Title: A profile of patients presenting with spinal pain at Mahalapye and Shoshong World Spine Care clinics in Botswana Background: Spinal pain such as low back and neck pain, are common and can cause severe long term pain which results in a major burden on individuals and health care systems (Woolf and Pfledger, 2003; Hondras et al., 2015a). Low-income countries often have few resources for adequately addressing musculoskeletal (MSK) pain (Louw et al., 2007). Thus, World Spine Care (WSC), a non-governmental organization, opened two clinics in Botswana to help improve spinal health care by providing access to MSK specialists (Haldeman et al., 2015). These clinics have been functional since 2012, and to date the profile of patients attending these clinics has not been investigated. Studies on patients attending chiropractic clinics have been carried out internationally (Hartvigsen et al., 2002; Giles et al., 2002; Coulter and Shekelle, 2005; Holt and Beck, 2005; Mootz et al., 2005; Sorensen et al., 2006; Garner et al., 2007; Stevens, 2007; Rubinstein et al., 2008; Martinez et al., 2009; Ailliet et al., 2010; Lischyna and Mior, 2012) and locally (Benjamin, 2007; Jaman, 2007; Mohamed, 2007; Venketsamy, 2007; Higgs, 2009; McDonald, 2012; Hitge, 2014), and yet very little information exists on the patients presenting to clinics in the public sector of Botswana. Demographic and disease profiles of patients vary by clinical setting, from country to country, and within regions of the same country (Hoy et al., 2010a). Thus, this study aimed to determine the demographic and disease profile of spinal pain patients attending the WSC clinics in Mahalapye and Shoshong in Botswana. Method: A retrospective, descriptive study design was used to extract data from the WSC patient files at the Mahalapye and Shoshong WSC clinics from 1 November 2012 to 31 March 2016. The research proposal was approved by the Institutional Research Ethics Committee (IREC); REC 53/16 (Appendix A), WSC (Appendix B) and Botswana MoH (Appendix C). Patient files included had provided consent for their files to be used for research purposes (Appendix F). Data recorded included demographic characteristics, factors related to spinal pain, the presenting complaint and the presence of co-morbid conditions. The data was analysed using Statistical Package for the Social Science (SPSS) version 24.0. Descriptive statistics in the form of graphs and cross tabulations were used to describe the demographic and disease profile of the spinal pain patients. Inferential statistics like chi-square, Fischer’s exact test for categorical variables and Independent student’s t tests for numerical variables were used to determine differences between the two clinics. A p-value of less than 0.05 was used to indicate statistical significance (Singh, 2016). Results: The sample size was 65% (n=714). There was a female preponderance (75.2%, n=537), a mean age of 50.6 years (±SD 16.13). Most patients were married (38%) and the most common occupations were either farmers (18.2%, n=129) or unemployed (16.3%, n=115). The majority of patients suffered from chronic (88%), idiopathic (59.5%), low back pain (69.9%), followed by upper/mid back (19.1%), with the least visits occurring for neck pain (8%). The most frequent diagnosis was joint dysfunction with associated soft tissue disorders. The patients reported mild disability with moderate pain intensity and most patients had not experienced previous spinal pain (60%). The patients did not report a secondary area of MSK pain (28.6%) and 73.9% of patients presented with at least one comorbid condition. Patients attending the rural clinic were older on average (52.7 years, ±SD 16.92) than those at the urban clinic (48.9 years, ±15.29) (p = 0.002). There were more women attending the urban clinic when compared to the rural clinic (p = 0.009), with those attending the rural clinic most often reporting a primary school level of education in contrast to those in the urban clinic having most likely obtained a more than secondary school education (p < 0.001). More patients in the urban clinic had “other mechanical” e.g. joint dysfunction as an aetiology for their spinal pain when compared to the rural clinic (p = 0.039). In terms of pain duration, the rural clinic patients were more likely to present with acute and subacute pain than at the urban clinic (p = 0.001). The rural clinic patients also reported more previous episodes of spinal pain in contrast to those from the urban clinic (p <0.001). Conclusion: The spinal pain patients attending the WSC clinics had many similarities to spinal pain patients internationally and in SA, however unique differences were found specifically when the urban and rural clinic patients were compared. The findings of this study can assist WSC to provide more targeted healthcare at each clinic and within this region.
