Study groupa Reference 0 1–5 Reference 0 1–5 Reference 0 1–5 Reference 0 1–5 Reference 0 1–5 Reference 0 1–5 Reference Outcome SGA Preterm delivery (< 37 weeks) Low birth weight (< 2500 g) Admission to NICU Low Apgar score (< 7) 1 min Low Apgar score (< 7) 5 min Foetal venous pH < 7.15 at birth 0 1–5 Caesarean section Reference 0 1–5 Fetal death Reference 0 1–5 Neonatal death Reference 0 1–5 % 9.29 8.15 9.66 6.51 25.22 39.58 4.73 21.85 33.01 7.76 9.26 8.70 4.83 18.89 25.60 1.82 11.11 14.98 1.22 3.70 1.93 16.22 23.33 21.26 0.26 2.59 4.83 0.25 2.59 2.42 0.87 1.04 4.84 8.51 5.63 9.86 1.21 1.13 4.59 6.78 6.74 9.50 3.12 1.60 1.57 1.39 5.76 12.86 10.41 9.68 0.56–1.34 0.66–1.66 3.57–6.57 6.39–11.35 4.19–7.57 7.33–13.26 0.80–1.83 0.70–1.84 3.36–6.26 4.93–9.31 4.56–9.98 6.41–14.09 1.64–5.93 0.59–4.33 1.18–2.09 1.0–1.95 2.50–13.27 6.59–25.07 4.71–23.01 3.85–24.38 0.97 0.97 4.60 8.58 5.46 9.18 1.18 1.14 4.52 6.90 5.98 9.70 1.13 3.71 1.68 1.50 5.19 12.05 8.66 10.03 0.62–1.52 0.60–1.55 3.35–6.31 6.32–11.64 3.90–7.65 6.65–12.68 0.75–1.86 0.69–1.86 3.20–6.38 4.94–9.64 3.80–9.40 3.40–14.71 0.28–4.62 1.48–9.28 1.23–2.29 1.06–2.12 2.04–13.22 5.95–24.4 3.59–20.86 3.85–26.13 BMC Public Health 2007, 7:268 http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/7/268 Table 2: Ocurrences of pregnancy outcomes (%) in the study groups and relative risks (OR) compared with the reference group Unadjusted OR 95% CI Adjusted OR* 95% CI Adjusted for: Age under 18 y, Age over 35 y, unmarried status, smoking during pregnancy, using alcohol during pregnancy, educational level, primiparity, multiparity, prolonged gravidity, chronic illness and diabetes SGA = small for gestational age; NICU = neonatal intensive care unit lished (Table 3). Overall, the present study showed simi- lar outcomes as in earlier studies, although the magnitude of risk appears to vary substantially in different settings depending on the antenatal care system and degree of low attendance. Comparison with the results of prior studies also suggests that the magnitude of the risk may be diluted in settings with a high frequency of women receiving inadequate antenatal care. Accordingly, definitions used for inadequate antenatal care vary from late attendance to a reduced total number of visits. Although the risk profile of women in the present study resembles that published earlier [8,9,16-20], socio-demographic and health behav- ioral risk factors appeared to play a less significant role in our country than elsewhere, probably because the care is offered free of charge and is readily and easily accessible to all women. Interestingly, a substantial proportion (52.5%) of non-attenders and under-attenders were of high or average educational level in the present study. Surprisingly, factors that have been reported to lead to higher concern and motivation to attend antenatal care were not under-presented in women not attending ante- natal care: specifically, history of infertility treatment, mis- carriage or fetal demise [7]. Furthermore, we found no differences between study groups in a number of the known risk factors associated with adverse health behav- ior and the lack of health consciousness during preg- nancy, specifically unemployment [21], prior pregnancy terminations [22] and an overweight condition [23]. Accordingly, ethnicity of the mother, the nature of the antenatal care provider, health insurance and difficulties in accessibility of antenatal care, which have also been Page 5 of 8 (page number not for citation purposes)