchair may make participation outside the bedroom possible while rehabilitation continues. A shower chair or grab rail may allow safer self-care while functional recovery is still incomplete.
Two opposite assumptions can therefore be equally problematic:
“Rehabilitation may eventually make the product unnecessary, so we should wait.”
and
“The product solves the problem, so rehabilitation is no longer needed.”
For many older people, the better approach combines restoring function where possible with compensating intelligently where needed.
This is particularly relevant after stroke, hip fracture, surgery, critical illness or hospitalization-associated functional decline. A product that is appropriate on the day of discharge may no longer be appropriate three months later because the person has recovered—or because their condition has changed in the opposite direction.
Reassessment is therefore part of good rehabilitation, not evidence that the original decision was wrong.
Care transitions and the home environment reveal whether provision really worked
Assistive technology can easily fall through the gaps between services.
A hospital identifies that someone needs a walker, but the family is expected to obtain one after discharge. A rehabilitation team recommends a wheelchair, but nobody verifies whether it can enter the home. A resident arrives in long-term care with several devices but no documentation explaining why they were selected, what level of assistance is required or when they should be reviewed.
A safer transition should communicate functional status, mobility and transfer ability, assistive products currently used, level of assistance required, relevant fitting or positioning information, training already completed, remaining caregiver-training needs and follow-up arrangements.
If a product must be available at home, the day of discharge is usually too late to start thinking about it.
Someone may be medically ready to leave hospital but still lack a safe discharge plan if they cannot reach the toilet, transfer from bed or move through the home without equipment that has not yet been arranged.
Assistive technology therefore belongs within functional discharge planning, not on an equipment list added at the end.
The product is then tested in real life. Can the person get from the bedroom to the bathroom? Can they use the aid with their usual clothing and footwear? Can it move safely across the home's surfaces and thresholds? Can it be stored, cleaned and maintained? Can batteries, spare parts or repairs actually be obtained?
For Viet Nam, these questions are particularly important because living environments vary enormously—from accessible apartments to homes with narrow rooms, steps, thresholds or difficult outdoor access. Streets and transport can create additional barriers that are invisible during a hospital assessment.
Good care therefore asks not only:
“Can this person use the product?”
but also:
“Can this person use it safely in this home, with this caregiver support and in the places they actually need to go?”
Follow-up is part of the intervention
Assistive technology should rarely be treated as a one-time transaction.
An older person's needs may change because of recovery, progressive disease, weight change, new pain, recurrent falls, cognitive decline, changes in hearing or vision, or changes in the caregiver and home situation. Products themselves wear out, loosen, break or become unsuitable.
Follow-up should therefore ask whether the person is actually using the product, whether it has improved what they wanted to do, whether it remains comfortable and safe, whether falls, pain or pressure problems have occurred, whether anything requires repair, whether the user or caregiver needs additional training and whether changing function means the product should be adjusted, replaced or discontinued.
Maintenance and repair matter as much as initial distribution. A product that cannot be repaired locally may become unusable long before its theoretical service life has ended.
A product sitting unused in a cupboard should not be counted as a successful intervention simply because it was distributed.
Long-term care needs an assistive-technology system
Residential long-term care should not manage assistive technology as an informal collection of wheelchairs and walking aids stored in a corner.
Each resident's assistive products should be connected to an assessment and care plan. Staff should know which product belongs to whom, why the resident uses it, how much assistance is required, what safety issues matter and when reassessment is needed.
Products also require appropriate cleaning, maintenance and safety checks. Shared equipment needs particular attention because a product that is suitable for one resident may be inappropriate or unsafe for another.
WHO's long-term-care package includes assessment of assistive-product needs as part of long-term care and emphasizes coordination between health and social-care teams. Appropriate assistive technology can support mobility, self-care, cognition, communication, hearing and vision and may reduce the intensity of assistance a person requires.
Assistive technology therefore becomes a governance issue as well as an individual-care issue. A long-term-care organization should be able to answer: Are needs assessed? Are products selected appropriately? Do staff know how to assist residents safely? Can products be maintained and repaired? Are problems documented? Are needs reviewed after falls, hospitalization or functional decline?
Caregiver capability also belongs in this system. A good assistive solution can reduce the physical effort needed for transfers, enable more independent toileting or make communication easier. Poor provision can simply transfer new risk to families. A caregiver may be expected to lift a wheelchair that is too heavy, perform an unsafe transfer because appropriate equipment is unavailable or manage a complex electronic product without sufficient training.
The objective should not be to reduce formal services simply by shifting work onto families. It should be to support greater independence for the older person while making caregiving safer and more sustainable.
Product regulation in Viet Nam depends on what the product actually is
“Assistive technology” is a functional and service concept. It is not one single legal product category under Vietnamese law.
Depending on its intended purpose and regulatory classification, an assistive product may fall within Viet Nam's medical-device regulatory framework. Other assistive products, consumer products, software or environmental adaptations may fall under different legal or technical regimes.
As of October 2026, Viet Nam's medical-device framework continues to be based on Decree No. 98/2021/NĐ-CP as amended, reflected in Consolidated Document No. 08/VBHN-BYT dated 6 March 2026. Detailed implementing provisions are reflected in Consolidated Document No. 12/2026/VBHN-TT-BYT dated 10 July 2026, which incorporates amendments including Circular No. 24/2026/TT-BYT.
Health-care and long-term-care organizations should therefore avoid two opposite assumptions: that every assistive product is automatically a medical device, or that assistive products are outside health-product regulation altogether.
Regulatory status needs to be considered product by product. Where medical-device rules apply, relevant requirements concerning classification, lawful circulation, labeling and other regulatory obligations matter. Procurement should also consider safety, durability, maintenance, availability of spare parts and local technical support rather than purchase price alone.
A cheap product that repeatedly fails or cannot be repaired may ultimately be more expensive—and less safe—than a better-supported alternative.
Financing needs to cover access, not merely purchase
The cost of assistive technology is often discussed as though it were simply the retail price of a product. That is incomplete.
Effective provision may require assessment, professional time, fitting, adaptation, caregiver training, follow-up, maintenance, repairs, spare parts and eventual replacement. Travel to specialist services can add further costs.
WHO's 2026 draft Global Road Map towards Universal Access to Assistive Technology, developed with UNICEF and the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, organizes action around the 5P framework: People, Policy and finance, Products, Provision and Personnel. It also takes a product-life-cycle perspective that includes maintenance, repair and continuity of support. As of October 2026, the publicly available WHO material remains a draft developed through public review, not a finalized global road map, and it should be described accordingly.
A policy-and-practice review published in September 2026 adds a useful financing perspective. It applies the three familiar dimensions of universal health coverage to assistive technology: who is covered, which products and services are covered, and how much of their costs are covered. This matters because financing the physical product while leaving assessment, fitting, training or follow-up unfunded may increase distribution without creating effective access.
Viet Nam is moving toward these questions through the implementation of Decisions 569/QĐ-TTg and 1768/QĐ-BYT. But until specific benefit arrangements are formally issued and implemented, planned financing reforms and future benefit lists should be presented as policy development underway, not as universal coverage already available.
Workforce capacity determines whether access becomes safe access
Assistive technology requires people who know how to provide it.
Some products require specialist assessment and technical expertise. Others may be provided closer to home by appropriately trained primary-care or community personnel working within clear protocols, scope-of-practice boundaries and referral pathways.
WHO has strengthened this approach through Learning on TAP, a blended-learning resource within the WHO Academy for primary-care and community-level personnel. Its content includes assistive technology and sensory functions such as vision and hearing and is intended to help bring relevant knowledge and skills closer to communities.
Task sharing should not mean lowering standards. It means matching the complexity of the person's needs and the product to the competency of the provider.
Basic needs may be addressed closer to the community when competent personnel, clear processes and referral support are available. Complex seating and positioning, communication needs or combinations of multiple products may require specialist assessment.
For Viet Nam, Decision 1976/QĐ-BYT already provides caregivers and community personnel with useful practical guidance on mobility support. The next implementation challenge is to connect those skills with stronger assessment, referral, rehabilitation and assistive-technology provision pathways.
Measurement should ask whether technology actually improved life
Counting how many wheelchairs, walkers or hearing aids were distributed is easy.
It is also inadequate.
A stronger quality framework asks whether need was identified, how long the person waited, whether assessment and fitting occurred, whether the product is still being used months later, whether it improved meaningful activities, whether caregiver burden changed, whether adverse events occurred and whether maintenance and follow-up were accessible.
WHO's Assistive Technology Assessment toolkit supports countries in examining population need, unmet need and system capacity. On 15 June 2026, WHO published the Assistive Technology Progress Assessment Questionnaire, with 10 indicators for monitoring national progress in areas including policy, financing, products, provision and workforce.
Viet Nam has also contributed implementation experience to the development of WHO's Assistive Technology Capacity Assessment, a system-level tool for assessing a country's ability to finance, regulate, procure and provide assistive technology.
That experience creates a useful system foundation, but an important evidence gap remains. Contemporary, publicly available data specifically describing need, met need, quality of provision, sustained use and outcomes among older people in Viet Nam remain insufficient for a rapidly aging population.
Future measurement should therefore move from products distributed toward effective access and meaningful outcomes.
A practical assistive-technology quality framework for Viet Nam
Viet Nam does not need to wait for one stand-alone national assistive-technology standard for older people before improving practice. Current rehabilitation policy, older-person care guidance, disability legislation, medical-device regulation and contemporary WHO guidance already provide important building blocks.
Needs assessment should begin with functional difficulty, environment, priorities and goals rather than a product list. Selection should consider clinical need, usability, preferences, environmental fit, affordability and access to ongoing support. Fitting and adaptation should make the solution work for the actual person rather than an imagined average user.
Training should support both the older person and relevant caregivers while preserving independence wherever possible. Transition planning should ensure that necessary products and support are available when the person moves between hospital, rehabilitation, home, community and long-term care. Follow-up should examine real-world use, benefit, safety and changing needs. Maintenance and repair should be planned before equipment fails.
Regulatory and procurement governance should ensure that products subject to Vietnamese requirements are obtained and managed appropriately. Financing should consider the whole service pathway rather than only the purchase price. Workforce development should expand competent provision closer to communities while maintaining referral pathways for complex needs. Measurement and learning should focus on effective access, sustained use, function, participation, safety and caregiver impact.
The care pathway should therefore remain continuous:
identify functional need → assess the person and environment → select an appropriate solution → fit or adapt → train → transition safely → follow up → maintain and repair → reassess as needs change.
These elements work only as a system. A sophisticated wheelchair does not compensate for poor fitting. A hearing aid does not compensate for absent training. A walking aid does not compensate for an unsafe home environment. A good hospital assessment does not help if the product is unavailable after discharge. And distributing large numbers of products does not demonstrate quality if many are eventually abandoned.
From equipment provision to independence and dignity
For an older person, assistive technology is not fundamentally about possessing a device. It is about being able to get out of bed, reach the bathroom, hear a grandchild, read a message, prepare a meal, communicate a need, leave the house or continue participating in family and community life.
For families, good assistive-technology provision can mean safer caregiving and less need to perform tasks the older person can still do independently. For hospitals and rehabilitation services, it means ensuring that functional gains survive discharge. For home and community services, it means making support work in the realities of everyday life. For long-term care, it means continually matching assistance to changing function rather than accepting dependency as inevitable.
As Viet Nam develops a more integrated continuum of care for older people, the question should therefore not simply be:
“Did this person receive an assistive product?”
A more meaningful question is:
“Did we understand what this person wanted and needed to do, provide an appropriate and safe solution, help them use it confidently, and make sure support continued as their needs and care setting changed?”
That is the difference between distributing equipment and using assistive technology to support function, independence, participation and dignity.
References
World Health Organization, United Nations Children's Fund. Global report on assistive technology. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2022.
World Health Organization. Assistive technology. WHO Fact Sheet. 2 January 2024.
World Health Organization. Assistive technology data portal. Global Health Observatory.
World Health Organization. Long-term care for older people: package for universal health coverage. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2024.
World Health Organization. Wheelchair provision guidelines. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2023.
World Health Organization. Assistive technology progress assessment questionnaire: tracking progress on access to assistive technology. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2026.
World Health Organization. Blended learning platform for primary health care and community level workers: user guide to Learning on TAP. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2026.
World Health Organization, United Nations Children's Fund, United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Draft Global road map towards universal access to assistive technology. Public-review draft; 2026.
World Health Organization. Assistive Technology Assessment Toolkit.
World Health Organization. Assistive Technology Capacity Assessment (ATA-C).
Ministry of Health of Viet Nam. Decision No. 1976/QĐ-BYT issuing professional guidance on care for older people at home and in the community. 1 July 2026.
Prime Minister of Viet Nam. Decision No. 569/QĐ-TTg approving the Programme for Development of the Rehabilitation System for 2023–2030, with a vision to 2050. 24 May 2023.
Ministry of Health of Viet Nam. Decision No. 1768/QĐ-BYT approving the implementation plan for Decision No. 569/QĐ-TTg on development of the rehabilitation system for 2023–2030, with a vision to 2050. 27 May 2025.
Office of the National Assembly of Viet Nam. Consolidated Document No. 23/VBHN-VPQH consolidating the Law on Older Persons. 26 February 2026.
Office of the National Assembly of Viet Nam. Consolidated Document No. 24/VBHN-VPQH consolidating the Law on Persons with Disabilities. 26 February 2026.
Ministry of Health of Viet Nam. Consolidated Document No. 08/VBHN-BYT consolidating the Government's regulations on management of medical devices. 6 March 2026.
Ministry of Health of Viet Nam. Consolidated Document No. 12/2026/VBHN-TT-BYT consolidating regulations detailing implementation of certain provisions of Decree No. 98/2021/NĐ-CP on management of medical devices. 10 July 2026.
Wilkens J, Banerji R, Mishra S. Financing assistive technology—Policy options on the path towards universal health coverage. Frontiers in Public Health. 2026;14:1901297.