简介：【摘要】目的 针对全程陪伴分娩护理模式应用于妊娠期产妇中的临床疗效进行探究。方法 研究资料为我院于2018年9月至2020年9月期间收治的待产孕妇300例；给予统一编号后按照电脑随机分配的方式分为两组，将给予普通护理模式的150例孕妇作为常规组，给予全程陪伴分娩护理模式的150例孕妇作为实验组，对比两组妊娠期产妇的自然分娩率、产程时间以及新生儿Apgar评分情况。 结果 实验组中自然分娩率为86.67%（130/150），常规组中自然分娩率为73.33%（110/150）；且实验组的产程时间相比常规组较短，新生儿Apgar评分较高，P＜0.05。 结论 全程陪伴分娩护理模式的应用对于妊娠期产妇的自然分娩率、产程时间以及新生儿Apgar评分情况均具有显著的改善作用，可给予临床应用、采纳。 【关键词】妊娠期产妇；全程陪伴分娩护理模式；自然分娩率；产程时间；新生儿Apgar评分 [Abstract] Objective To explore the clinical effect of whole process accompany delivery nursing mode in pregnant women. method The research data were 300 cases of expectant pregnant women treated in our hospital from September 2018 to September 2020; they were randomly divided into two groups according to the method of computer random distribution after giving unified number. 150 cases of pregnant women who were given the general nursing mode were taken as the conventional group, and the 150 cases of pregnant women who were given the whole course of delivery nursing mode were taken as the experimental group Apgar score of newborns. Results the natural delivery rate was 86.67% (130 / 150) in the experimental group, and 73.33% (110 / 150) in the conventional group; the labor process time of the experimental group was shorter than that of the conventional group, and the neonatal Apgar score was higher, P < 0.05. Conclusion the application of the whole process accompany delivery nursing mode has a significant improvement effect on the natural delivery rate, labor process time and neonatal Apgar score of pregnant women, which can be applied and adopted clinically. [Key words] pregnant women; whole process accompany delivery nursing mode; natural delivery rate; labor process time; neonatal Apgar score 在女性妊娠期分娩中，由于部分初产妇对于分娩知识的缺乏，再加上存在恐惧、焦虑、抑郁等不良心理状态，所以难免会对整体产程时间和分娩结局造成影响，进而造成一定的不良现象【1】。因此，本次研究中为了可以提高我院妊娠期产妇的分娩结局，将给予全程陪伴分娩护理模式进行有效干预，探析其最终的干预效果。 1 资料和方法 一般资料 本次研究中纳入的主要对象为待产孕妇300例，其选取时间为2018年9月至2020年9月；所有纳入研究对象均符合本次研究内容，且排除存在精神类疾病以及依从性较差者。回顾分析研究对象资料：常规组给予普通护理模式，上下年龄分别为35岁和23岁，年龄均值（27.5±2.3）岁；最短接受教育时间为6年，最长接受教育时间为17年。实验组给予全程陪伴分娩护理模式，上下年龄分别为35岁和22岁，年龄均值（27.1±2.3）岁；最短接受教育时间为5年，最长接受教育时间为17年。两组研究对象的资料，比较差异小，无统计意义（P＞0.05），具备可比性。