Table 2.

Summary of the data.

	STUDY DESIGN	COUNTRY	FACILITATORS FOR FAMILIES	BARRIERS FOR FAMILIES	FACILITATORS FOR PROFESSIONALS	BARRIERS FOR PROFESSIONALS
Serbati, et al, 2016 [29]	Pre- and post-test design (qualitative and quantitative)	Italy	– the importance of multidimensional assessments and interventions	gap between social services – parents often feel blamed and excluded from decision-making – parents are confused by a system that seems to hold power over them	– multi-professional decision-making
Eastwood et al, 2020 [30]	Realist evaluation	Australia	– involvement of the whole family – families participating in decision-making – cultural sensitivity – flexible professionals – shared decision making		– co-location – motivation of professionals and services increase collaboration – no strict referral criteria	– collaboration leads to difficulties in information sharing
Eastwood et al, 2020 [31]	Realist evaluation	Australia	– adaptability to intensity of families’ fluctuating support – trust between family and professional leads to a successful working relationship – shared decision-making between professional and family members – favourable inter-personal relations between clients and professionals – culturally-appropriate, trauma-informed care – flexibility of accessibility and service navigation	– distrust of welfare services by family members	– favourable inter-personal relations between service providers – absence of strict referral criteria – creation of trusting relationships between service-providers	– mutual competition between organizations – underdeveloped pathways for intra- and interagency collaboration – fragmented service environment – professional autonomy can lead to a high degree of responsibility, which can create a risk of burnout – difficulty maintaining healthy boundaries empathy and professionalism amongst professionals – persistent silos in healthcare and systemic resistance to collaboration – professional autonomy
Tennant et al, 2020 [32]	Realist evaluation	Australia	– building trust between professionals/family members – likeable and approachable: ’a safe person’ – meeting clients on their own terms – quickly demonstrating staff effectiveness – client empowerment		– shared learning amongst collaborating professionals – leveraging other family members – social and organizational relationships – mutual respect amongst professionals – co-location of professionals – multidisciplinary and/or interagency staff – flexible service by professionals – knowledge transfer between staff working together – advocacy for other professionals or agencies	– difficulties relating to privacy – care-coordinators combining their interactions with child welfare workers can result in conflicts with families – flexibility leads to burnout symptoms amongst professionals – professionals who depend on other services can jeopardize the relationship with families
Nooteboom et al, 2020 [33]	Qualitative	Netherlands	– holistic, family-centred approach – shared decision-making – jointly prioritize needs and focus of support – an up-to-date care plan – clarity, tasks, and responsibilities – co- located professionals – a care coordinator – frequent evaluation – familiarity between professionals through interprofessional collaboration – accessibility of professionals	– cultural and generational differences in talking about problems (by involving social networks) – overburdening social networks (by involving them) – not all parents feel the need to use theirs social networks – too many treatment goals lead to overburdening of parents – long waiting lists – lack of clarity of services – perceived limited freedom of choice; differences in appropriate support between professionals – parents feel uncomfortable about sharing personal information – warm handoffs – lack of availability of professionals
Morris 2013 [34]	Qualitative	United Kingdom	– involving family narratives in support of practical help – understanding the family results in greater engagement with services – understanding the everyday reality of families	– withholding of information by families – not recognizing the challenges faced by families	– working with family groups instead of individual family members
Bachler et al, 2016 [35]	Pre/post-naturalistic	Austria/Germany	– opportunity to develop psycho-social skills by establishing treatment expectation – developing working alliance (therapist and family) – systemic, family-wide approach	– less goal-directed collaboration – sufficient self-efficacy in solving problems by family itself	– insufficient time for contemplation amongst professionals – not being aware of family-related psychosocial problems
Onyskiw et al, 1999 [36]	Descriptive/evaluative	Canada	– informal support, accepting, non-threatening, non-judgemental, and help for coping with stressors – multidisciplinary teams appreciated by clients – families found education and support groups beneficial	- home visits not always seen as positive by clients - project operated during business hours
Sousa 2005 [37]	Qualitative/explorative	Portugal	– supporting role of the social network – informal network guide to other support – networking approach enabling dealing with crisis – informal network has more weight than formal network	– families less reciprocal in social contacts – over-involvement of professionals leads to the delegation of responsibility from families to professionals
Lawick et al, (2008) [38]	Qualitative	The Netherlands	– humour – feedback between families and professionals – home visits – collaborative position between families		– working with ’multi-stressed’ families is overwhelming for therapists
Bachler et al, (2017) [39]	Naturalistic	Austria	– qualitative collaboration between professionals and families leads to high treatment outcome expectancy and reduces stress – supporting family-wide approach	– family members do not maintain or improve collaboration – hopelessness in clients leads to reduced treatment outcomes – increased child development risks in families with low socio-economic status (SES)
Thoburn et al, (2013) [40]	Ethnographic	United Kingdom	– whole holistic family approach – availability of a second key worker (one for the child and one for the parent[s])	– lack of flexibility in approach by professionals – ambivalent trust in the professional – crucial aims are not achieved	– access to specialist and statutory support services – flexibility of intensity and case duration – high level of supervision and consultation for professionals – multi-agency partnerships – range of different approaches
Nooteboom et al, (2020a) [41]	Qualitative	The Netherlands	– broad assessment across different areas of life – early consultation and involvement of informal networks and schools		– professionals see home visits as advantageous – frequent evaluation support process and collaboration with families and professionals – a support plan focused on the future – importance of timely recognition of risks and needs – multidisciplinary expertise within teams – agreements about tasks, roles, and responsibilities at the organizational level – accessibility and availability for families – autonomy of professionals and tailored support – professionals work in pairs – familiarity with other professionals through co-location – warm handoff professionals – coordination of care – jointly discuss focus of support in multidisciplinary teams	– lack of knowledge of dealing with different problems amongst professionals – difficulties with family privacy re. sharing of information – difficult to determine when to scale support up or down – resistance of families to restrictive support in scaling up – too much involvement with family – case discussions too crisis-orientated – prioritizing problems – barriers to interprofessional collaboration – risk of too much support regarding the problem(s) – high work pressure for professionals – risk of professionals working outside their expertise – professionals dealing with unclear tasks, roles, and responsibilities – waiting lists for access to social care; professionals experience difficulties in assessing crisis situations
Sousa & Rodrigues (2009) [42]	Qualitative	Portugal	– partnership between family members and professionals	– fragmenting support formal and informal network – difficulties families in reciprocal relationships
Nadeau et al, (2012) [43]	Qualitative Participatory	Canada			– regular exchanges to resolve tensions and promote collaboration between teams – formal mechanisms for communication – clear referral procedures to increase stability in teams – possibilities for informal communication between workers – opportunities for clinical discussion	– shifts of power and a loss of privileges that upset relationships between clinicians and managers – lack of knowledge of other institutions
Tausenfreund et al, (2014) [44]	Prospective one-group repeated measures outcome	The Netherlands	– dual key worker approach: one for the parents and one for the children	– prematurely stopping support – high stress levels in families