Introduction: Studies on attitudes and practices are increasingly used but not specifically related to the motivations for the use of reproductive health care among women of fertile age, living in urban areas and in different social contexts. Objectives: The aim of this study was to estimate the associations between the variables of social status (degree of poverty in the studied groups) and the variables of fecundity (representations, tensions, practices and control of fertility) and, in addition, to compare access to health care in the different studied groups, assessing the association between use of maternal health care and poverty in urban areas. Design: A case-control study was conducted in the Municipality of Lisbon, Portugal, with a total sample of 1513 women of fertile age: 499 cases of women considered very poor were selected from the database of beneficiaries of RSI (Social Welfare Payment for Inclusion); 1014 controls (two controls for each selected case), divided as 507 poor women selected from the other beneficiaries of Santa Casa da Misericórdia in Lisbon and 507 non-poor women selected from four Health Centers from the Municipality of Lisbon, Portugal. A total of 1054 women answered the questionnaire: 304 cases (response rate of 61%) and 750 (response rate of 74%) controls. The statistical analysis involved descriptive analysis and multinomial logistic regression. Results: The analysis confirms the association between poverty and patterns and representations of fecun
dity regarding pregnancy planning. The results of this study thus show the existence of different distributions on several variables and the gradients of poverty. Regarding access to health care, the major impact of poverty on women is limiting access to pharmaceuticals. The incapacity to afford the cost of health care appears as a central aspect of access to health care. Conclusion: A number of factors seem to be associated with poverty in women, such as ethnicity, single motherhood, low household income, low household size, low educational level of women and marital status. The association of poverty with not planning the pregnancy of the last child on one hand and large household size on the other hand points to a vicious circle that sustains poverty and leads to extreme poverty. Limited financial access to health care seems to mediate the association between women’s poverty and low coverage with family planning as well as the lack of access to safe termination of pregnancy.
 Wilkinson, G.R. (1997) Socioeconomic determinants of health: Health inequalities: Relative or absolute material standards? BMJ, 314, 591-595.
 Braveman, P. (2007) We also need bold experiments: A response to Starfield’s “Commentary: Pathways of influence on equity in health”. Social Science and Medicine, 64, 1363-1366.
 Whitehead, M. and Dahlgren, G. (2007) Concepts and principles for tackling social inequities in health: Leveling up part 1. Studies on social and economic determinants of population health, No 2. WHO Regional Office for Europe, Copenhagen.
 Santana, P. (2002) Poverty, social exclusion and health in Portugal. Social Science and Medicine, 55, 33-45.
 Gwatkin, D. R., Bhuiya, A. and Victora, C.G. (2004) Making health systems more equitable. The Lancet, 364, 1272-1280.
 Hart, J.T. (1971) The inverse care law. The Lancet, 1, 405-412.
 Sunil, T.S., Spears, D.W., Hook, L., Castillo, J. and Torres, C. (2008) Initiation of and barriers to prenatal care use among low-income women in San Antonio, Texas. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 14, 133-140.
 Delgado-Rodriguez, M., et al. (1997) Unplanned pregnancy as a major determinant in inadequate use of prenatal care. Preventive Medicine, 26, 834-838.
 Erbaydar, T. (2003) Utilization of prenatal care in poorer and wealthier urban neighborhoods in Turkey. European Journal of Public Health, 13, 320-326.
 Delvaux, T., Buekens, P., Godin, I.E. and Boutsen, M. (2001) Barriers to prenatal care in Europe. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 21, 52-59.
 Mendonca, D. and Calado, B.P. (2002) Situacao da saúde reprodutiva em Portugal. In: Craveiro, I. and Ferrinho, P., Eds., Saúde reprodutiva no países e territórios de língua Portuguesa. Associacao para o Desenvolvimento e Cooperacao Garcia de Orta (AGO), Lisboa.
 Hosmer, D. and Lemeshow, S. (2000) Applied logistic regression. 2nd Edition, Wiley Series of Probability and Statistics, Wiley-Interscience Publication, New York.
 Comission of the European Communities (2008) Nondiscrimination and equal opportunities: A renewed commitment-COM 420, Commission staff working document Community, Instruments and Policies for Roma Inclusion, Brussels.
 Lerman, R.I. (1996) The impact of US family structure on child poverty and income inequality. Economica, 63, S119-S139. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2554812
 Lerman, R.I. (2002) Impacts of marital status and parental presence on the material hardship of families with children. Urban Institute and American University.
 Eggleston, E., et al. (2001) Unintended pregnancy and low birthweight in Ecuador. American Journal of Public Health, 91, 808-810.
 Whitehead, M., Dahlgren, G. and Evans, T. (2001) Equity and health sector reforms: Can low income countries escape the medical poverty trap? Lancet, 358, 833-836.
 Limwattananon, S., Tangcharoensathien, V. and Prakongsai, P. (2007) Catastrophic and poverty impacts of health payments: results from national household surveys in Thailand. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 85, 600-606. http://dx.doi.org/10.2471/BLT.06.033720
 Wagstaff, A. and Waters, H. (2005) How were the reaching the poor studies done? In: Gwatkin, D., Wagstaff, A. and Yazbeck, A., Eds., Reaching the poor—With health, nutrition and population services, what works, what doesn’t, and why. The World Bank, Washington DC.
 Gwatkin, D.R. (2003) How well do health programmes reach the poor. The Lancet, 361, 540-541.