57 articles about connecting with donors and donor siblings
Contact Experiences Among Donor Conception Parties: A Mixed Methods Systematic Review (Hall, 2026)
Hall, K., Goedeke, S., & van Kessel, K. (2026). Contact experiences among donor conception parties: donor conceived persons, donors, parents and same-donor siblings – a mixed methods systematic review. Human Fertility, 29(1), 2686159. https://doi.org/10.1080/14647273.2026.2686159
Geographic Region: United States (29 of 57 articles), United Kingdom (14 articles), Australia (9 articles), the Netherlands (4 articles), Canada (3 articles), New Zealand (3 articles), and Norway (1 article).
Research Question: How do donor-conceived people, donors, parents, and same-donor siblings experience contact with one another following donor conception involving donors who were previously unknown to recipients, and what factors shape those experiences?
Design: Mixed methods systematic review following PRISMA 2020 guidelines. The review was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (CRD42024546154). Searches were conducted across eight databases—CINAHL Complete, JSTOR, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed, Scopus, Ovid Emcare, and Google Scholar—covering English-language, peer-reviewed empirical studies published between 2004 and January 2026. Reference lists, Google Scholar’s ‘cited by’ function, and the publication histories of primary authors were also searched (snowball methods). Studies were included if they used empirical methods (quantitative, qualitative, or mixed) and involved participants who had post-birth contact experiences following donation between parties who were previously unknown to one another. Both clinic-recruited donations (anonymous, identity-release) and online-recruited open-identity donations qualified.
Sample: 57 articles, 23 of which were part of five larger collaborative studies: the Donor Sibling Registry (DSR) Study (8 articles), the US National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study (NLLFS) (4 articles), the Pride Angel – UK based Online Donation Connection Website (2 articles), the Single Mothers by Choice in Australia (SMC) Study (3 articles), and the Fiom KID-DNA Network study (2 articles). Articles were published between 2008 and January 2026, with 42% published since 2020. Of the 57 articles, 53% were qualitative, 40% were mixed-methods, and 7% were quantitative. Interviews were the most common qualitative method; surveys were used in 47% of articles employing quantitative methods. Sample sizes across included studies ranged from 5 to 2,636 participants, with a median of 42; 24 studies had fewer than 40 participants. Family form was reported in 63% of articles. Among those reporting a specific family structure, lesbian-parent families were included in 29 articles, single mothers by choice in 13 articles, and heterosexual parent families in 21 articles. Only one article focused on gay father families. Thirty-seven percent of articles did not report family form at all. Donation type was heavily weighted toward sperm donation (86% of articles; 60% focused exclusively on sperm donation); egg donation appeared in 33% of articles and was the exclusive focus in only 7%. Embryo donation appeared in 14% of articles. Nineteen articles focused on DCP contact with donors or same-donor siblings; 13 focused specifically on DCP contact with donors; 13 focused on donors’ contact with parents and/or DCPs; and 18 explored parents’ contact with donors or same-donor families. Age of DCP participants ranged from 9 to 70 years across studies; donor participants ranged from 18 to 73 years. Race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status were not reported as variables in the study, and the authors note that participants are largely of European descent.
Key Findings
Editor’s Note: The 57 articles in this review are not evenly distributed across stakeholder groups or independent of one another. Approximately 13 articles focused on donor contact with DCP, 19 on DCP contact with donors and/or same-donor siblings, 13 on donors’ experiences, and 18 on parents’ experiences. Importantly, 23 of the 57 articles came from just five larger collaborative studies, including the Donor Sibling Registry study (8 articles) and the US National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study (4 articles). Findings described as appearing across multiple studies should be read with this clustering in mind. The evidence base also skews heavily toward adult DCPs reflecting retrospectively.
Eight of the 57 included articles draw on samples recruited through the Donor Sibling Registry, making it the single largest source in this evidence base. The DSR is not a neutral research platform. Participants who join the DSR are self-selected for interest in connection. Findings drawn from DSR samples reflect a particular population within the donor-conceived community. This does not make those findings invalid, but it makes their representation a structural feature of the knowledge base that deserves explicit acknowledgment.
The word “identity” appears throughout this literature, but its meaning is not settled across the field. It means different things in different studies (e.g., genetic identity, narrative identity, family identity, social identity). Studies typically do not distinguish between identity as something DCPs report experiencing versus identity as a construct researchers impose on participants' accounts.
The median sample size across included studies is 42, with 24 studies enrolling fewer than 40 participants. Most samples are self-selected — recruited through registries, advocacy organizations, and DNA testing platforms, which can systematically overrepresent or underrepresent people with specific perspectives. Readers should keep in mind that “most” describes a self-selected group within a small-sample literature, not a population-level finding.
DCP Contact with Donors
Across multiple studies, contact between donor-conceived people and their donors was initiated by the DCP themselves, by their parents, or through DNA testing. The degree of parental involvement depended on the DCP’s age, maturity, and the legal context for accessing donor information.
Across multiple studies, most DCPs described their contact experiences with donors as positive or neutral. Positive experiences were associated with feelings of happiness, validation, and recognition, even when initial encounters felt awkward or uncertain. Contact sometimes led to meaningful shifts in DCPs’ sense of self and family identity. A minority of DCPs across studies reported negative or difficult experiences, often linked to lifestyle disagreements, lack of common ground, unmet expectations, or negative reactions from the donor’s family.
Across multiple studies, the terms DCPs used for donors ranged widely—from ‘donor’ or ‘stranger’ to ‘extended family member’ or ‘relative.’
DCP Contact with Same-Donor Siblings
Across multiple studies, most DCPs who connected with same-donor siblings reported positive or neutral experiences, whether contact was one-on-one or in group settings.
Across multiple studies, initial meetings frequently began with comparing physical features and shared traits, which could foster connection and sometimes prompt identity redefinition.
Multiple studies found that early contact facilitated by parents during childhood was associated with smoother integration of donor conception into the DCP’s identity.
Across multiple studies, even limited or online-only contact with same-donor siblings was valued. Some DCPs described a sense of belonging simply from knowing that same-donor siblings existed, without requiring close contact.
Across multiple studies, large sibling networks introduced challenges: emotional fatigue, complex group dynamics, rivalry, exclusion, and pressure to connect with each newly discovered sibling. Several DCPs disengaged from large networks over time, though many maintained at least occasional contact.
Donors
Across multiple studies and donation types, donors expressed a sense of responsibility to make themselves available to DCPs, particularly to share personal and medical history, and most were curious about the outcomes of their donations. However, donors commonly remained passive, waiting for DCPs or parents to initiate contact, and suppressed their own needs to avoid being perceived as intrusive.
Across multiple studies, most donors did not describe feeling a parental bond with DCPs but perceived themselves as relatives or important sources of genetic and medical information. Across gamete types, donors tended to position themselves—or were positioned by recipient families—as extended family members akin to aunts or uncles, which allowed continued interest in DCP lives without threatening parental roles.
Across multiple studies, donor contact ranged from brief one-off exchanges to ongoing relationships, with positive relationships more likely when contact was gradual and emotionally sensitive.
Across multiple studies, contact introduced complexity for donors’ own families—navigating partner feelings, explaining to their raised children the existence of donor siblings, and managing relationships across multiple DCP families. Some donors felt overwhelmed by the prospect of maintaining relationships with large numbers of offspring.
Parents
Across multiple studies, parents sought contact with donors and same-donor families for a range of reasons: obtaining medical information, supporting their children’s identity development, and—especially in non-traditional family structures—building an extended family network. One large survey found that parents from single-mother and lesbian-couple families were somewhat more likely than heterosexual parents to have in-home contact with same-donor families and to regard one another as relatives (Sawyer et al., 2013).
Across multiple studies, when contact between parents and donors occurred, most parents reported positive experiences even when initial meetings involved anxiety. Parents in embryo donation programs specifically described relief that donors were not seeking to claim the child—a finding that comes primarily from two studies of one US program (Frith et al., 2017; Davis et al., 2020).
Across multiple studies, some parents—particularly non-biological parents—reported feeling that donor involvement threatened their parental role or autonomy. This concern could create barriers to contact for the child and occasionally generated couple conflict.
Across multiple studies, parents often preferred contact with same-donor families over direct donor contact, seeing it as a way to build kinship networks for their children while preserving more parental autonomy.
Factors Shaping Contact Experiences
Expectations of contact: Across multiple studies, romanticized notions of the other party or strong desires to connect could lead to disappointment when reality fell short. Despite this, most participants across studies felt their expectations had been broadly met.
Age at first contact: Across multiple studies, contact established in childhood tended to produce stronger, more naturally integrated bonds, while contact initiated in adulthood was more emotionally complex. Many who connected later in life expressed regret about missed time.
Family communication: Across multiple studies, family openness about donor conception was consistently associated with more positive contact outcomes.
Attitudes from others toward contact: Across multiple studies, parental openness about donor conception was consistently associated with more positive contact experiences. Secrecy or negative parental reactions following DCP-initiated contact—especially from fathers in heterosexual relationships—complicated the process.
Number of individuals connected: Across multiple studies, large donor networks excited and overwhelmed in equal measure. DCPs, donors, and parents all reported challenges when sibling numbers were high, underscoring the relationship between donation limits, record-keeping, and downstream psychosocial outcomes.
Mechanisms for contact: Across multiple studies, formal identity-release registries were often inaccessible, time-consuming, or yielded inaccurate information. Most contact was facilitated through informal means—online platforms, DNA testing services, social media, and voluntary registers. These informal routes offered flexibility and community support but lacked the safety frameworks that formal services provide.
Limitations: Sample sizes across included studies varied widely (5 to 2,636 participants), with a median of 42, making it difficult to integrate findings or draw firm conclusions. Most included studies relied on self-selected participants, which likely biases findings toward people with positive or particularly salient contact experiences. The evidence base is geographically concentrated in the United States and United Kingdom, with participants largely of European descent. Findings may not apply in other cultural settings. Only 4 studies focused exclusively on egg donation and 4 on embryo donation, leaving significant gaps in understanding contact experiences across gamete types. The review is limited to English-language publications, excluding potentially important research from non-Anglophone countries. Contact occurring through informal mechanisms (social media, DNA testing) versus formal services was not systematically compared, leaving gaps in understanding how mechanism shapes outcomes. The experience of gay fathers with egg donors is essentially absent from the evidence base. Race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status are not analyzed as variables in the review, and the review does not explore how racism, racial matching practices, or racialized access to donor conception shape contact experiences. Only 19 of 57 articles focused on DCP contact experiences, and most DCP participants were adults reflecting retrospectively. The experiences of children and adolescents navigating contact in real time are underrepresented. Whether contact initiated positively in childhood remains positive into adulthood, or whether early contact complicates DCP identity formation in ways not yet captured, cannot be assessed from this evidence base.
Applications: Contact with donors and same-donor siblings is one avenue among many for identity exploration and connection. Contact is not a necessary step for well-being, and the range of experiences found across studies reflects the diversity of what donor-conceived people actually want and need. Support for those navigating large sibling networks, unexpected DNA discoveries, or donor non-response is a gap. Parental attitudes toward contact likely shape their children's experiences with decision-making. The review identifies a consistent gap between the demand for psychosocial support around donor linking and what is actually available. Professionals supporting donor-conceived people and their families can expect to encounter clients navigating accelerated kinship, large sibling networks, mismatched expectations, and the emotional aftermath of donor non-response or death before contact. Pre-contact expectation management, support during contact, and ongoing aftercare could be beneficial. The failures of formal identity-release systems described across multiple studies (e.g., inaccessibility, inaccurate records, lack of responsiveness) seem to contribute directly to the growth of informal, unsupported contact routes. The field needs longitudinal studies tracking how contact experiences evolve over time; research that includes diverse family structures and value systems; and studies conducted in non-Anglophone and non-Western cultural settings.
Funding Source: No external funding source is identified in the article.
Lead Author: K. Hall is a researcher in the Department of Psychology and Neuroscience at Auckland University of Technology (AUT), New Zealand. No personal connection to donor conception was disclosed. Corresponding author S. Goedeke is an Associate Professor of Psychology and registered clinical psychologist at Auckland University of Technology whose research focuses on the psychosocial and ethical dimensions of infertility treatment, donor conception, and third-party reproduction, including embryo donation, egg donation, and disclosure practices. She has published extensively in this field and several studies included in this review are Goedeke's own published work.
Regulatory Context: This review spans multiple jurisdictions.
Related Posts