Receiving antenatal care at least once is one of the most basic signs that a pregnant woman has connected with the health system during pregnancy. The WHO indicator used here measures the percentage of women ages 15–49 with a recent live birth who were attended at least once during pregnancy by skilled health personnel for pregnancy-related reasons. The dataset contains 111 latest country and area observations. Their unweighted median is 96.1% and their simple country-level mean is 91.5%.
The distribution is concentrated near the upper end. Seventy-six of the 111 observations are at least 90%, 63 are at least 95%, and 15 are at least 99%. Thirteen are below 80% and only three are below 60%. That pattern suggests that at least one contact with skilled antenatal care is widespread across much of the reported sample, while a smaller group of countries still shows major gaps even at this minimum access threshold.
The indicator should not be read as the percentage of women who received adequate antenatal care. One visit does not show whether care began early in pregnancy, whether later contacts were completed, whether recommended tests and counselling were delivered, or whether complications were detected and followed up. WHO currently recommends a minimum of eight antenatal care contacts during pregnancy, so the one-visit indicator is best understood as an entry-point access measure rather than a complete measure of care.
Table of Contents
What “at least one antenatal care visit” actually measures
According to the WHO indicator definition, the denominator is women ages 15–49 with a live birth during the relevant reference period. The numerator is the subset who were attended at least once during pregnancy by skilled health personnel for reasons related to the pregnancy. Skilled personnel can include doctors, nurses, midwives, and other medically trained personnel as defined within the country context.
This is more specific than asking whether someone entered a health facility for any reason. The contact must relate to the pregnancy and involve skilled personnel. At the same time, the threshold is intentionally minimal: one contact is enough to count. That makes the indicator useful for identifying basic access gaps, but it is insufficient for judging the continuity, timing, content, or quality of antenatal care.
A high value therefore indicates that the route into skilled antenatal care is broadly used among women represented by the source data. It does not establish that most women completed the recommended schedule, started in the first trimester, received the same package of laboratory tests and preventive interventions, or had comparable continuity of care. Those questions require separate indicators.
The 111 latest observations span 2014 to 2023
The single most important limitation for cross-country ranking is time. The source record carries 2023 as a reference year, but the 111 retained country observations are not all from 2023. Their latest available years range from 2014 through 2023, and only Afghanistan, Mozambique, and Yemen are dated 2023. Treating all 111 rows as a 2023 world ranking would therefore misstate the data.
There are 23 observations from 2014–2016, 45 from 2017–2019, 28 from 2020–2021, and 15 from 2022–2023. More than half of the sample is dated 2019 or earlier. For a decision about current service access in a specific country, the latest national survey or administrative source should be checked when newer evidence exists.
The reference-year map also shows why two countries with similar percentages may not be directly comparable as current conditions. Brazil’s retained observation is 97.2% from 2015, China’s is 99.2% from 2018, India’s is 85.1% from 2021, and Bangladesh’s is 87.6% from 2022. In a mixed-year dataset, the age of the observation can matter more than a difference of one or two percentage points.
Most latest observations are in the high-coverage bands
Across all 111 mixed-year latest observations, the median is 96.1% and the unweighted mean is 91.5%. The largest band is 95% to below 99%, containing 48 observations. Fifteen are between 99% and 100%. At the other end, three are below 60% and ten are between 60% and 80%. The lower tail pulls the mean below the median even though a large share of the sample sits near universal first-contact coverage.
If the sample is restricted to observations from 2020 onward, 43 countries and areas remain. Their median is 95.2% and their simple mean is 91.7%. These numbers are useful as a recency check, but they still combine 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023. A stricter same-year comparison would leave too few observations to describe the global pattern responsibly.
Low latest observations need to be read together with their year
The lowest retained latest observation is Somalia at 31.1% in 2019, followed by the Central African Republic at 51.8% in 2019 and Chad at 54.7% in 2015. Yemen is 69.5% in 2023, Nigeria 69.6% in 2021, Romania 72.3% in 2020, Ethiopia 73.6% in 2019, Papua New Guinea 76.1% in 2018, and Afghanistan 76.4% in 2023.
| Country or area | Latest year | At least one ANC visit |
|---|---|---|
| Somalia | 2019 | 31.1% |
| Central African Republic | 2019 | 51.8% |
| Chad | 2015 | 54.7% |
| Yemen | 2023 | 69.5% |
| Nigeria | 2021 | 69.6% |
| Romania | 2020 | 72.3% |
| Ethiopia | 2019 | 73.6% |
| Papua New Guinea | 2018 | 76.1% |
| Afghanistan | 2023 | 76.4% |
| Benin | 2022 | 78.1% |
This table should not be presented as a definitive ranking of present-day antenatal-care access. Yemen and Afghanistan use 2023 observations, while Chad uses 2015 and Papua New Guinea 2018. Services may have expanded, stalled, or deteriorated since an older survey. The value is still the latest retained WHO observation in this extract, but its date limits what can be claimed about the present.
The indicator also does not identify the reason a country has a low value. Travel distance, health-worker availability, cost, conflict, transport, education, social conditions, and survey design can all matter, but none of those causal variables is contained in this percentage series. The map can locate gaps that deserve further research; it cannot establish a cause by itself.
Large countries illustrate why percentage and year must be read together
| Country | Reference year | At least one ANC visit |
|---|---|---|
| China | 2018 | 99.2% |
| Mexico | 2015 | 98.5% |
| Kenya | 2022 | 97.9% |
| Ghana | 2022 | 97.8% |
| Indonesia | 2017 | 97.5% |
| Brazil | 2015 | 97.2% |
| Viet Nam | 2021 | 97.0% |
| Uganda | 2018 | 95.1% |
| Nepal | 2022 | 94.3% |
| Pakistan | 2019 | 91.2% |
| Tanzania | 2022 | 89.7% |
| Bangladesh | 2022 | 87.6% |
| Mozambique | 2023 | 87.0% |
| Philippines | 2022 | 85.9% |
| India | 2021 | 85.1% |
The table deliberately includes the year next to every percentage. China and Brazil have older retained observations, while Kenya, Ghana, Nepal, Tanzania, Bangladesh, and the Philippines use 2022 values. A country with a higher percentage from 2015 should not automatically be described as performing better today than a country with a slightly lower percentage from 2022.
The 91.5% unweighted mean is not a population-weighted global rate. Each country or area counts once, regardless of the number of births or women represented. Calculating a global share of pregnant women receiving care would require compatible country-level denominators and a consistent weighting method. The simple mean here is used only to summarize the distribution of the 111 retained country observations.
One visit is not the same as WHO’s eight-contact antenatal-care model
WHO’s healthy pregnancy guidance and antenatal care recommendations call for a minimum of eight contacts during pregnancy. The model places the first contact within the first 12 weeks, followed by contacts around 20, 26, 30, 34, 36, 38, and 40 weeks. The at-least-one-visit indicator does not measure completion of that schedule.
A country can therefore report 99% for at least one antenatal contact while having a much lower share of women who complete eight contacts, start early, or receive every recommended service. Conversely, a very low one-visit value signals a fundamental access problem before more demanding quality and continuity measures are even considered.
WHO also uses the word “contact” deliberately. The goal is not simply attendance at a building but an active connection with a provider that includes assessment, prevention, counselling, information, and support. That distinction matters because a count of visits cannot by itself establish that the content and experience of care were adequate.
Why many latest observations are several years old
Antenatal-care coverage is often measured through nationally representative household surveys such as DHS, MICS, and related reproductive-health surveys, as well as other national data systems. These large surveys are not conducted in every country every year. Fieldwork, sampling, publication schedules, and national survey cycles differ, so international databases naturally contain a patchwork of latest observation years.
WHO metadata also notes that survey-based estimates can refer to births occurring during the two, three, or five years preceding the survey, depending on the survey design. The year attached to the observation is therefore not necessarily a literal calendar-year count of every pregnancy that occurred in that year. The survey reference period should be considered when making detailed country claims.
For that reason, broad gaps such as 50% versus 95% are generally more informative than tiny differences such as 96.8% versus 97.2% in a mixed-year table. The latest-value map is useful for locating reported access gaps, while the reference-year map shows how much caution is needed before treating those values as a current cross-country ranking.
Data source and calculation method
The statistical source is the WHO Global Health Observatory indicator ANC_ATLEAST1VISIT_PERCENT. The WHO Indicator Metadata Registry documents the definition, numerator, denominator, and survey-based methodology. Country observations are available from the WHO GHO OData API. This analysis retains one latest non-missing observation for each of 111 countries and areas.
Missing observations are not converted to zero, and older observations are not relabeled as 2023. The median, unweighted mean, threshold counts, distribution bands, and tables are calculated directly from the 111 retained values. The 43 observations dated 2020 or later are used only as a recency check rather than a substitute for a single-year global comparison.
No causal explanation is inferred from the percentage alone. The purpose is to make the indicator readable: what it measures, where lower first-contact coverage is reported, how concentrated the distribution is near high coverage, and why the observation year must be read alongside the percentage. More detailed assessment of maternal-health systems requires additional indicators on timing, number of contacts, service content, quality, skilled attendance at birth, and maternal outcomes.
Frequently Asked Questions
What does antenatal care coverage at least one visit measure?
It is the share of women ages 15–49 with a recent live birth who received pregnancy-related antenatal care at least once from skilled health personnel.
Does one antenatal visit mean adequate antenatal care?
No. WHO currently recommends a minimum of eight antenatal care contacts. The one-visit indicator measures basic access, not the number, timing, content, or quality of care.
Are all 111 observations from 2023?
No. The latest retained observations span 2014–2023, and only three are dated 2023. Percentages should be interpreted together with their reference year.
Is the 91.5% unweighted mean a global population-weighted ANC rate?
No. It is a simple mean across 111 country and area observations with equal country weight. A global rate weighted by births or women would require compatible denominators and a different calculation.
Related Articles
These published Green Map insights provide survey and basic-service context that can help frame maternal and household health-access indicators.
- Tanzania 2022 TDHS-MIS Guide
- Rural Basic Drinking Water Access – Latest Country Observations
- Clean Cooking Access – 2023 Country Comparison
Green Map creates custom-edited map images using open geographic data sources such as geoBoundaries, Natural Earth, OpenStreetMap, and government open data.
These maps are edited visual materials, not raw data files, and are provided for education, documents, presentations, and graphic reference.
