Whether you are first-born or not may influence what diseases you get | The Independent
Swipe for next article
Whether you are first-born or not may influence what diseases you get<br>Study suggests first-born children are more likely to develop neurological conditions and second-born are more prone to substance abuse
Bookmark
Comments<br>Go to comments
Bookmark popover<br>Removed from bookmarks<br>Close popover
Related: Benefits of sibling therapy
Your support helps us to tell the story<br>Read more
Support Now
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.<br>At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.<br>The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.<br>Your support makes all the difference.
Read more
First-born children are more likely than their siblings to develop mental health problems later in life, a groundbreaking new study suggests.<br>Previous studies have indicated that younger siblings tend to suffer lower rates of some diseases, like allergies, likely due to older brothers or sisters bringing in more microbes into their homes.<br>But the research has been unclear as to whether a child’s birth order is linked more broadly to overall health risks.
The new study, based on health data of over 10 million people from five million two-child families submitted for commercial insurance claims over a period of two decades, showed that the risks of developing at least 150 diseases were indeed determined by one’s birth order.<br>Researchers compared the health data of first-borns with those of second-borns within the same household as well as from different families, matching them by sex, birth year, location and similar parental ages. They noted that the datasets were analysed in accordance with privacy requirements.
open image in gallery
Siblings (Mark Philbrick/BYU via Eurekalert)<br>They found that the risks of the children developing 150 diseases in later life varied based on their order of birth, according to the study published in the journal Nature Health.
First-borns were likelier than their younger siblings to be diagnosed with neurological and mental health conditions, including autism and ADHD, Tourette syndrome, depression and anxiety.<br>In contrast, second-born children were more often diagnosed with substance abuse problems, digestive issues like gastritis, shingles, migraines, and some joint conditions.
"Birth order is associated with disease risk more broadly than previously appreciated," the study noted.<br>One possible reason for the varying disease risk could be parents watching their first child more closely, leading to earlier diagnoses of conditions like autism and ADHD, researchers said.<br>open image in gallery
Birth order may influence disease risk (Nature Health 2026)<br>Younger siblings appear to be at a relatively higher risk of substance abuse because they are exposed to older peer groups at an earlier age, they reason.
“The second-born excess for substance abuse aligns with sociological theories of later-born risk-taking behaviour,” the study noted.<br>However, researchers caution that the findings are only statistical associations and should not be interpreted as direct evidence of birth order causing any particular disease.
“The most conservative interpretation is that neuro-developmental associations probably reflect a mixture of pregnancy-order biology, parental surveillance, diagnostic timing, residual confounding rather than one uniform mechanism,” they wrote. “The convergence of evidence from between-family and within-family designs, combined with validation controls and robustness analyses, is consistent with a mixture of physiological, immunological and social mechanisms.”<br>Researchers hope future studies will evaluate whether this pattern is replicated in households with more than two children.
Join our commenting forum<br>Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies<br>Comments
Most popular
Popular videos
Bulletin
Read next
Thank you for registering<br>Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in