Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Family Medicine pp 84–92Cite as

Normal Pregnancy, Labor, and Delivery

  • Chapter

  • 48 Accesses

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

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   74.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Odent M. Birth reborn. New York: Pantheon, 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Wertz RW, Wertz DC. Lying-in: a history of childbirth in America. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Gortmaker SL. The effects of prenatal care on the health of the newborn. Am J Publ Health 1979;69:653–60.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Dick-Read G. Childbirth without fear. 2nd ed. New York: Harper & Row, 1959.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Karmel M. Thank you, Dr. Lamaze. Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1959.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Kitzinger S. The experience of childbirth. New York: Pelican, 1967.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Freeman R. Intrapartum fetal monitoring—a disappointing story. N Engl J Med 1990;322:624–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Banta HD, Thacker SB. The case for reassessment of health care technology JAMA 1990;264:235–40.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. International Childbirth Education Association. Definition of family-centered maternity care. Int J Childbirth Educ 1987;2(1):4.

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Willett WC. Folic acid and neural tube defect: can’t we come to closure? Am J Public Health 1992;82:666–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Expert panel on the content of prenatal care: The content of prenatal care. Washington, DC: US Public Health Service, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Midmer OK. Does family-centered maternity care empower women? The development of woman-centered childbirth model. Fam Med 1992;24:216–21.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Nichols FH, Humenick SS. Childbirth education: practice, research and theory. Philadelphia: Saunders, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Scott JR, Rose NB. Effect of psychoprophylaxis (Lamaze preparation) on labor and delivery in primiparas. N Engl J Med 1976;294:1205–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. US Preventive Services Task Force. Guide to clinical preventive services. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 1989:289–95.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Volpe JJ. Effect of cocaine use on the fetus. N Engl J Med 1992;327:399–404.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Williamson HA, LeFevre M, Hector M. Association between life stress and serious perinatal complications. J Fam Pract 1989;29:489–96.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Cunningham FG, Gilstrap LC. Maternal serum alpha-feto-protein screening. N Engl J Med 1991;325:55–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists: Ultrasonography in pregnancy. Washington, DC: ACOG, 1993. ACOG Technical Bulletin No. 187.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Bucher H, Schmidt JG. Does routine ultrasound scanning improve outcome in pregnancy? Meta-analysis of various outcome measures. BMJ 1993;307:13–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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. American Board of Family Practice. Normal pregnancy: reference guide 17. Lexington, KY: American Board of Family Practice, 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Norman LA, Karp LE. Biophysical profile for antepartum fetal assessment. Am Fam Physician 1986;34(4):83–9.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Antepartum Fetal Surveillance. Washington, DC: ACOG, 1994. ACOG Technical Bulletin No. 188.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Friedman EA. Disordered labor: objective evaluation and management. J Fam Pract 1975;2:167–72.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. McKay S, Mahan CS. Laboring patients need more freedom to move. Contemp Obstet Gynecol 1984;24(1):90–119.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Neilson JP. Electronic fetal heart rate monitoring during labor: information from randomized trials. Birth 1994;21(2):101–4.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Olsen R, Olsen C, Cox NS. Maternal birthing positions and perineal injury. J Fam Pract 1990;30:553–7.

    Google Scholar 

  36. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Intrapartum fetal heart rate monitoring. Washington, DC: ACOG 1995. ACOG Technical Bulletin No. 207.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Kennell J, Klaus M, McGrath S, et al. Continuous emotional support during labor in a U.S. hospital. JAMA 1991;265: 2197–201.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Ramin SM, Grambling DR, Lucas MJ, et al. Randomized trial of epidural versus intravenous analgesia during labor. Obstet Gynecol 1995;86:783–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Johnson S, Rosenfeld JA. The effect of epidural anesthesia on the length of labor. J Fam Pract 1995;40:244–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Viscome C, Eisenach JC. Patient-controlled epidural analgesia during labor. Obstet Gynecol 1991;77:348–51.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Joseph E. Scherger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Margaret V. Elizondo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Family Medicine, Oregon Health Sciences University, Portland, OR, 97201, USA

    Robert B. Taylor M.D. (Professor and Chairman) (Professor and Chairman)

  2. Department of Family Medicine, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, OH, 45267, USA

    Alan K. David M.D. (The Fred Lazarus, Jr., Professor and Director) (The Fred Lazarus, Jr., Professor and Director)

  3. Department of Family Medicine, St. John’s Mercy Medical Center, St. Louis, MO, 63141, USA

    Thomas A. Johnson Jr. M.D. (Chairman) (Chairman)

  4. Department of Family Medicine, University of Mississippi School of Medicine, Jackson, MS, 39216, USA

    D. Melessa Phillips M.D. (Professor and Chairman) (Professor and Chairman)

  5. Department of Family Medicine, University of California—Irvine College of Medicine, Orange, CA, 92697, USA

    Joseph E. Scherger M.D., M.P.H. (Associate Dean for Primary Care and Chair) (Associate Dean for Primary Care and Chair)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1998 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Scherger, J.E., Elizondo, M.V. (1998). Normal Pregnancy, Labor, and Delivery. In: Taylor, R.B., David, A.K., Johnson, T.A., Phillips, D.M., Scherger, J.E. (eds) Family Medicine. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-2947-4_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-2947-4_11

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4757-2949-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4757-2947-4

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation