Among 227 study participants, 224 responded making the response rate 98.7%. More than half of the study participants were male and 40.2% of them were more than 40 years. One hundred seven (47.8%) of the study participants were Orthodox Christians. Majority of respondents were urban residents and more than half of them were married. More than one third, 38.8%, of the study participants had completed secondary school (Table 1).
Injury and preference related factors
The study revealed that more than half of the respondents were injured due to the road traffic accident. One hundred nine (48.7%) of them were admitted to hospital for injury and from those 30.3% of them had a complication during admission (Table 2). One hundred seventy seven (79.0%) of the study participants had no associated injury other than extremity injury. Nearly one third, 30.3% of the study participants had a complication during admission and 27.3% of them had surgical site infection.
Knowledge and Perception
From the total, 213 (95.1%) heard about the TBS and 58.9% of the respondents knew that the drawbacks of TBS. Two hundred twenty (98.2%) of the study participants heard about modern orthopedic care; however, only 42.4% of the respondents were knowledgeable about TBS. About one fourth, 25.9%, of the study participants perceived that TBS is better than health facilities treatment. Out of 58% who knew drawback of TBS, 36.9% of them identified lack of proper knowledge and skill as a drawback of TBS.
Most of the study participants (96.4%) thought that TBS is cheaper and 92.9% of them thought that TBS has quick services than health facilities. More than half of the respondents, (53.6%) did not think that the nearby health facilities have enough service providers. The study showed 40.6% of them had their family member/relative encountered injury in the past and in which more than half, 61.5%, of them were managed by traditional bone setters.
Preference of injury management and associated Factors
This study showed 29.9% (95% CI: 23.7, 36.6) of them had a preference for TBS for injury management. Bivariate analysis showed; sex, residency, marital status, educational status, religion, ethnicity, average monthly income, type of injury, associated injury other than extremity injury, hospital admission for injury, TBS center first port of call after injury, knowledge, perception, fear of operation/amputation in health facility, lack of satisfaction from health facility service, time taken to reach TBS, time taken to reach modern health facility, and family/relative history of injury were significantly associated with preference of TBS among trauma patients with fracture.
Multivariable logistic regression analysis revealed those trauma patients who were not admitted in a hospital for injury were about eight times more likely to prefer TBS for injury management than those trauma patients who were admitted in a hospital for injury (AOR=8.158, 95% CI: 1.179, 56.439).
Those trauma patients who didn`t use TBS center as their first port of call after injury were 99.6% less likely to prefer TBS for injury management as compared to trauma patients who used TBS center as their first port of call after injury (AOR=0.004, 95% CI: 0.001, 0.090). Trauma patients who weren`t knowledgeable about TBS were about 9.5 times more likely to prefer TBS for injury management than those trauma patients who were knowledgeable about TBS (AOR=9.448, 95% CI: 1.481, 60.251). Trauma patients who did not perceive that TBS is better than health facility service in cure were 97.4% less likely to prefer TBS for injury management as compared to those who perceived that TBS is better than health facility service in cure (AOR=0.026, 95% CI: 0.003, 0.215) (Table 3).