Normal Pregnancy, Labor, and Delivery

  • Joseph E. Scherger


Pregnancy and birth are normal physiologic processes for most women. The current cesarean delivery rate of 25% in the United States is a reflection of a higher than expected rate of medical intervention in the birth process. Unfortunately, modern medicine has been guilty of using a disease model for the management of pregnancy and birth, resulting in higher than expected rates of complications. At least 90% of women should have a normal birth outcome without medical intervention.1


Human Immunodeficiency Virus Prenatal Care Family Physician Epidural Anesthesia Normal Pregnancy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Odent M. Birth reborn. New York: Pantheon Books, 1984.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wertz RW, Wertz DC. Lying-in: a history of childbirth in America. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gortmaker SL. The effects of prenatal care on the health of the newborn. Am J Public Health 1979;69:653–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dick-Read G. Childbirth without fear. 2nd ed. New York: Harper & Row, 1959.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Karmel M. Thank you, Dr. Lamaze. Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1959.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kitzinger S. The experience of childbirth. New York: Pelican Books, 1967.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Freeman R. Intrapartum fetal monitoring—a disappointing story. N Engl J Med 1990;322:624–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Banta HD, Thacker SB. The case for reassessment of health care technology. JAMA 1990;264:235–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rosenblatt RA. The future of obstetrics in family practice: time for a new direction. J Fam Pract 1988;26:127–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    International Childbirth Education Association. Definition of family-centered maternity care. Int J Childbirth Educ 1987;2(1): 4.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Scherger JE, Levitt C, Acheson LS, et al. Teaching family centered perinatal care in family medicine. Parts 1 and 2. Fam Med 1992;24: 288–98, 368–74.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Willett WC. Folic acid and neural tube defect: can’t we come to closure? Am J Public Health 1992;82:666–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Expert Panel on the Content of Prenatal Care. The content of prenatal care. Washington, DC: U.S. Public Health Service, 1989.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Midmer OK. Does family-centered maternity care empower women? The development of woman-centered childbirth model. Fam Med 1992;24:216–21.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nichols FH, Humenick SS. Childbirth education: practice, research and theory. Philadelphia: Saunders, 1988.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Scott JR, Rose NB. Effect of psychoprophylaxis (Lamaze preparation) on labor and delivery in primiparas. N Engl J Med 1976;294:1205–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Guide to clinical preventive services. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 1989:289–95.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Frank DA, Zuckerman BS, Amaro H, et al. Cocaine use during pregnancy: prevalence and correlates. Pediatrics 1988;82:888–95.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ramsey CN, Abell TD, Baker LC. The relationship between family functioning, life events, family structure, and the outcome of pregnancy. J Fam Pract 1986;22:521–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Williamson HA, LeFevre M, Hector M. Association between life stress and serious perinatal complications. J Fam Pract 1989;29:489–96.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sacks DA, Abu-Fadil S, Greenspoon JS, et al. How reliable is the fifty-gram, one-hour glucose screening test? Am J Obstet Gynecol 1989;161:642–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Campbell TL. Maternal serum alpha-fetoprotein screening: benefits, risks, and costs. J Fam Pract 1987;25:461–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institute of Health. Diagnostic ultrasound imaging in pregnancy. NIH publication no. 84–667. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1984.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Ultrasound in pregnancy. ACOG technical bulletin no. 116. Washington, DC: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 1988.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Beifrage P, Fernstrom I, Hallenberg G. Routine or selective ultrasound examinations in early pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 1987;69: 747–50.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Youngblood JP. An affirmative view. Ewigman BG. An opposing view. Should ultrasound be used routinely during pregnancy? J Fam Pract 1989; 29:657–64.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hueston WJ. Preventing group B streptococcal infection in newborns. Am Fam Physician 1991;43:487–92.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Alexander S, Keirse JNC. Formal risk scoring during pregnancy. In: Chalmers I, Enkins M, Kierse JNC, editors. Effective care in pregnancy and childbirth. New York: Oxford University Press, 1989:345–64.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    American Board of Family Practice. Normal pregnancy. Reference guide 17. Lexington, KY: American Board of Family Practice, 1983.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Norman LA, Karp LE. Biophysical profile for antepartum fetal assessment. Am Fam Physician 1986;34(4):83–89.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Antepartum fetal surveillance. ACOG technical bulletin no. 107. Washington, DC: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 1987.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Friedman EA. Disordered labor: objective evaluation and management. J Fam Pract 1975;2:167–72.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    McKay S, Mahan CS. Laboring patients need more freedom to move. Con-temp Ob-Gyn 1984;24(1):90–119.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Leveno KJ, Cunningham FG, Nelson S, et al. A prospective comparison of selective and universal electronic fetal monitoring in 34,995 pregnancies. N Engl J Med 1986;315:615–19.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Olsen R, Olsen C, Cox NS. Maternal birthing positions and perineal injury. J Fam Pract 1990;30:553–7.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Intrapartum fetal heart rate monitoring. ACOG technical bulletin no. 132. Washington, DC: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 1989.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kennell J, Klaus M, McGrath S, et al. Continuous emotional support during laborinaU.S. hospital. JAMA 1991;265:2197–201.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Thorp JA, McNitt JO, Leppont PC. Effects of epidural analgesia: some questions and answers. Birth 1990;17:157–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Niehaus LS, Chaska BW, Nesse RE. The effects of epidural anesthesia on type of delivery. J Am Board Fam Pract 1988;1:238–44.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Viscome C, Eisenach JC. Patient-controlled epidural analgesia during labor. Obstet Gynecol 1991;77:348–51.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joseph E. Scherger

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations