SHARED ANTENATAL CARE FAILS TO RATE WELL WITH WOMEN OF NON-ENGLISH-SPEAKING BACKGROUNDS

Objectives: To compare the views of women from non-English-speaking ba ckgrounds who received antenatal care at a public hospital clinic with those whose care was shared between a public hospital clinic and a ge neral practitioner. Design: Structured interviews in the language of t he woman's choice. Setting: Women were recruited from the postnatal wa rds of three maternity teaching hospitals in Melbourne between July 19 94 and November 1995, and interviewed six to nine months later. Partic ipants: Women born in Vietnam, Turkey and the Philippines who gave bir th to a live healthy baby (over 1500 g) were eligible. Of 435 women re cruited, 318 (Vietnamese [32.7%], Filipino [33.6%] and Turkish [33.6%] ) completed the study. Main outcome measures: Women's ratings of their antenatal care overall and views on specific aspects of their antenat al care. Results: Women in shared care (n=151) were not more likely th an women in public clinic care (n=143) to rate their care as ''very go od'' (odds ratio [OR], 1.38; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.72-2. 63). Satisfaction with particular aspects of care (waiting times, oppo rtunity to ask questions, whether caregivers were rushed, whether conc erns were taken seriously) did not differ significantly between those in shared care and those in public clinic care. Women in shared care w ere not happier with their medical care than women in public clinic ca re (OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.35-1.96), but were more likely to see a caregi ver who spoke their language (OR, 17.69; 95% CI, 6.15-69.06), although two-thirds still saw a GP who spoke only English. Conclusion: Shared antenatal care is not more satisfying than public clinic care for wome n from non-English-speaking backgrounds. Further evaluation of shared care is clearly needed.