Skip to main content
JBJS Open Access logoLink to JBJS Open Access
. 2026 Aug 27;11(3):e26.00199. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.OA.26.00199

The Persistent Preference for Traditional Bonesetting in Ethiopia: Risk Factors and Missed Opportunities

Mengistu G Mengesha 1,a, Morgan Askew 2, Abdoulie Njai 2,3, Ephrem G Adem 1, Mario Keko 4, Sintayehu Bussa 1, Yisihak Zerihun 1, Mahamed Areis 5, Birlew T Alemayehu 6, Bekalu Wubshet 7, Moa C Jira 8, Mulugeta Bekelle 9, Claude Martin Jr 10, William J Harrison 10, Kiran J Agarwal-Harding 2,4
PMCID: PMC13502802  PMID: 42639614

Abstract

Introduction:

Many patients in Ethiopia prefer traditional bonesetting (TBS) over formal health services for musculoskeletal injuries, despite well-documented complications. We analyzed risk factors for initial and persistent TBS preference among patients who patronized TBS and subsequently presented to a tertiary hospital for definitive treatment.

Methods:

Over 15 months, we prospectively enrolled patients with musculoskeletal injuries who presented to 8 Ethiopian tertiary hospitals after patronizing TBS for the same injury. Multivariable regression evaluated associations between TBS preference and covariates including demographics, injury characteristics, reasons for seeking TBS, and hospitalization outcomes.

Results:

We enrolled 1,243 patients (mean age 27 ± 18.4 years; 67.6% male). Elbow (307, 24.7%) and leg/ankle/foot (245, 19.7%) injuries were most common; 978 (78.7%) were closed fractures/dislocations. At study enrollment, 1,003 (80.7%) patients had complications, most commonly stiffness/contracture (671, 54.0%) and malunion (346, 27.8%). Prolonged hospitalization (>7 days) occurred for 223 (17.9%) patients; 37 (3.0%) underwent amputation. TBS was initially preferred after injury by 808 (65.0%) patients, although 298 (24.0%) visited a health facility before TBS. Initial TBS preference was lower among patients with formal education (primary school: adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 0.64, [95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.41-0.99]; secondary school or above: AOR 0.56 [0.36-0.87]) and open fractures (AOR 0.41 [0.22-0.77]). For future injuries, 455 (36.6%) patients/guardians preferred TBS over health facility–based care. Controlling for initial TBS preference, future preference was associated with poverty (AOR 1.66, 95% CI 1.10-2.49, p = 0.015) and visiting a health facility before TBS (AOR 2.04, 95% CI 1.34-3.10, p < 0.001). Neither prolonged hospitalization (p = 0.734) nor amputation (p = 0.946) influenced future preference.

Conclusion:

More than one-third of patients preferred TBS for future injuries. Among patients in poverty, persistent TBS preference after reaching a tertiary hospital may reflect entrenched structural barriers to formal orthopaedic care. Initial health facility visits before TBS were associated with greater future TBS preference even after definitive hospital care, suggesting missed opportunities to build trust in formal care.

Level of Evidence:

Prognostic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Introduction

Traditional bonesetting (TBS) is widely practiced in many low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) where access to modern orthopaedic care remains limited1-8. Bonesetters operate outside formal health systems without regulatory oversight9-11. TBS practices include manipulations, splinting, and application of herbal concoctions, which have been linked to serious complications including malunion, infection, and amputation1,2,8,12-16. The drivers of TBS preference are consistent globally: accessibility, affordability, cultural trust, and dissatisfaction with formal care have been documented in sub-Saharan Africa, South and Southeast Asia, the Middle East, and Latin America3,5-8,17-20.

Ethiopia, a low-income East African country of 132 million people, carries a high burden of musculoskeletal trauma driven by falls, road injuries, and interpersonal violence21-26. Hospital capacity remains severely constrained, limiting formal orthopaedic access for many Ethiopians27-30. In this context, many patients prefer TBS because it is accessible, affordable, and trusted more than formal health systems10,31-33. Low income, rural residence, and limited education have been associated with TBS preference, yet the frequency and drivers of these preferences in Ethiopia remain unknown10,31,34-36. Critically, persistent preference for TBS, after patients have encountered formal care, is poorly understood and may reflect missed opportunities to retain patients within formal health pathways.

The Bone-Setting Associated Disability (BOSAD) initiative is a prospective multicenter Ethiopian study of TBS practices, complications, and patient preferences. In a previous study from this initiative, rigid splinting and organic topical treatments by bonesetters independently increased the odds of amputation and prolonged hospitalization among 460 children12. For patients of all ages who sought TBS before presenting to a tertiary hospital for definitive treatment, we analyzed risk factors for initial and persistent TBS preference.

Materials and Methods

Study Setting

This prospective cohort study was conducted at 8 Ethiopian tertiary hospitals. Hawassa University’s institutional review board approved the study (IRB/280/12). From July 2021 to September 2022, patients seen by orthopaedic providers in emergency or outpatient departments who had patronized TBS for the same injury were approached for enrollment. Informed consent was obtained from the patient or a parent/guardian, who completed enrollment surveys with the assistance of trained BOSAD data collectors fluent in the patient’s language. Medical interpreters were available when needed. We recorded demographics, socioeconomic background, injury characteristics, prior health facility visits, TBS treatments, and care preferences including reasons for seeking TBS. Patients were followed during hospitalization, with outcome and future TBS preferences collected at discharge.

Data Elements

Three outcomes were analyzed: (1) initial TBS preference at the time of injury, (2) visiting a health facility before patronizing TBS, and (3) TBS preference for a future injury. We examined 14 covariates associated with these outcomes: age, sex, highest household education level, occupation, religion, household size, poverty status, residence type, geographic region, injury mechanism, injured body part, injury type, time to presentation, and reasons for seeking TBS5,7,17,31,37-43.

Age was categorized by developmentally meaningful stages: infant/toddler (0-5 years), school age (6-10 years), adolescent (11-17 years), young adult (18-35 years), middle-aged (36-55 years), and older adult (≥56 years). Household education was categorized as no education (cannot read or write), informal education (literate without formal schooling), primary school (grades 1-8), secondary school or higher, or unknown. Poverty status was based on per-capita household income relative to a threshold of 913 Ethiopian birr/month (World Bank poverty line: $2.15/day; purchasing power parity ratio 14.2)35. Six geographic regions were included: Oromia; Amhara; Harari; Sidama; Southern Nations, Nationalities and Peoples’ Region; and Somali.

Injury mechanisms and body part classifications are listed in Appendix A1-2. Injury type was classified by the treating physician as closed fractures and/or dislocations, open fractures (Gustilo-Anderson classification), or nonosseous injuries. Time from injury to presentation was categorized as ≤30, 31 to 60, or >60 days. Patients ranked their top 5 reasons for seeking TBS from 10 options, grouped into 4 domains: practical reasons (faster service, cheaper service, accessibility), sociocultural reasons (social pressure, cultural beliefs, superstitious beliefs), fear of surgery/amputation, and dissatisfaction with formal care (health system dissatisfaction, mistrust of hospitals). A normalized weighted rank score was calculated per domain, with the highest-scoring domain designated the primary motivation for seeking TBS. Ties were broken by first-ranked reason.

Statistical Analysis

Multivariable models were constructed separately for each outcome using covariates with type III p < 0.1 in bivariate screening, with noncontributory covariates (p > 0.1) removed in final parsimonious models. Education, religion, poverty, geographic region, injury mechanism, injury type, and primary motivation for seeking TBS were retained a priori regardless of p-value. Multicollinearity was checked, and significance was set at p < 0.05. Post hoc descriptive secondary analyses examined reasons for seeking TBS among all patients, stratified by initial TBS preference; and among future TBS preferrers, stratified by prior health facility contact. Analysis was performed using R (version 4.3.1; R Foundation for Statistical Computing)44.

Results

We enrolled 1,243 patients who had patronized TBS before study site arrival; the mean age was 27 ± 18.4 years; 68% were male. Ten geographic regions were represented; 67.8% (n = 843) lived below the poverty line. The median time from injury to presentation was 37 days (interquartile range 15-91). Ground-level falls (n = 383, 30.8%), falls from height (n = 316, 25.4%), and road traffic incidents (n = 208, 16.7%) caused most injuries. Injuries were mostly of the elbow/forearm/wrist (n = 622, 50.0%) and leg/ankle/foot (n = 245, 19.7%); with closed fractures (n = 978, 78.7%), open fractures (n = 77, 6.2%), and nonosseous injuries (n = 188, 15.1%). Most (93.2%) had no medical comorbidities. TBS treatments included topical application of inorganic (586, 47.1%) or organic (185, 14.9%) materials and rigid (481, 38.7%) or nonrigid (474, 38.1%) immobilization (Table I). Complications upon hospital presentation were observed in 1,003 (80.7%) patients. Prolonged hospitalization (>7 days) occurred for 223 (17.9%) patients and 37 (3.0%) underwent amputation (Table I). One patient developed fatal septicemia, arriving 10 days after sustaining a Gustilo-Anderson type IIIA open ankle fracture splinted by a bonesetter.

TABLE I.

Descriptive Statistics of Cohort (N = 1,243)

Characteristic N (%)a Characteristic N (%)a
Age (years) 27.4 ± 18.4 Mechanism of injury
Age groups  Fall from ground level 383 (30.8)
 0-5 years 90 (7.2)  Fall from heighti 316 (25.4)
 6-10 years 227 (18.3)  Interpersonal violencej 186 (15.0)
 11-17 years 143 (11.5)  Road traffic incidentk 208 (16.7)
 18-35 years 401 (32.3)  Otherl 150 (12.1)
 36-55 years 277 (22.3) Injured body partm
 ≥ 56 years 105 (8.4)  Shoulder 100 (8.0)
Sex  Arm 42 (3.4)
 Male 840 (67.6)  Elbow 307 (24.7)
 Female 403 (32.4)  Forearm 146 (11.7)
Highest reported household education level  Wrist 169 (13.6)
 No educationd 218 (17.5)  Hand 45 (3.6)
 Informale 70 (5.6)  Hip 64 (5.1)
 Primary schoolf 444 (35.7)  Thigh 59 (4.7)
 Secondary schoolg 473 (38.1)  Knee 66 (5.3)
 Unknownh 38 (3.1)  Leg/ankle/foot 245 (19.7)
Occupation Injury type
 Gov/private employee 228 (18.3)  Soft tissue only 188 (15.1)
 Merchant 55 (4.4)  Closed fracture/dislocation 978 (78.7)
 Daily laborer/farmer 258 (20.8)  Grade 1 open fracturep 26 (2.1)
 Housewife 144 (11.6)  Grade 2 open fracturep 24 (1.9)
 Unemployed 13 (1.0)  Grade 3 open fracturep 27 (2.2)
 Student 431 (34.7) Treatments received before study enrollment
 Other 114 (9.2) TBS topical treatments
Religion  None 472 (38.0)
 Ethiopian orthodox 481 (38.7)  Organic materialr 185 (14.9)
 Muslim 449 (36.1)  Inorganic materials 586 (47.1)
 Protestant 294 (23.7) TBS immobilization
 Catholic 9 (0.7)  No immobilization 288 (23.2)
 Other 10 (0.8)  Rigid immobilizationt 481 (38.7)
Median household size (incl. patient) 6.0 (4.0-7.0)  Other nonrigid immobilizationu 474 (38.1)
Median household income (1,000 birr)n 3.0 (2.0, 5.2) Complications documented upon patient presentation to a study sitev
Poverty statuso Any complication 1,003 (80.7)
 Below poverty line 843 (67.8)  All complicationsw
 Above poverty line 400 (32.2)   Joint stiffness/contracture 671 (54.0)
Residence type   Malunion 346 (27.8)
 Rural 586 (47.1)   Muscle atrophy/weakness 264 (21.2)
 Urban 657 (52.9)   Prolonged hospital stay (>7 days) 223 (17.9)
Geographic regionb   Infected skin 101 (8.1)
 Amhara 249 (20)   Chronic dislocation 100 (8.0)
 Benishangul-Gumuz 1 (0.1)   Skin maceration or blistering 92 (7.4)
 Dire Dawa 4 (0.3)   Nonunion 83 (6.7)
 Gambella 2 (0.2)   Neurovascular injury 76 (6.1)
 Harari 36 (2.9)   Pressure sore 75 (6.0)
 Oromia 443 (35.6)   Chronic osteomyelitis 67 (5.4)
 Sidama 176 (14.2)   Amputation 37 (3.0)
 SNNPRc 215 (17.3)   Delayed union 33 (2.7)
 Somali 116 (9.3)   Septicemia 31 (2.5)
 Tigray 1 (0.1)   Complex regional pain syndrome 27 (2.2)
Medical comorbidities   Wet gangrene 26 (2.1)
 No condition recorded 1,159 (93.2)   Volkmann ischemic contracturex 24 (1.9)
 Hypertension 42 (3.4)   Missed compartment syndromex 24 (1.9)
 Diabetes 13 (1.0)   Septic joint 22 (1.8)
 Cardiovascular disease 3 (0.2)   Avascular necrosis 18 (1.4)
 Chronic kidney disease 1 (0.1)   Degloved wound 17 (1.4)
 Other 25 (2.0)   Dry gangrene 6 (0.5)
Time to presentationq
 ≤30 days 558 (44.9)
 31-60 days 234 (18.8)
 >60 days 451 (36.3)

TBS = traditional bonesetting.

a

Values are given as the count, with the percentage of the total cohort in parentheses, except for age which is given as the mean ± SD, and household size and household income, which are given as the median with the Q1 and Q3 values in parentheses. Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding.

b

There were no patients in this cohort from the following regions of Ethiopia: Afar, Addis Ababa.

c

Southern Nations, Nationalities and Peoples’ Region.

d

Cannot read or write, and with no formal schooling background.

e

Ability to read and write but did not attend formal grade school.

f

Grades 1-8.

g

Grades 9-12, college, technical school, professional degree, secondary degree or above.

h

Includes Children <4 years old and those enrolled in nursery school or kindergarten, and for whom no other information for the other family members was provided.

i

Falls from height were from higher than ground level.

j

Includes injury from a fight or assault, a bullet wound, a blast injury, or a stab injury.

k

Includes a pedestrian struck by a motorcycle or motor vehicle, a driver of a motorcycle or motor vehicle involved in a collision, or a passenger of a motorcycle or motor vehicle involved in a collision.

l

Includes a sports injury, a bicycle accident, a construction-site injury, or other mechanisms of injury.

m

Body part categories were condensed to address small sample sizes.

n

A median monthly income of 3,000 birr is approximately $210, converted using the 2022 World Bank purchasing power parity ratio for Ethiopia of 14.2 Ethiopian birr per US dollar.

o

Poverty status was assessed by calculating the income per person in each patient’s household on the basis of the total household income and the number of household members reported. The poverty line was set at 913 birr per person per month, equivalent to the 2022 World Bank poverty level of $2.15 per day and converted using the 2022 World Bank purchasing power parity ratio for Ethiopia of 14.2 Ethiopian birr per US dollar.

p

Gustilo-Anderson open fracture classification.

q

Time from initial injury to arrival at one of the 8 study site hospitals.

r

Organic topical materials that had been applied included mud, leaves or other plant materials, and butter.

s

Inorganic topical materials included petroleum jelly or some other chemical or drug.

t

Rigid immobilization included use of bamboo, wooden, or metal splints.

u

Other nonrigid immobilizations included wrapping with a towel, leather splint, or some other soft dressing.

v

Complications documented upon patient presentation to a study site are ordered by decreasing overall frequency.

w

Percentages do not sum to 100 because of patients having multiple complications.

x

Missed compartment syndrome refers to a late-presenting compartment syndrome with tissue damage but not yet having progressed to a Volkmann ischemic contracture.

Most patients or their guardians (808, 65.0%) reported an initial preference for TBS at the time of injury, 298 (24.0%) visited a health facility before TBS, and 455 (36.6%) preferred TBS over hospital-based care for a future injury. The most common reasons for seeking TBS were easy accessibility (n = 808, 65.0%), social pressure (n = 733, 58.9%), and faster service (n = 526, 42.3%) (Table II).

TABLE II.

Traditional Bonesetter Preferences and Reported Reasons for Those Preferences

Characteristic N (%)*
Initial TBS preference at the time of injury† 808 (65.0)
Visited a health facility first before TBS† 298 (24.0)
Prefers TBS for a future injury 455 (36.6)
Why did you choose TBS for this injury?
 Easily accessible 808 (65.0)
 Social pressure 733 (59.0)
 Faster service 526 (42.3)
 Cultural beliefs 502 (40.4)
 Cheaper service 391 (31.5)
 Fear of surgery 213 (17.1)
 Fear of amputation 198 (15.9)
 Health system dissatisfaction 116 (9.3)
 Superstitions/religious beliefs 69 (5.6)
 Healthcare worker ignorance 12 (1.0)

TBS = traditional bonesetting.

*

Percentages do not sum to 100 because of rounding.

†

Categories are not mutually exclusive.

Bivariate and multivariable analyses are presented in the Appendix B1-3. Adjusted odds of initial TBS preference were higher for patients aged 11 to 17 years (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]: 1.63, [95% confidence interval: 1.01-2.63]), 36 to 55 years (AOR 1.60 [1.09-2.35]), with interpersonal violence (AOR 1.59 [1.01-2.50]) or other injury mechanisms (AOR 4.26 [2.46-7.39]). Primary (AOR 0.64 [0.41-0.99]) and secondary education or above (AOR 0.56 [0.36-0.87]), Muslim religion (AOR 0.51 [0.35-0.76]), and open fracture (AOR 0.41 [0.22-0.77]) were associated with lower odds. Relative to practical reasons for seeking TBS, patients with sociocultural reasons had increased odds (AOR 1.40 [1.03-1.90]) and dissatisfaction with formal care had reduced odds (AOR 0.45 [0.21-0.96]) of initial TBS preference (Fig. 1). Patients who did not initially prefer TBS more frequently cited health system dissatisfaction and quicker service as reasons for seeking TBS, compared to those initially preferring TBS (Appendix C1).

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Risk factors for initial preference for traditional bonesetting. Forest plot constructed from the final parsimonious multivariable model (see Methods). Religion: the “Other” category includes 1 patient recorded as Catholic and 2 recorded as “other.” Poverty status was defined using household per capita monthly income relative to the poverty line of 913 Ethiopian birr per person per month, equivalent to US$2.15 per day using the 2022 World Bank purchasing power parity conversion factor for Ethiopia. Geographic region: Oromia includes 2 patients from nearby Gambella; Amhara includes 1 patient from nearby Benishangul-Gumuz and 1 from nearby Tigray; SNNPR; Somali includes 1 patient from nearby Dire Dawa. Mechanism of injury: the “Other” category includes bicycle accident, construction site injury, and other mechanisms. Primary motivation for seeking TBS: derived from patient-ranked reasons grouped into 4 domains: practical reasons (accessibility, affordability, timeliness), sociocultural reasons (cultural, superstitious, or social beliefs), fear of surgery or amputation, and dissatisfaction with formal care. The domain with the highest normalized weighted rank score was designated each patient's primary motivation; ties were broken by first-ranked reason. Estimates for subgroups with small sample sizes should be interpreted with caution given wide confidence intervals. SNNPR = Southern Nations, Nationalities and Peoples’ Region, and TBS = traditional bonesetting.

Visiting a health facility before TBS was less likely for children aged 0 to 5 years (AOR 0.39 [0.17-0.89]) and women (AOR 0.71 [0.51-1.00]). Muslim patients had higher odds of visiting a health facility first (AOR 1.60 [1.01-2.54]). Higher-energy injury mechanisms (fall from height: AOR 1.76 [1.15-2.69]; interpersonal violence: AOR 1.88 [1.17-3.03]; motor vehicle collision: AOR 1.86 [1.17-2.97]), leg/ankle/foot injuries (AOR 1.94 [1.21-3.10]), and forearm/hand/wrist injuries (AOR 1.63 [1.05-2.53]) were associated with higher odds of visiting a health facility first. Dissatisfaction with formal care, relative to practical reasons for seeking TBS, was associated with visiting a health facility before TBS (AOR 4.54 [2.17-9.48]) (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2

Factors associated with visiting a health facility before traditional bonesetting. Forest plot constructed from the final parsimonious multivariable model (see Methods). Religion: the “Other” category includes 1 patient recorded as Catholic and 2 recorded as “other.” Poverty status was defined using household per capita monthly income relative to the poverty line of 913 Ethiopian birr per person per month, equivalent to US$2.15 per day using the 2022 World Bank purchasing power parity conversion factor for Ethiopia. Geographic region: Oromia includes 2 patients from nearby Gambella; Amhara includes 1 patient from nearby Benishangul-Gumuz and 1 from nearby Tigray; SNNPR; Somali includes 1 patient from nearby Dire Dawa. Mechanism of injury: the “Other” category includes bicycle accident, construction site injury, and other mechanisms. Body part categories were condensed because of small sample sizes. Primary motivation for seeking TBS: derived from patient-ranked reasons grouped into 4 domains: practical reasons (accessibility, affordability, timeliness), sociocultural reasons (cultural, superstitious, or social beliefs), fear of surgery or amputation, and dissatisfaction with formal care. The domain with the highest normalized weighted rank score was designated each patient's primary motivation; ties were broken by first-ranked reason. Estimates for subgroups with small sample sizes should be interpreted with caution given wide confidence intervals. SNNPR = Southern Nations, Nationalities and Peoples’ Region, and TBS = traditional bonesetting.

Future TBS preference was higher among patients living in poverty (AOR 1.66 [1.10-2.49]) and lower among rural dwellers (AOR 0.56 [0.38-0.83]). Initial TBS preference (AOR 66.09 [34.56-126.39]) and visiting a health facility before TBS (AOR 2.04 [1.34-3.10]) increased future preference odds. Neither prolonged hospitalization (AOR 1.05 [0.65-1.71]) nor amputation (AOR 0.97 [0.37-2.50]) influenced future preference (Fig. 3). Among future TBS preferrers (n = 455), patients who visited a health facility first more frequently cited health system dissatisfaction and cultural beliefs as reasons for seeking TBS, while those who went directly to TBS more commonly cited quicker service and social pressure (Appendix C2). Interaction analyses between religion and geographic region are presented in the Appendix D1-3.

Fig. 3.

Fig. 3

Risk factors for future preference for traditional bonesetting. Forest plot constructed from the final parsimonious multivariable model (see Methods). Religion: the “Other” category includes 1 patient recorded as Catholic and 2 recorded as “other.” Poverty status was defined using household per capita monthly income relative to the poverty line of 913 Ethiopian birr per person per month, equivalent to US$2.15 per day using the 2022 World Bank purchasing power parity conversion factor for Ethiopia. Geographic region: Oromia includes 2 patients from nearby Gambella; Amhara includes 1 patient from nearby Benishangul-Gumuz and 1 from nearby Tigray; SNNPR; Somali includes 1 patient from nearby Dire Dawa. Mechanism of injury: the “Other” category includes bicycle accident, construction site injury, and other mechanisms. HF = health facility; prolonged stay = hospitalization at a Bone-Setting Associated Disability study center for >7 days. Primary motivation for seeking TBS: derived from patient-ranked reasons grouped into 4 domains: practical reasons (accessibility, affordability, timeliness), sociocultural reasons (cultural, superstitious, or social beliefs), fear of surgery or amputation, and dissatisfaction with formal care. The domain with the highest normalized weighted rank score was designated each patient's primary motivation; ties were broken by first-ranked reason. Estimates for subgroups with small sample sizes should be interpreted with caution given wide confidence intervals. SNNPR = Southern Nations, Nationalities and Peoples’ Region, and TBS = traditional bonesetting.

Discussion

Among 1,243 patients who patronized TBS and subsequently presented to an Ethiopian referral hospital for definitive treatment, 37% still preferred TBS for a future injury. This preference was not attenuated by prolonged hospitalization or amputation. Persistent TBS preference was most pronounced among patients living in poverty, those with an initial TBS preference, and those who had visited a hospital before TBS.

Building on our prior pediatric analysis12, this cohort's demographics and injury patterns were consistent with prior Ethiopian trauma reports21-26,45,46. Complications in 81% of patients, including malunion, stiffness, and amputation, commonly occur with delayed fracture care, and are widely reported in TBS-treated cohorts across LMICs1,2,8,12-16. TBS-related delays or treatments may necessitate amputations preventable with timely care16, and amputation is devastating in Ethiopia given limited prosthetics and rehabilitation resources47-49. While TBS-attributable morbidity cannot be established without a comparator, specific TBS practices independently increased odds of amputation and prolonged hospitalization in a prior pediatric analysis from this initiative12. Engaging TBS providers to avoid dangerous practices and facilitate timely referral may reduce preventable complications.

Practical reasons favoring TBS, including perceived accessibility, affordability, and timeliness, were reported by 55% of patients, consistent with prior reports across LMICs27,31,41,42,50-54. Sociocultural factors, including cultural attribution of injuries to supernatural causes and social influence, were associated with 40% higher odds of initial TBS preference31,36,41,53,54. Muslim patients had lower odds of initial TBS preference, consistent with evidence that religion shapes traditional medicine utilization in Ethiopia55-57. Fear of hospital-based care also influences TBS preference31,42,43,53,54. While fear of amputation and surgery drove initial TBS use in our cohort, sustaining an amputation was not associated with future TBS preference. The persistence of TBS preference despite adverse outcomes underscores the need to understand its underlying drivers.

Even after definitive tertiary hospital care, patients with prior health facility contact had twice the odds of future TBS preference compared with those who went directly to TBS. Negative first-contact experiences may underlie this association. Dissatisfaction with formal care was associated with lower odds of initial TBS preference, suggesting some patients sought TBS secondarily after an unsatisfactory healthcare encounter. Dissatisfaction was associated with nearly 5 times the odds of prior health facility contact. The association between health system dissatisfaction and TBS use has been reported in Ethiopia and across LMICs31,34-36,40-42. The initial health facility visit may represent a missed opportunity to build trust in formal care and retain patients who did not originally prefer TBS. Improving first-contact care quality and cultural responsiveness warrants prospective investigation.

Prior studies across LMICs have identified low income, rural residence, and limited education as predictors of TBS preference34,41,44. Consistent with these reports, formal education reduced the odds of initial TBS preference by 40% to 45%, and poverty increased the odds of future TBS preference by approximately 70%41,42. Despite higher reported TBS patronage among rural patients37, rural residence was associated with lower odds of future TBS preference, suggesting preferences may shift after overcoming geographic barriers to reach a tertiary hospital. Persistent TBS preference among patients in poverty may reflect entrenched structural barriers to accessing formal care. Strategies to improve orthopaedic care access for patients in poverty warrant further investigation.

TBS remains prevalent and trusted throughout Ethiopia; this cohort represents only those who subsequently sought tertiary hospital care. Educational programs guiding bonesetters toward safe management of lower-acuity injuries and referral of complex cases may reduce preventable complications10. A systematic review identified broad stakeholder support for TBS-formal healthcare integration, with training programs as the most feasible entry point58. Bonesetters have shown receptivity to formal training, with structured programs reducing complications, expanding access to care, and providing a framework for oversight9,16,38. Government registration of bonesetters with a defined scope of practice and referral requirements could reduce preventable complications while preserving accessibility9,10. A bonesetter training program has been implemented as part of the BOSAD initiative and outcomes will be reported in future.

This study had several limitations. First, injury characteristics, TBS treatment methods, and complications were assessed at study enrollment and are subject to recall bias. Second, our cohort excluded patients who patronized TBS without subsequent hospital presentation and those who did not survive hospital transfer, potentially introducing sampling bias. Third, the absence of a non–TBS-seeking comparator group limited causal attribution of complications to TBS. Future matched cohort studies to establish TBS-attributable morbidity are planned within the BOSAD initiative. Finally, the study was limited to large Ethiopian academic hospitals, which may limit generalizability to smaller remote facilities.

Despite these limitations, this multicenter study provides the largest assessment of TBS preferences among patients who patronized TBS before tertiary hospital presentation. These findings may be relevant to other resource-limited settings where TBS remains common. More than one-third of patients persistently preferred TBS for future injuries. Two distinct drivers appear to underlie this preference. Among patients with prior health facility contact, negative first-contact experiences may have eroded trust in formal care. Among patients in poverty, entrenched structural barriers may limit access to it. Further investigation into both is needed to improve orthopaedic care delivery in Ethiopia.

Funding

The AO Alliance Foundation funded this study.

Appendix

Supporting material provided by the authors is posted with the online version of this article as a data supplement at jbjs.org (https://links.lww.com/JBJSOA/B303). This content was not copyedited or verified by JBJS.

Footnotes

Investigation performed at University of Gondar Hospital, Tibebe Ghion Specialized Hospital, Jimma University Specialized Hospital, Hiwot Fana comprehensive Hospital, Jigjiga Referral Hospital, Asella Teaching and Referral Hospital, Hawassa University Coprehensive Specialized Hospital and Wachemo University Hospital, Ethiopia

Disclosure: The Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest forms are provided with the online version of the article (https://links.lww.com/JBJSOA/B302).

Contributor Information

Morgan Askew, Email: morganaskew.mil@gmail.com.

Abdoulie Njai, Email: aonggb@health.missouri.edu.

Ephrem G. Adem, Email: ephiyemulu@gmail.com.

Mario Keko, Email: mkeko@bidmc.harvard.edu.

Sintayehu Bussa, Email: ashu.bussa@gmail.com.

Yisihak Zerihun, Email: babyzerihun@gmail.com.

Mahamed Areis, Email: cadheys2020@gmail.com.

Birlew T. Alemayehu, Email: asnakechbirlew@gmail.com.

Bekalu Wubshet, Email: bekalu23@gmail.com.

Moa C. Jira, Email: moachali123@gmail.com.

Mulugeta Bekelle, Email: mubekele30@gmail.com.

Claude Martin, Jr, Email: cmartin@ao-alliance.org.

William J. Harrison, Email: aojimh@gmail.com.

Kiran J. Agarwal-Harding, Email: kiran.agarwalharding@gmail.com.

References

  • 1.Onuminya JE. The role of the traditional bonesetter in primary fracture care in Nigeria. S Afr Med J. 2004;94(8):652-8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Singh P, Singh PP, Bindra S. Traditional bone setting: origin and practice. Int J Ther Appl. 2013;11:19-23. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Nwachukwu BU, Okwesili IC, Harris MB, Katz JN. Traditional bonesetters and contemporary orthopaedic fracture care in a developing nation: historical aspects, contemporary status and future directions. Open Orthopaedics J. 2011;5(1):20-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Miclau T, Hoogervorst P, Shearer DW, El Naga AN, Working ZM, Martin C, Pesántez R, Hüttl T, Kojima KE, Schütz M. Current status of musculoskeletal trauma care systems worldwide. J Orthop Trauma. 2018;32(7):S64-70. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Yempabe T, Edusei A, Donkor P, Buunaaim A, Mock C. Factors affecting utilization of traditional bonesetters in the Northern Region of Ghana. Afr J Emerg Med. 2021;11(1):105-10. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Dada A, Giwa SO, Yinusa W, Ugbeye M, Gbadegesin S. Complications of treatment of musculoskeletal injuries by bone setters. West Afr J Med. 2009;28(1):43-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Card EB, Obayemi JE, Shirima O, Lazaro M, Massawe H, Stanifer JW, Premkumar A, Sheth NP. Practices and perspectives of traditional bone setters in Northern Tanzania. Ann Glob Health. 2020;86(1):61. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Palo N, Chandel S, Malik C, Shukla A, Choudhary GN, Mannan V. Traditional bonesetters clinics: prospective trends and work assessment on 915 bonesetters operating in parts of Uttar Pradesh and Haryana, India. J Orthop Dis Traumatol. 2023;6(2):194-9. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Onyemaechi NO, Itanyi IU, Ossai PO, Ezeanolue EE. Can traditional bonesetters become trained technicians? Feasibility study among a cohort of Nigerian traditional bonesetters. Hum Resour Health. 2020;18(1):24. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Askew MR, Hinchman C, Rayel IM, Jenkins P, Dada A, Diallo M, Mengesha MG, Konadu-Yeboah D, Ndasi HT, Onyemaechi NO, Agarwal-Harding KJ. The continued role for traditional bonesetters in East and West Africa: an expert consensus statement. East Cent Afr J Surg. 2024;28(1):4-9. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Yempabe T, Edusei A, Donkor P, Buunaaim A, Mock C. Traditional bonesetters in northern Ghana: opportunities for engagement with the formal health sector. Pan Afr Med J. 2020;37:248. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Adem EG, Morgan-Asiedu PK, Mengesha MG, Keko M, Mo C, Bussa S, Alemu E, Zerihun Y, Derilo HT, Areis M, Reda KT, Workneh WA, Shiferaw BA, Jira MC, Gula HB, Geneti MB, Martin C, Agarwal-Harding KJ, Harrison WJ. Risk factors for amputation and prolonged hospitalization among children who received traditional bonesetting in Ethiopia. J Bone Joint Surg. 2025;107(10):1050-62. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Onyemaechi NO, Menson WNA, Goodman X, Slinkard S, Onwujekwe OE, Enweani UN, Nwankwo OE, Nwomeh BC, Nwariaku FE, Ezeanolue EE. Complications of traditional bonesetting in contemporary fracture care in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review. Trop Med Int Health. 2021;26(11):1367-77. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Garikapati V, Konadu-Yeboah D, Mengesha MG, Marenah K, Harrison WJ. Systematic review of complications associated with treatment by traditional bone setters for musculoskeletal injury. Trop Doct. 2023;53(1):13-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Getu J. Factors associated with fracture and its outcome at Wolaita Sodo University Teaching and Referral Hospital. J Biol Agric Healthc. 2017;7:12-9. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Eshete M. The prevention of traditional bone setter's gangrene. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2005;87-B(1):102-3. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Omar RM, Abdulqadir SO, Ahmed SK, Rony MKK. Patient perceptions of traditional bonesetters and determinants of their utilization: a cross-sectional study in Iraqi Kurdistan. Health Sci Rep. 2026;9(3):e71935. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Gölge UH, Kaymaz B, Kömürcü E, Eroğlu M, Göksel F, Nusran G. Consultation of traditional bone setters instead of doctors: is it a sociocultural and educational or social insurance problem? Trop Doct. 2015;45(2):91-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Warman PL, Ismiarto YD, Ruhimat U. Complications of fracture treatment by traditional bonesetters in West Java, Indonesia. Althea Med J. 2018;5(1):47-52. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Hartley BW, Sinkinson CA. Assessment of the Maya's beliefs and preferences on bonesetters and bone fracture treatment in the Guatemalan Highlands: a household survey. Glob J Health Sci. 2021;13(3):89-100. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.The World Bank Database. Population, total – Ethiopia. 2025. Available at: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL?locations=ET. Accessed December 20, 2025.
  • 22.Abebe T, Boru Y, Belay E, Abebe A, Kefyalew M, Kifle F. Clinical profile and outcomes of trauma patients visiting the emergency department of a trauma center Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Afr J Emerg Med. 2022;12(4):478-83. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Gebru A, Mosadeghrad A, Sari A, Tafesse T, Kahsay W. Prevalence, pattern, magnitude and associated factors of trauma in the Emergency Department at Health Institutes in Ethiopia: a systematic review. Hum Antibodies. 2019;27(S1):1-10. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Endalamaw A, Birhanu Y, Alebel A, Demsie A, Habtewold T. The burden of road traffic injury among trauma patients in Ethiopia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Afr J Emerg Med. 2019;9(Suppl):S3-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Starr N, Ayehu M, Zhuang A, et al. Review of a large trauma registry in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Trauma Surg Acute Care Open. 2024;9(1):e001453. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Abegaz T, Gebremedhin S. Magnitude of road traffic accident related injuries and fatalities in Ethiopia. PLoS One. 2019;14(1):e0202240. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Denu Z, Yassin M, Azale T, Biks G, Gelaye K. Insufficient supply, diagnostic services, and lack of trained personnel in primary hospitals in North-West Ethiopia worsened trauma care: a mixed-method study. Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2022;17:e135. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Starr N, Carpenter S, Carvalho M, Souza A, Chin R, Kasotakis G, Worku M. Diagnosis and management of surgical disease at Ethiopian health centres: cross-sectional survey of resources and barriers to care. BMJ Open. 2019;9(10):e031525. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Derbew M, Laytin A, Dicker R. The surgical workforce shortage and successes in retaining surgical trainees in Ethiopia: a professional survey. Hum Resour Health. 2016;14(S1):29. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Merga K, Gebreegziabher S, Getachew E, Sibhatu MK, Beshir HM, Kumssa TH, Ashuro AA, Alemayue EA, Teferi M, Taye DB, Meshesha BR, Zewude WC, Shagre MB. Surgical capacity in public and private health facilities after a five-year strategic plan implementation in Ethiopia: a cross sectional study. Ann Glob Health. 2023;89(1):18. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Worku N, Tewelde T, Abdissa B, Merga H. Preference of traditional bone setting and associated factors among trauma patients with fracture at Black Lion Hospital in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. BMC Res Notes. 2019;12(1):590. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Agarwal A, Agarwal R. The practice and tradition of bonesetting. Educ Health (Abingdon). 2010;23(1):225. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Meshesha BR, Sibhatu MK, Beshir HM, Zewude WC, Taye DB, Getachew EM, Merga KH, Kumssa TH, Alemayue EA, Ashuro AA, Shagre MB, Gebreegziabher SB. Access to surgical care in Ethiopia: a cross-sectional retrospective data review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2022;22(1):973. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Onyemaechi NOC, Lasebikan OA, Elachi IC, Popoola SO, Oluwadiya KS. Patronage of traditional bonesetters in Makurdi, north-central Nigeria. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2015;9:275-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Aderibigbe SA, Agaja SR, Bamidele JO. Determinants of utilization of traditional bone setters in Ilorin, north central Nigeria. J Prev Med Hyg. 2013;54(1):35-40. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Nwokeke C, Igwillo U, Abdullahi M, et al. A review of factors influencing patronage of traditional bone setters (TBS) in Nigeria. Int J Rec Res Life Sci. 2019;6(3):39-47. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Endeshaw BA, Belay W, Gete A, Bogale KA, Wubeshet B, Azene AG, Wassie GT, Aderaw W, Teshome B, Muluneh AG, Demissie BA. Traditional bone setting service users and associated factors among people with trauma in Mecha district, Ethiopia. BMC Complement Med Ther. 2023;23(1):142. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Konadu-Yeboah D, Yempabe T, Bo-Ib Buunaaim A, et al. Training traditional bonesetters in basic principles of fracture treatment: a proof of concept in Ghana. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2023;105(24):1995-2001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Kumma WP, Kabalo BY, Woticha EW. Complications of fracture treatment by traditional bone setters in Wolaita Sodo, southern Ethiopia. J Biol Agric Healthc. 2013;3(12):95-101. [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Abang IE, Asuquo J, Ngim NE, Ikpeme I, Agweye P, Urom S, Anisi C, Mpama E. Reasons for patronage of traditional bone setters. Niger J Surg. 2016;22(2):102-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Ossai E, Ezenwosu I, Okoro K, Eze I, Agu C. Predictors of willingness to patronize traditional bone setters: a cross-sectional study among heads of households in Abakaliki Metropolis, Southeast Nigeria. Pan Afr Med J. 2024;49:106. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Ossai E, Ofojebe O, Ede D, Diala L, Ogbonnaya L. Willingness to patronize traditional bone setters among patients attending general out-patient Department of Federal Teaching Hospital Abakaliki, Nigeria. Austin Orthop. 2018;3(2):e1011. [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Ruhinda SK. Reasons for patronage of traditional bone setting as an alternative to orthodox fracture treatment. Huria J Open Univ Tanz. 2021;27(1):29-44. [Google Scholar]
  • 44.R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2021. Available at: https://www.R-project.org/ [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Biruk W, Wubshet K. Chronic osteomyelitis at Tikur Anbessa Hospital, Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia. East Cent Afr J Surg. 2007;12(1):33-41. [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Laytin AD, Seyoum N, Kassa S, Juillard CJ, Dicker RA. Patterns of injury at an Ethiopian referral hospital: using an institutional trauma registry to inform injury prevention and systems strengthening. Afr J Emerg Med. 2020;10(2):58-63. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Sume BW, Geneti SA. Determinant causes of limb amputation in Ethiopia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ethiop J Health Sci. 2023;33(5):891-902. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Chokotho L, Jacobsen KH, Burgess D, Labib M, Le G, Peter N, Lavy CB, Pandit H. A review of existing trauma and musculoskeletal impairment (TMSI) care capacity in East, Central, and Southern Africa. Injury. 2016;47(9):1990-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Kassa T, Dugo T, Suleyman J, Dellie E. Factors of lower limb prosthesis and orthosis user's satisfaction in Amhara National Regional State Rehabilitation Center, Ethiopia. Int J Phys Med Rehabil. 2023;8:7. [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Jibo AM, Muhammad AA, Muhammad S, Usman MI, Ibrahim UM, Bashir U, Tsiga Ahmed FI, Jalo RI, Ayaba AK. Prevalence and factors influencing the preference of traditional bone setting amongst patients attending orthopaedic clinics in Kano, Nigeria. Niger J Basic Clin Sci. 2021;18(2):114-21. [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Alegbeleye B. Traditional bonesetting practices in the northwest region of Cameroon. East Cent Afr J Surg. 2019;24(1):47-60. [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Kuubiere C. Patients preference for traditional bonesetters in northern Ghana. Al Ameen J Med Sci. 2015;8(2):115-8. [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Okoro N, Ojo A, Akpor O, Akpor O. Practice and patronage of traditional bonesetting in Ondo State, Nigeria. J Integr Nurs. 2022;4(3):145-50. [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Ali R, Tunio ZH, Ali SM, et al. Traditional bone setter's practice, complications; even in 21st century. J Liaquat Uni Med Health Sci. 2020;19(4):247-51. [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Birhan W, Giday M, Teklehaymanot T. The contribution of traditional healers' clinics to public health care system in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: a cross-sectional study. J Ethnobiol Ethnomedicine. 2011;7(1):39. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Chali BU, Hasho A, Koricha NB. Preference and practice of traditional medicine and associated factors in Jimma Town, Southwest Ethiopia. Evid Based Complement Altern Med. 2021;2021:1-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Hailu F, Cherie A, Gebreyohannis T, Hailu R. Determinants of traditional medicine utilization for children: a parental level study in Tole District, Oromia, Ethiopia. BMC Complement Med Ther. 2020;20(1):125. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Binnerts JJ, Hendriks TCC, Hussein S, Bempong‐Ahun N, Ibbotson GC, Harrison WJ, Martin C, Ranganathan K, Ehsan AN, Chirangi BM, Edwards MJR, Hermans E. Intersectoral collaboration between traditional bonesetters and formal healthcare: a systematic review on past initiatives and stakeholder perspectives. World J Surg. 2025;49(3):652-63. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from JBJS Open Access are provided here courtesy of Wolters Kluwer Health

RESOURCES