The increasing number and proportion of children born after medically assisted reproduction (MAR) has raised concerns and motivated research about the impact of MAR on the well-being and development of children.
We summarize existing studies on the well-being and development of children conceived through MAR.
Materials and methods
Review of existing studies.
Children conceived through MAR are at increased risk of adverse birth outcomes such as low birthweight and preterm delivery compared to naturally conceived children. The higher rates of multiple births amongst MAR-conceived children continue to represent an important driving factor behind these disparities. Reassuringly, elective single embryo transfer (eSET)—which is associated with more favourable pregnancy outcomes among MAR-conceived children—is becoming more common. Despite the early life health disadvantages, the evidence on later life outcomes such as physical, cognitive and psychosocial development is generally reassuring. On average, MAR-conceived children show similar or better outcomes than naturally conceived children. The selected and advantaged socioeconomic characteristics of parents who conceive through MAR are likely to play an important role in explaining why, on average, MAR-conceived children perform better than naturally conceived children—particularly in terms of cognitive outcomes. In contrast, there is some evidence pointing to potentially increased risks of mental health problems among MAR-conceived children.
There is need for continued monitoring and longer follow-up studies on the well-being of these children in order to better understand whether their outcomes are similar to or different from those of naturally conceived children, and, if so, why.
Die steigende Anzahl und der zunehmende Anteil von Kindern, die nach einer medizinisch unterstützten Reproduktion (MAR) geboren werden, haben Bedenken aufkommen lassen und die Forschung zu den Auswirkungen einer MAR auf das Kindeswohl und die Entwicklung motiviert.
Wir fassen bestehende Studien über das Kindeswohl und die Entwicklung von Kindern, die durch MAR gezeugt wurden, zusammen.
Material und Methoden
Übersichtsarbeit zu bestehenden Studien.
Durch MAR gezeugte Kinder haben im Vergleich zu nichtassistiert gezeugten Kindern ein erhöhtes Risiko für ungünstige Geburtsergebnisse, wie niedriges Geburtsgewicht und Frühgeburt. Ein wichtiger Faktor für diese Ungleichheiten sind nach wie vor die höheren Raten an Mehrlingsgeburten bei MAR-gezeugten Kindern. Erfreulicherweise wird der elektive Einzelembryotransfer (eSET) – der mit günstigerem Schwangerschafts-Outcome nach MAR in Verbindung gebracht wird – immer häufiger durchgeführt. Trotz der gesundheitlichen Nachteile im frühen Lebensalter ist die Evidenzlage zum Outcome im späteren Leben, etwa zur körperlichen, kognitiven und psychosozialen Entwicklung, insgesamt beruhigend. Im Durchschnitt zeigen MAR-gezeugte Kinder ähnliche bzw. bessere Ergebnisse als nichtassistiert gezeugte Kinder. Wahrscheinlich spielen spezifische und begünstigte sozioökonomische Merkmale der Eltern, die durch MAR Eltern geworden sind, eine erheblich Rolle bei der Frage, warum durch MAR gezeugte Kinder im Durchschnitt bessere Leistungen erzielen als nichtassistiert gezeugte Kinder – vor allem hinsichtlich kognitiver Kompetenzen. Andererseits könnten die Anhaltspunkte, die auf möglicherweise erhöhte Risiken für psychische Probleme bei MAR-gezeugten Kindern hinweisen, Anlass zur Sorge geben.
Es besteht Bedarf an fortgesetzter Beobachtung und längeren Nachfolgestudien zum Wohlergehen dieser Kinder, um besser zu verstehen, ob ihre Entwicklung mit denen nichtassistiert gezeugter Kinder vergleichbar ist oder sich unterscheidet, und, wenn ja, warum.
The number and proportion of children conceived through medically assisted reproduction (MAR) has been increasing steadily over the last decades . To date, over 9 million births have involved the use of MAR . In 2016, the proportion of children conceived through MAR was between 2–6% in many European countries, with Denmark recording the highest percentage at 9% [1, 3, 4]. These trends have raised concerns and motivated research about the impact of MAR on the well-being and development of children.
Birth/early life outcomes
It is well-established in the medical literature that children born after MAR have worse birth outcomes (e.g. low birth weight and prematurity), and are at higher risk of congenital abnormalities and of rare imprinting disorders (e.g. Prader-Willi and Angelman syndrome) than children who are conceived naturally [5,6,7,8]. Although most of the existing evidence focuses on the outcomes of children born after in vitro fertilisation/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI), similar disparities have been documented for children conceived through less invasive MAR treatments, such as ovulation induction and artificial insemination [8, 9]. There are likely to be multiple causes behind the association between MAR treatments and adverse birth outcomes. First, the association is related to the 10–20 times higher rate of multiple births pregnancies associated with the use of MAR than in the general population. It is well-established that there is a higher incidence of poorer birth outcomes in multiple than for singleton births. However, prior studies show that the risk of poorer outcomes is higher for singletons conceived through MAR than for singletons conceived spontaneously [7, 10] which suggests that multiple births are not the only factor contributing to the worse perinatal outcomes of MAR-conceived children. Second, the association could be related to parental characteristics that predispose the parents to use MAR to conceive, and to have a high risk of adverse birth outcomes. For example, prior research shows that subfertility is a risk factor for adverse birth outcomes and is likely to be integral to the MAR-adverse outcome association . Third, the association could be related to the sociodemographic characteristics of the parents and/or children. It is well-established that MAR-conceived children are more likely to be born to older parents and to be the firstborn —factors that have been linked to increased risk of poorer birth outcomes [13, 14]. Conversely, the advantaged socioeconomic profile that typically characterizes MAR families —which is protective against the risk of adverse birth outcomes —might mask some of the underlying risk associated with the MAR techniques.
Accounting for multiple births, subfertility and demographic characteristics attenuate but do not fully explain the association between MAR and adverse birth outcomes. Researchers, practitioners and prospective MAR patients alike are interested in how much of the residual effect should be attributed to the MAR treatments per se such as the freezing and thawing of embryos, the delayed fertilisation of the oocytes, the hormonal treatments or the culture media composition . To address this question, a few studies have attempted to isolate the effects of MAR treatments from other characteristics by applying a sibling design to large-scale population register data [17,18,19,20].
A sibling design approach involves comparing birth outcomes of children conceived naturally and through MAR within the same family, which enable the researchers to account for all parental characteristics—some of which are often unobserved in the data (e.g. subfertility, genetic factors, underlying health, socioeconomic factors)—shared by siblings. These studies found a substantial decrease in the magnitude of the negative effects of MAR treatments once accounting for all (unobserved) parental characteristics shared by siblings, suggesting that the role of the MAR procedures per se on birth outcomes is likely to be negligible. One of the studies  also highlighted that, after accounting for the higher rates of multiple births in MAR pregnancies and socioeconomic characteristics, the effect of MAR is substantively smaller than the effect of other risk factors. For example, the effect of being the first-born rather than the second- or third-born was, respectively, three and four times higher than the effect of MAR. The effect of smoking during pregnancy was three times higher.
MAR-conceived children face a higher risk of adverse birth outcomes, but it seems to be largely due to factors other than the treatments per se. Conversely, the persistently higher rates of multiple births amongst MAR-conceived children continue to represent an important driving factor behind the disparities in birth outcomes amongst MAR and naturally conceived children. However, reassuringly, the rates of multiple births in MAR pregnancies have been declining over time—in Nordic countries particularly—because of the introduction of elective single embryo transfer (eSET) policies . As a result, recently born cohorts of MAR-conceived children show improved birth outcomes . A wider utilization of eSET will contribute to further lower rates of adverse birth outcomes amongst MAR-conceived children and to make it a less pressing issue in the future.
Outcomes in childhood and adolescence
In contrast to the large body of evidence that points to a link between MAR and adverse birth outcomes, evidence on the longer-term well-being of children born after MAR is less developed and conclusive.
The existing findings on physical health generally suggest that children born after MAR appear to be healthy and to be growing similarly to naturally conceived children [22,23,24,25]. The evidence on the overall risk of cancers is reassuring, although the evidence on specific cancers is still limited . A subset of studies have found an increased risk of childhood illnesses, including asthma , and a 20% increased risk of hospital admission during the first 5 years of life [27,28,29]. Moreover, there is some evidence to suggest that children born after MAR may be at increased risk of metabolic and cardiovascular diseases [30,31,32,33]. The causality is still unclear. Furthermore the role of the MAR treatments and of other factors associated with MAR conception in explaining these associations is not established.
The findings on mental health are mixed. Some studies argue that MAR-conceived children face a higher risk of mental health problems [30, 34,35,36,37], whilst others have not documented differences [38,39,40,41]. A similar picture has emerged during the adolescent period with some studies not finding an association [37, 40,41,42], whilst others have documented increased risks of depression or socioemotional problems . The mixed results may be due to methodological limitations as several studies have relied on small or nonrepresentative samples. Differences in methodological approaches could also play a role, as some studies only show adjusted results, and other studies fail to adjust for potential confounders . Recent studies by Rissanen et al.  and Barbuscia et al.  have highlighted the importance of showing results before and after adjustment for parental characteristics. MAR-conceived children followed up to young adulthood showed a moderately higher risk of psychiatric disorders and psychosocial problems only after adjustment for confounding by family characteristics. There is need of more systematic evidence to understand whether there is a link between MAR conception and offspring mental health, and if so, why.
The literature on neurodevelopmental outcomes shows that neurological sequelae, such as cerebral palsy, are more frequent in children born after MAR than in their spontaneously conceived counterparts . These disparities have been largely attributed to the higher frequency of twin pregnancy, low birth weight, and prematurity in the MAR subgroup. The overwhelming majority of studies on (full-term) MAR children have shown that in childhood, they have neurodevelopmental outcomes similar to those of naturally conceived children [45, 46]; however longer follow-ups are needed as very few studies have been conducted looking at adolescents .
In relation to cognitive outcomes such as cognitive abilities and education, the evidence is reassuring since most studies document no substantial differences between MAR and naturally conceived children. Most studies report that, on average, MAR-conceived children outperform naturally conceived children before adjustment for parental characteristics [12, 47,48,49,50]. The advantage is explained by the above-average socioeconomic status of parents who undergo MAR treatments . In fact, after adjustment for confounding by parental social background, the association is attenuated and in some studies even reverses, although the disadvantage is substantively small . MAR-conceived children, on average, perform better not because of their mode of conception, but rather because MAR conception is associated with higher than average socioeconomic status. Whilst the evidence is reassuring, only a few studies have examined academic achievements in adolescents.
As further reassurance, a recent study by Cozzani et al.  shows that despite the higher rates of adverse birth outcomes amongst MAR than naturally conceived children, the former do not experience any disadvantage in their cognitive development in childhood and adolescence. MAR-conceived children who are born low birth weight (LBW) do not show any disadvantage in cognitive development compared with naturally conceived children who are born normal weight. It appears that the advantaged socioeconomic profile of families who conceive through MAR plays a crucial role in attenuating the effect of being born LBW which prior literature shows to be associated with worse cognitive development . Despite the considerably higher rates of LBW, MAR-conceived children have better or similar cognitive outcomes than naturally conceived children. However, more evidence and longer follow-ups are needed.
Compared to naturally conceived children, children conceived through MAR are at increased risk of adverse birth outcomes such as low birthweight, preterm delivery and birth defects. Despite the early life health disadvantage, the evidence on physical development in childhood, cognitive and psychosocial development is reassuring. On average, MAR-conceived children show similar or better outcomes than naturally conceived children. However, some studies show increased risks of mental health disorders amongst MAR children and adolescents. Overall, more evidence is needed before we can reach conclusions on the longer-term well-being of MAR-conceived children.
Parents conceiving through MAR tend to be selected: they are older at the time of birth, more likely to give birth to their first child and to be socioeconomically more advantaged than parents who conceive naturally . The selection is explained by the fact that in many contexts access to the treatments is not subsidized, but also because of (e.g. cultural, geographical and religious) barriers to access. The selection into MAR is important to consider when analysing the outcomes of MAR-conceived children. Older parental age and primiparity are associated with worse birth outcomes [53, 54], but also with higher cognitive development and education. Higher parental socioeconomic status is an important predictor of higher educational attainment , and to some extent fewer mental disorders and psychosocial problems . Although on the one hand MAR-conceived children’s characteristics could point to lower levels of psychosocial problems, the MAR conception process may be associated with stress and mental health problems , which could affect children’s psychosocial development . However, prior studies show better parent–child relationships and higher closeness in families who have conceived through MAR to families who have conceived naturally [40, 57] which could compensate for the increased levels of stress during the pregnancy seeking process and early life years.
MAR is a complex variable which reflects a range of biological, demographic, socioeconomic and psychosocial processes. As a result, there could be important trade-offs integral to the MAR/child well-being association which could explain some of the inconsistencies documented by existing studies in whether and how MAR is associated with well-being. Whereas on the one hand MAR children have worse birth outcomes, on the other, adults who conceive through MAR treatments are a selected subpopulation group whose advantaged characteristics could compensate for any early life disadvantage. Yet, the MAR process could expose them to stress and mental health problems which persist over time. As a result, MAR children could have worse, similar, or better outcomes depending on the dimension of well-being under consideration, and whether the dimension is more likely to be affected by health (e.g. birth outcomes, physical/mental health) or by social processes (e.g. educational outcomes). Longitudinal studies which analyse several dimensions of well-being before and after adjustment for parental sociodemographic and psychosocial characteristics will be beneficial in elucidating the association between MAR and offspring well-being, as well as in clarifying the causality and the underlying mechanisms.
Given that the number and proportion of MAR-conceived children born increases every year, there is need for continued monitoring and longer follow-up studies on the well-being of these children in order to better understand whether their outcomes are similar to or different from those of naturally conceived children, and, if so, why.
Children conceived via MAR (medically assisted reproduction) face higher risks of adverse birth outcomes (e.g. low birth weight) than children conceived naturally. The increased risks are attributed to a range of factors: the higher rates multiple births in the MAR group, the subfertility of couples who conceive via MAR and their demographic profiles as they tend to be older at the time of birth and more likely to give birth to their first child (both risk factors for adverse birth outcomes) than couples who conceive naturally. Whilst recent studies suggest that the role of the MAR techniques on birth outcomes is likely to be negligible, the rates of poorer birth outcomes amongst MAR-conceived children continue to be a concern. A wider utilization of eSET (elective single embryo transfer) will contribute to further lower rates of adverse birth outcomes amongst MAR-conceived children and to make it a less pressing issue in the future.
The overall evidence on later life outcomes is reassuring. MAR children appear to have similar or better (physical, cognitive and educational) outcomes than children conceived naturally. A potential cause of concern is that some studies show increased risk of mental health problems amongst MAR-conceived children but the underlying (psychosocial, demographic or biological) mechanisms are still unclear. Systematic evidence is needed on the longer-term well-being of MAR-conceived children.
De Geyter C et al (2020) 20 years of the European IVF-monitoring consortium registry: what have we learned? A comparison with registries from two other regions. Hum Reprod 35(12):2832–2849
ESHRE (2020) ART fact sheet
Opdahl S et al (2020) Data resource profile: committee of nordic assisted reproductive technology and safety (coNARTaS) cohort. Int J Epidemiol 49(2):365–366f
Martins MV et al (2018) The impact of ART on union dissolution: a register-based study in Denmark 1994–2010. Hum Reprod 33(3):434–440
Hansen M et al (2013) Assisted reproductive technology and birth defects: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update 19(4):330–353
Martin AS et al (2017) Perinatal outcomes among singletons after assisted reproductive technology with single-embryo or double-embryo transfer versus no assisted reproductive technology. Fertil Steril 107(4):954–960
Pandey S et al (2012) Obstetric and perinatal outcomes in singleton pregnancies resulting from IVF/ICSI: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update 18(5):485–503
Pinborg A et al (2013) Congenital anomalies after assisted reproductive technology. Fertil Steril 99(2):327–332
Klemetti R et al (2010) Health of children born after ovulation induction. Fertil Steril 93(4):1157–1168
Schieve LA et al (2002) Low and very low birth weight in infants conceived with use of assisted reproductive technology. N Engl J Med 2002(346):731–737
Pinborg A et al (2012) Why do singletons conceived after assisted reproduction technology have adverse perinatal outcome? Systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update 19(2):87–104
Barbuscia A, Mills MC (2017) Cognitive development in children up to age 11 years born after ART—a longitudinal cohort study. Hum Reprod 32(7):1482–1488
Goisis A, Schneider SD, Myrskylä M (2018) Secular changes in the association between advanced maternal age and the risk of low birth weight: a cross-cohort comparison in the UK. Popul Stud 72(3):381–397. https://doi.org/10.1080/00324728.2018.1442584
Seidman DS et al (1988) Birth order and birth weight reexamined. Obstet Gynecol 72(2):158–162
Boardman J et al (2002) Low birth weight, social factors, and developmental outcomes among children in the United States. Demography 39(2):353–368
Berntsen S et al (2019) The health of children conceived by ART: “the chicken or the egg?”. Hum Reprod Update 25(2):137–158
Goisis A et al (2019) Medically assisted reproduction and birth outcomes: a within-family analysis using Finnish population registers. Lancet 393(10177):1225–1232
Dhalwani NN et al (2016) Assisted reproductive technology and perinatal outcomes: conventional versus discordant-sibling design. Fertil Steril 106(3):710–716.e2
Henningsen A‑KA et al (2011) Perinatal outcome of singleton siblings born after assisted reproductive technology and spontaneous conception: Danish national sibling-cohort study. Fertil Steril 95(3):959–963
Romundstad LB et al (2008) Effects of technology or maternal factors on perinatal outcome after assisted fertilisation: a population-based cohort study. Lancet 372(9640):737–743
Källén B et al (2010) Trends in delivery and neonatal outcome after in vitro fertilization in Sweden: data for 25 years. Hum Reprod 25(4):1026–1034
Hart R, Norman RJ (2013) The longer-term health outcomes for children born as a result of IVF treatment: part I—general health outcomes. Hum Reprod Update 19(3):232–243
Ludwig AK et al (2009) Physical health at 5.5 years of age of term-born singletons after intracytoplasmic sperm injection: results of a prospective, controlled, single-blinded study. Fertil Steril 91(1):115–124
Yeung E et al (2016) Infertility treatment and children’s longitudinal growth between birth and 3 years of age. Hum Reprod 31(7):1621–1628
Magnus MC et al (2021) Growth in children conceived by ART. Hum Reprod 36(4):1074–1082
Tsabouri S et al (2021) Association between childhood asthma and history of assisted reproduction techniques: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Pediatr 180(7):2007–2017. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00431-021-03975-7
Bonduelle M et al (2005) A multi-centre cohort study of the physical health of 5‑year-old children conceived after intracytoplasmic sperm injection, in vitro fertilization and natural conception. Hum Reprod 20(2):413–419
Chambers GM et al (2013) Hospital utilization, costs and mortality rates during the first 5 years of life: a population study of ART and non-ART singletons. Hum Reprod 29(3):601–610
Källén B et al (2013) Asthma in Swedish children conceived by in vitro fertilisation. Arch Dis Child 98(2):92–96
Hart R, Norman RJ (2013) The longer-term health outcomes for children born as a result of IVF treatment. Part II—mental health and development outcomes. Hum Reprod Update 19(3):244–250
Lu Y‑H, Wang N, Jin F (2013) Long-term follow-up of children conceived through assisted reproductive technology. J Zhejiang Univ Sci B 14(5):359–371
Yeung EH, Druschel C (2013) Cardiometabolic health of children conceived by assisted reproductive technologies. Fertil Steril 99(2):318–326
Guo X‑Y et al (2017) Cardiovascular and metabolic profiles of offspring conceived by assisted reproductive technologies: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 107(3):622–631
Bay B et al (2013) Fertility treatment and risk of childhood and adolescent mental disorders: register based cohort study. BMJ 347:f3978
Carson C et al (2013) Effects of pregnancy planning, fertility, and assisted reproductive treatment on child behavioral problems at 5 and 7 years: evidence from the millennium cohort study. Fertil Steril 99(2):456–463
Svahn M et al (2015) Mental disorders in childhood and young adulthood among children born to women with fertility problems. Hum Reprod 30(9):2129–2137
Wilson C et al (2011) Looking downstream: a review of the literature on physical and psychosocial health outcomes in adolescents and young adults who were conceived by ART. Hum Reprod 26(5):1209–1219
Lehti V et al (2013) Autism spectrum disorders in IVF children: a national case-control study in Finland. Hum Reprod 28(3):812–818
Punamäki R‑L et al (2015) Mental health and developmental outcomes for children born after ART: a comparative prospective study on child gender and treatment type. Hum Reprod 31(1):100–107
Wagenaar K et al (2009) Behavior and socioemotional functioning in 9–18-year-old children born after in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 92(6):1907–1914
Zhu JL et al (2011) Infertility, infertility treatment and behavioural problems in the offspring. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 25(5):466–477
Barbuscia A, Myrskylä M, Goisis A (2019) The psychosocial health of children born after medically assisted reproduction: evidence from the UK millennium cohort study. SSM Popul Health 7:100355
Rissanen E et al (2020) The risk of psychiatric disorders among Finnish ART and spontaneously conceived children: Finnish population-based register study. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry 29(8):1155–1164
Strömberg B et al (2002) Neurological sequelae in children born after in-vitro fertilisation: a population-based study. Lancet 359(9305):461–465
Balayla J et al (2017) Neurodevelopmental outcomes after assisted reproductive technologies. Obstet Gynecol 129(2):265
Bay B, Mortensen EL, Kesmodel US (2013) Assisted reproduction and child neurodevelopmental outcomes: a systematic review. Fertil Steril 100(3):844–853
Bay B et al (2016) Long-awaited pregnancy: intelligence and academic performance in offspring of infertile parents—a cohort study. Fertil Steril 106(5):1033–1040.e1
Carson C et al (2009) Cognitive development following ART: effect of choice of comparison group, confounding and mediating factors. Hum Reprod 25(1):244–252
Spangmose AL et al (2017) Academic performance in adolescents born after ART—a nationwide registry-based cohort study. Hum Reprod 32(2):447–456
Wagenaar K et al (2008) School functioning in 8‑to 18-year-old children born after in vitro fertilization. Eur J Pediatr 167(11):1289–1295
Goisis A et al (2020) The demographics of assisted reproductive technology births in a Nordic country. Hum Reprod 35(6):1441–1450
Cozzani M, Aradhya S, Goisis A (2021) The cognitive development from childhood to adolescence of low birthweight children born after medically assisted reproduction—a UK longitudinal cohort study. Int J Epidemiol. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyab009
Wennberg AL et al (2016) Effect of maternal age on maternal and neonatal outcomes after assisted reproductive technology. Fertil Steril 106(5):1142–1149.e14
Hinkle SN et al (2014) The association between parity and birthweight in a longitudinal consecutive pregnancy cohort. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 28(2):106–115
McLanahan S (2004) Diverging destinies: how children are faring under the second demographic transition. Demography 41(4):607–627
Patalay P, Fitzsimons E (2017) Mental ill-health among children of the new century: trends across childhood with a focus on age 14 https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.23942.06721
Goisis A, Palma M (2021) Medically assisted reproduction and parent-child relationships during adolescence: evidence from the UK millennium cohort study. Hum Reprod 36(3):702–711
Open access funding provided by University College London (UCL).
Mikko Myrskylä was supported by the Strategic Research Council (SRC), FLUX consortium, decision numbers: 345130 and 345131.
Conflict of interest
A. Goisis and M. Myrskylä declare that they have no competing interests.
For this article no studies with human participants or animals were performed by any of the authors. All studies performed were in accordance with the ethical standards indicated in each case.
Klaus Friese, Oberaudorf
Gisela Gille, Lüneburg
Katrin Schaudig, Hamburg
Anneliese Schwenkhagen, Hamburg
Klaus Vetter, Berlin
Scan QR code & read article online
About this article
Cite this article
Goisis, A., Myrskylä, M. Well-being of children born after medically assisted reproduction. Gynäkologe 54, 917–921 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00129-021-04872-8
- Assisted reproductive technology
- Child well-being
- Birth outcomes
- Cognitive development
- Verfahren der assistierten Reproduktion
- Geburtliches Outcome
- Kognitive Entwicklung