Normal Pregnancy, Labor, and Delivery

  • Joseph E. Scherger
  • Margaret V. Elizondo

Abstract

Pregnancy and birth are normal physiologic processes for most women. The current cesarean delivery rate of nearly 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

Keywords

Down Syndrome 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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Odent M. Birth reborn. New York: Pantheon, 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 Publ Health 1979;69:653–60.CrossRefGoogle 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, 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.
    Larimore WL, Reynolds JL. Family practice maternity care in America: ruminations on reproducing an endangered species—family physicians who deliver babies. J Am Board Fam Pract 1994;7:478–88.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: US 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.
    US Preventive Services Task Force. Guide to clinical preventive services. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 1989:289–95.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Volpe JJ. Effect of cocaine use on the fetus. N Engl J Med 1992;327:399–404.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gjerdingen DK, Froberg DG, Fontaine P. The effects of social support on women’s health during pregnancy, labor and delivery, and the postpartum period. Fam Med 1991; 23:370–5.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.
    Rouse DJ, Goldenberg RL, Cliver SP, et al. Strategies for the prevention of early-onset neonatal group B streptococcal sepsis: a decision analysis. Obstet Gynecol 1994;83:483–94.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    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
  23. 23.
    Cunningham FG, Gilstrap LC. Maternal serum alpha-feto-protein screening. N Engl J Med 1991;325:55–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health: Diagnostic ultrasound imaging in pregnancy. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1984. NIH Publ No. 84–667.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists: Ultrasonography in pregnancy. Washington, DC: ACOG, 1993. ACOG Technical Bulletin No. 187.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bucher H, Schmidt JG. Does routine ultrasound scanning improve outcome in pregnancy? Meta-analysis of various outcome measures. BMJ 1993;307:13–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ewigman BG, Crane JP, Frigoletto FD, et al. Effect of prenatal ultrasound screening on perinatal outcome. N Engl J Med 1993;329:821–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Alexander S, Keirse JNC. Formal risk scoring during pregnancy. In: Chalmers I, Enkins M, Keirse 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):83–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Antepartum Fetal Surveillance. Washington, DC: ACOG, 1994. ACOG Technical Bulletin No. 188.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. Contemp Obstet Gynecol 1984;24(1):90–119.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Neilson JP. Electronic fetal heart rate monitoring during labor: information from randomized trials. Birth 1994;21(2):101–4.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. Washington, DC: ACOG 1995. ACOG Technical Bulletin No. 207.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kennell J, Klaus M, McGrath S, et al. Continuous emotional support during labor in a U.S. hospital. JAMA 1991;265: 2197–201.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ramin SM, Grambling DR, Lucas MJ, et al. Randomized trial of epidural versus intravenous analgesia during labor. Obstet Gynecol 1995;86:783–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Johnson S, Rosenfeld JA. The effect of epidural anesthesia on the length of labor. J Fam Pract 1995;40:244–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle 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 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joseph E. Scherger
  • Margaret V. Elizondo

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations