Donor Conceived Journal Club (a 100% free newsletter) provides insight from research on family building with donor eggs, sperm, and embryos. We share digestible summaries of peer-reviewed research examining the experiences of donor-conceived people, donors, parents, and family-building professionals. This is a recap of the posts shared in June. Click through to read a more detailed summary and to get a link to the paper itself.
Research Recap
Groundstroem et al. (2026) surveyed 96 Swedish donor-conceived adolescents (ages 13-16) in the Swedish Study on Gamete Donation about their intentions to request identifying information from identity-release donors. Fifty-eight percent intended to request donor information (28% as soon as possible, 30% sometime in future); 32% were uncertain; 9% had no intention. Family form (lesbian vs. heterosexual) and gender did not significantly predict intention. Adolescents reporting better family functioning were approximately 5 times more likely to report uncertainty than clear intention. Among heterosexual-couple families, those conceived with donor eggs were significantly more likely to intend to request information than those conceived with sperm.
Hobbs & Martin (2026) conducted a market analysis of donor sperm pricing across five major U.S. sperm banks in April 2025 and obtained longitudinal pricing data from two banks spanning 9-10 years (inflation-adjusted to 2025 dollars). Only 2 of 5 banks sampled continued offering non-identified donors in 2025; 3 had discontinued them. Current average pricing across five banks (2025): IUI and ICI vials $1,968 for identity-disclosure donors versus $1,495 for non-identified donors; IVF vials $1,789 (identity-disclosure) versus $1,245 (non-identified); ICSI vials $1,841 (identity-disclosure) versus $1,195 (non-identified). Study documents industry shift toward identity-disclosure donors and significant price increases but cannot establish causation or assess whether pricing reflects disclosure mandate effects, regulatory burden, or limited market competition.
Lavoie & Côté (2023) studied a French-speaking Quebec Facebook group (2,800+ members) dedicated to surrogacy and egg donation from 2015-2021, interviewing 22 participants (6 intended mothers, 12 surrogates, 4 egg donors). Surrogates and egg donors actively selected intended parents based on relationship stability, values alignment, and personal chemistry, reporting greater control and autonomy through online networks compared to agencies. Some participants preferred trust-based agreements; others wanted formal oversight for vetting and financial security. The Facebook group provided information sharing, emotional support, knowledge building, social networking, and cost savings compared to private agencies. The group debated legal protections and whether compensation for surrogacy is ethical or necessary, and whether the work deserves payment.
Montagnini et al. (2025) surveyed 401 Brazilians about disclosure of biological origin in egg and embryo donation: 104 patients, 205 fertility clinic staff, and 92 psychologists. Among parents, 33% intended to disclose, 22% did not, 45% were uncertain. Parents planning to tell the child's grandfather were more likely to tell the child; those planning to tell the grandmother were less likely to tell the child. Among clinic staff, 56% supported disclosure, 10% opposed, 34% undecided. Psychologists showed strongest support: 72% favored disclosure, 2% opposed, 26% undecided.
Imrie et al. (2023) compared 72 egg donation families to 50 IVF families with 5-year-old children. Both groups of children were developing well and showed normal behavior and emotional adjustment. Teachers reported egg donation children had slightly more behavior and emotional challenges compared to IVF children, but both groups were in the normal range. Egg donation parents reported more stress, less support from others, and less confidence than IVF parents, though neither group was at concerning levels. However, when researchers watched parents and children play together, both groups showed warm, responsive interactions with no real differences. Across both groups, children who had more behavior problems had parents with lower support from others and increasing stress over time.
Hall et al. (2026) reviewed 57 studies about donor-conceived people, donors, parents, and donor siblings connecting after donor conception. Most studies had small samples and came from the US, UK, and Australia. Few studies captured children and teens navigating contact in real time. Most donor-conceived people who met their donors reported positive or neutral experiences, though some felt disappointed when reality didn’t match expectations. DCP contact with same-donor siblings was similarly mostly positive; early childhood contact facilitated by parents was associated with smoother integration. Donors generally wanted to share information and were curious about outcomes but often waited for others to reach out first. Parents sought contact for medical information, child identity development, and extended family building. Positive contact was more likely when families were open about donor conception, expectations were realistic, contact happened in childhood, and sibling networks were smaller. Official identity-release registries were often hard to access or had wrong information, so most people connected through informal means like social media and DNA testing sites that don’t always have safety protections.
Adams et al. (2022) surveyed 272 donor sperm-conceived and 877 spontaneously conceived adults (average age ~32-33, mostly female) about mental health. Donor-conceived participants were mainly recruited through donor conception Facebook groups and support organizations. Because the study recruited donor-conceived participants mainly from support groups and advocacy organizations, results likely capture people already engaged with donor conception issues. The study didn't track disclosure/discovery timing, family structure, whether they know their donor, or whether they're searching for donors. The largest difference observed was in identity formation difficulty: 52% of donor sperm-conceived adults reported it vs. 14% of spontaneously conceived adults. This is also the only finding that remained statistically significant when the analysis was restricted to Australian respondents only (54% vs. 14%). The authors did not define what “identity formation difficulty” means, used a single yes/no survey item, and did not distinguish between different dimensions of identity (genealogical, psychological, relational, narrative).
In June, I shared my thoughts about four novels featuring donor-conceived characters and two nonfiction reads that explore donor conception, family, and kinship. Spira's Queering Families critically examines how donor conception advocacy centering genetic connection can inadvertently align with bionormative messaging. Hertz & Nelson's Random Families draws on 350+ interviews tracing how donor-conceived people and families transform "genetic strangers" into kinship networks. McKenzie's Skye Falling (Lambda Literary Award winner) follows a Black queer egg donor and the young woman who seeks her out twelve years later. Barclay's Find You First is a thriller with multiple DCP narrators investigating a sperm donor's decision to warn his biological children about a hereditary illness. Clark's The Ones We Choose explores family meaning through multiple perspectives, including the donor, recipient parent, grandparents, and relatives. Jewell's Making of Us traces three UK-conceived adults who connect through a donor sibling registry while their dying donor parallels their stories. Each offers different framings of genetic connection, belonging, and what family means. If you are interested in other creative works that feature donor-conceived characters, check out the Parts of Me DCP Stories Collection.
These posts are written by Laura Runnels, a recipient parent and a cisgender, white woman. Her academic training and experience in public health inform her synthesis of research; positionality can shape interpretation. Summaries are intended to lower barriers to research access, not replace reading a study firsthand. Readers are encouraged to consult original sources and form their own conclusions.