View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Cross-Disciplinary Collaboration Supporting Children with Special Educational Needs in Early Childhood Education: A Scoping Review

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Cross-Disciplinary Collaboration Supporting Children with Special Educational Needs in Early Childhood Education: A Scoping Review
Language: English
Authors: Yihan Sun (ORCID 0000-0002-8944-3945), Helen Skouteris (ORCID 0000-0001-9959-5750), Andrea Tamblyn (ORCID 0000-0002-0572-6033), Emily Berger (ORCID 0000-0001-5550-807X), Claire Blewitt (ORCID 0000-0002-4990-2334)
Source: Early Childhood Education Journal. 2026 54(1):381-398.
Availability: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 18
Publication Date: 2026
Document Type: Journal Articles
Information Analyses
Reports - Research
Education Level: Early Childhood Education
Descriptors: Special Needs Students, Early Childhood Education, Educational Cooperation, Interdisciplinary Approach, Special Education, Child Care, Barriers, Influences, Vocabulary, Definitions, Educational Research
DOI: 10.1007/s10643-024-01836-0
ISSN: 1082-3301
1573-1707
Abstract: The need for cross-disciplinary collaboration to meet the diverse needs of young children in Early Childhood Education and Care [ECEC] is evident. When multi-disciplinary professionals work together collaboratively, children with special educational needs are more likely to receive child-centred, holistic, and integrated support. This scoping review systematically (1) identified the research evidence available on cross-disciplinary collaboration initiatives that include inclusive ECEC settings as one collaborating party; (2) compared and clarified key terminologies and definitions around collaboration; (3) categorised the enablers and barriers reported towards cross-disciplinary collaboration within ECEC; and (4) explored the preliminary outcomes of cross-disciplinary collaboration. A total of 20 articles were included. Findings contribute to the emerging field of cross-disciplinary collaboration in ECEC, offering valuable insights for future research and implementation efforts aimed at optimising outcomes for young children.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2026
Accession Number: EJ1503875
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwEWF8rkVTuKjqb-CXEd6MeuAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDCkxBwE9gRLbv7w8jAIBEICBmjz6zqly53x7ae5sY24lOmyf2crx02o8q0GB2K0yTDWrSOCeIErXXWIMwU6O0F9rSWIBq_cjv_heWFXh5z9Ov_5yDjUZCxIC-T9FQQJK2vzAChrO7-39IemdEbjOYbMj4pz0YIutowvvuEjbiWwl-AG2yQDe3Jlof6uYcISZtbRQuenYwClbm0ovnrFzDkIVxySeYZ3Ddg4oyiw=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0191072499;5mx01jan.26;2026Jan27.05:19;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0191072499-1">Cross-Disciplinary Collaboration Supporting Children with Special Educational Needs in Early Childhood Education: A Scoping Review </title> <p>The need for cross-disciplinary collaboration to meet the diverse needs of young children in Early Childhood Education and Care [ECEC] is evident. When multi-disciplinary professionals work together collaboratively, children with special educational needs are more likely to receive child-centred, holistic, and integrated support. This scoping review systematically (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref1">1</reflink>) identified the research evidence available on cross-disciplinary collaboration initiatives that include inclusive ECEC settings as one collaborating party; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref2">2</reflink>) compared and clarified key terminologies and definitions around collaboration; (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref3">3</reflink>) categorised the enablers and barriers reported towards cross-disciplinary collaboration within ECEC; and (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref4">4</reflink>) explored the preliminary outcomes of cross-disciplinary collaboration. A total of 20 articles were included. Findings contribute to the emerging field of cross-disciplinary collaboration in ECEC, offering valuable insights for future research and implementation efforts aimed at optimising outcomes for young children.</p> <p>Keywords: Cross-disciplinary; Cross-sector; Collaboration; Early childhood education; Studies in Human Society Policy and Administration Sociology</p> <p>Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-024-01836-0.</p> <hd id="AN0191072499-2">Introduction</hd> <p>The provision of inclusive early childhood education and care [ECEC] services is widely supported, based on the premise that all children have rights to access high-quality ECEC programs (Nelis & Pedaste, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref5">40</reflink>]). Globally, the definitions and understandings of inclusive education vary; a typology of five ways to think about inclusion was proposed by Ainscow & Miles ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref6">1</reflink>]). Notably, the first dimension emphasises the inclusion of children with special educational needs and disabilities [SEND], such as those experiencing disabilities, speech delays, developmental delays, or trauma (Ainscow & Miles, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref7">1</reflink>]). A recent survey conducted among Australian early childhood educators revealed 78.1% of respondents have children with additional needs in their group (Kishida et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref8">29</reflink>]), while a study conducted in the United States suggested 42% of preschool children have disabilities (Rhoad-Drogalis & Justice, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref9">53</reflink>]). These SEND may bring social, emotional, behavioural, and health challenges, that can impact children's ability to thrive. It is estimated that around 43% of children younger than five in low- and middle-income countries are at risk of not reaching their developmental potential (Black et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref10">7</reflink>]). Providing tailored support to the diverse needs of these children is thus essential. Envisioned by the Sustainable Development Goals agenda, quality early childhood programs need to be prioritised for all children to develop holistically. As critical figures in early childhood programs, teachers have a common understanding of inclusion, yet their knowledge and skills on strategies to support children with SEND are lacking (Zabeli et al., [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref11">68</reflink>]). With the lack of relevant training, time, and resources, it is challenging for teachers alone to attend to all students' needs. Collaboration with inter-disciplinary professionals is thus increasingly advocated for to support children with autism spectrum disorder [ASD] (Cui et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref12">15</reflink>]), speech and language delay (Robertson & Ohi, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref13">54</reflink>]), developmental delay (Murata & Tan, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref14">39</reflink>]), additional needs (Wong & Press, [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref15">65</reflink>]), and trauma (Sun et al., [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref16">59</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref17">57</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0191072499-3">Policy Support for Cross-Disciplinary Collaboration</hd> <p>Cross-disciplinary collaboration involves individuals or teams from diverse disciplines working together to achieve shared goals (Pennington, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref18">46</reflink>]). In the context of inclusive early childhood education, this refers to professionals from various disciplinary training backgrounds (e.g., health, occupational therapy, speech therapy, mental health) collaborating to support children with SEND. This approach has gained growing recognition and value in maximising support for young children with SEND. Governments across the world are increasingly recognising the potential in cross-disciplinary collaboration, reflected in their policy improvements and updates. For example, in Australia, the 2023 Early Years Strategy has placed a key focus area on "breaking down silos" between professional groups (Australia Government, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref19">4</reflink>]); partnership with other professionals is also highlighted in the updated Early Years Learning Framework (Australian Government Department of Education [AGDE], [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref20">3</reflink>]). In addition, ECEC centres collaboration "with other organisations and service providers to enhance children's learning and wellbeing" is required by the Australian National Quality Framework (Australian Children's Education and Care Quality Authority [ACECQA], [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref21">2</reflink>]). Similarly, Finland has highlighted the need to clarify and strengthen interprofessional collaboration within ECEC sector (Kahila et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref22">27</reflink>]). This was reflected in the updated Act on Early Childhood Education and Care (540/2018) in 2018 (Ministry of Education and Culture, 2021), which promoted interprofessional collaboration including early childhood professionals. In the United States, the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act (US Department of Health & Human Services, [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref23">62</reflink>]) encourages collaboration among childcare providers, health professionals, and social service agencies to ensure inclusive and high-quality education and care for children with diverse needs. As Wong and Press ([<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref24">64</reflink>]) rightfully argued, when educators can collaborate effectively with other professionals in interprofessional ways, children and with SEND can be better supported.</p> <hd id="AN0191072499-4">The Complexity of the Terminologies Around Collaboration</hd> <p>Collaborative efforts involving professionals from different disciplines working together to provide support for children with SEND is suggested as the most effective approach to promote holistic development of children across life domains (Castro-Kemp & Samuels, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref25">14</reflink>]; Rapport et al., [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref26">50</reflink>]). However, the terminologies and what such collaboration looks like remains unclear, which add to the challenge of implementation and translation. It has been noted that there are two components of collaboration, including (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref27">1</reflink>) service integration, and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref28">2</reflink>) collaborative practice, each with terms across the spectrum from low to high regarding the collaboration level (see Fig. 1). The first set of terminologies centred around the level of service integration, with coordination, co-location, collaboration, and cooperation commonly used in literature, referring to integrated forms of service delivery, but often lack clear definitions or parsimony in the extant definitions (Castañer & Oliveira, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref29">13</reflink>]). Castañer and Oliveira ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref30">13</reflink>]) recognised the overlap in meanings across these three terms which does not form the basis for distinctive definitions, and thus conducted a systematic review to try and redefine the terms collaboration, coordination, and cooperation. <emph>Coordination</emph> is often the first step of service integration, referring to the knowledge of the different services providers are delivering, and the linkage of services when needed. <emph>Co-location</emph> has a much clearer definition, defined as the sharing of the same physical space between different professionals by previously distributed services (Memon & Kinder, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref31">36</reflink>]). <emph>Collaboration</emph> and <emph>cooperation</emph> offer a greater degree of integration compared with coordination and co-location. These involve interprofessional or inter-agency ways of working through information and knowledge sharing towards a common goal. Specifically, <emph>collaboration</emph> is defined as "a style for direct interaction between at least two coequal parties voluntarily engaged in shared decision making as they work toward a common goal" (Friend & Cook, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref32">19</reflink>], p. 6). However, whether collaboration or cooperation have a higher level of integration is not agreed upon across literature (Castañer & Oliveira, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref33">13</reflink>]; McIsaac et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref34">34</reflink>]).</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 1 How research conceptualises collaboration?</p> <p>Unlike terminologies around service integration, the other set of terminologies in relation to models of collaboration has been explored and discussed more extensively. Multiple articles have discussed the difference between multi-disciplinary, inter-disciplinary, trans-disciplinary, and inter-professional collaboration (Friend & Cook, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref35">19</reflink>]; King-Sears et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref36">28</reflink>]). The difference between these terms lies in the level of collaboration on the same continuum (see Fig. 1). King-Sears et al. ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref37">28</reflink>]) define <emph>multidisciplinary</emph> collaboration as parties from different disciplines using their discipline-specific knowledge and skills to address children's needs and conduct activities independently. Such multidisciplinary teamwork does not have intentional coordination and integration (Friend & Cook, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref38">19</reflink>]). The <emph>interdisciplinary</emph> collaboration has greater service coordination. While team members still conduct activities independently, they jointly develop and share goals, with more frequent communication (Friend & Cook, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref39">19</reflink>]). Among these collaboration models, <emph>transdisciplinary</emph> collaboration has the highest level of service integration; professionals from different disciplines work together to achieve a common goal, such as sharing knowledge and skills, participating in shared professional development, joint planning and goal setting (Friend & Cook, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref40">19</reflink>]). The fourth collaboration model, namely <emph>interprofessional</emph> collaboration, rooted in medicine, is not often discussed together with the previous three models. However, Miller et al. ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref41">37</reflink>]) argue that educators also need to have collaborative competencies to work within a coordinated teams of professionals to effectively support children with diverse needs. Such an <emph>interprofessional</emph> collaboration model encompasses all features of transdisciplinary collaboration, while also extending to a "broader, systemic context" (Pfeiffer et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref42">47</reflink>]. P. 640). For example, instead of solely focusing on individual child, professionals who participate in <emph>interprofessional</emph> collaboration took a broad view and make efforts to try and optimise outcomes for all children.</p> <p>Apart from these commonly used terms, there are other terms such as Pandisciplinary and Discipline-specific services (Brandt et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref43">8</reflink>]), which have not been widely discussed in the literature. In this review, we use cross-disciplinary collaboration as an overarching term to refer to all types of collaboration, defining as at least two professionals from different disciplines working together with the goal of supporting the same children in ECEC. Cross-sector collaboration will also be used, referring to organisations from different sectors join forces to collectively support children, in occasions where the included articles applied this term.</p> <hd id="AN0191072499-5">The Needs for Cross-Disciplinary Collaboration in ECEC</hd> <p>Recognising the multiple challenges children may experience (e.g., genetic, physical, developmental, environmental), cross-disciplinary collaboration has become increasingly important. No one person or service is sufficient to address the array of needs presented by young children (Reeves et al., [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref44">51</reflink>]). Increasingly, service integration for health service delivery has been explored and piloted with the aim of breaking down the silos within health and social care, such as the role of health navigator (e.g., Modderman et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref45">38</reflink>]) and maternal and child health nurse (Adams et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref46">5</reflink>]), with promising outcomes documented. Similar integrated support involving multidisciplinary professionals in the educational context has not been explored to the same extent. ECEC settings, as universal community services accessed by most young children are critically positioned to identify and respond to the diverse needs of young children in a holistic way. Reupert et al. ([<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref47">52</reflink>]) has recently proposed "the village" approach, highlighting the need to move past a traditional, siloed, professional-centred approach when supporting children. In their discussion of this initial "the village" concept, they suggested moving towards the coordinated responses from multiple sectors including health, social care, and education (Reupert et al., [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref48">52</reflink>]). Reflecting on the early childhood context, the number of children ECEC has the potential to reach is powerful; centred around this universal community services, the need for cross-disciplinary collaboration to provide holistic integrated support for young children within this context is thus evident.</p> <hd id="AN0191072499-6">Rationale and Aim of the Current Review</hd> <p>Although there is a substantial body of literature suggesting that cross-disciplinary collaboration is essential for effective provision and positive outcomes for children, the specific characteristics and components that professionals within and across early childhood sectors can adopt to partner effectively remain unclear. This is essential to explore so cross-disciplinary collaboration can be more effectively implemented in promoting young children's health and development outcomes. A recent scoping review mapped out the combined efforts of education, health, and/or social care to support students with special educational needs and disabilities broadly, with eight forms of collaboration identified (Castro-Kemp & Samuels, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref49">14</reflink>]). Among these, two types of collaborative strategies included ECEC settings. Examples include (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref50">1</reflink>) management's own partnerships and networks (Payler & Georgeson, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref51">44</reflink>]), and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref52">2</reflink>) transdisciplinary play-based assessment (Sanches-Ferreira et al., [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref53">55</reflink>]). Castro-Kemp and Samuels's ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref54">14</reflink>]) review places the focus on only empirical papers exploring cross-sector collaboration across three broad contexts over the past decade. However, ECEC sector is often diverse, complex, and nuanced, with a mix of funding streams, operating models, and management infrastructure (Sun et al., [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref55">58</reflink>]). The types and forms of cross-disciplinary collaboration that has been implemented specifically in ECEC are yet to be explored. Our scoping review seeks to address the following research questions: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref56">1</reflink>) What cross-disciplinary collaboration initiatives have been applied in ECEC settings, what are the terminologies used, and what do they focus on (e.g., professionals included, children targeted)? (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref57">2</reflink>) What are the components of cross-disciplinary collaboration that include ECEC professionals? (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref58">3</reflink>) What are the enablers and barriers to cross-disciplinary collaboration? (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref59">4</reflink>) What outcomes have been reported through cross-disciplinary collaboration, if any?</p> <hd id="AN0191072499-7">Method</hd> <p>Scoping review, defined as "a type of evidence synthesis that aims to systematically identify and map the breadth of evidence available on a particular topic, field, concept, or issue, often irrespective of source (i.e., primary research, reviews, non-empirical evidence) within or across particular contexts" (p. 950) is helpful for the clarification of concepts or definition, and to explore key features related to such concepts (Munn et al., 2018). The aim of this scoping review was to identify and explore the terminologies, characteristics, enablers and barriers, and preliminary outcomes to cross-disciplinary collaboration within ECEC. Thus, scoping review is deemed as the most appropriate methodology. Our review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA-ScR) guideline for scoping reviews (Tricco et al., 2018). Arksey and O'Malley's ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref60">6</reflink>]) framework for scoping review, extended by Levac et al. ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref61">32</reflink>]) also guided the present study. Specifically, five steps were followed: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref62">1</reflink>) identifying the research question, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref63">2</reflink>) identifying the relevant studies, (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref64">3</reflink>) study selection, (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref65">4</reflink>) charting the data, and (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref66">5</reflink>) collating, summarising and reporting results.</p> <hd id="AN0191072499-8">Search Strategy</hd> <p>Guided by the research questions, the search terms were developed using three key concepts: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref67">1</reflink>) cross-disciplinary, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref68">2</reflink>) collaboration, and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref69">3</reflink>) ECEC (see search strategy in supplementary table S1). Three sessions of consultation were sought with a librarian with expertise in systematic review. A systematic literature search was conducted in August 2023, and subsequently updated in November 2024 across five electronic databases (i.e., ERIC, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Scopus, A + Education). Subject headings were mapped for relevant terms in each database; line-by-line search was performed in these five databases. No limitation was applied in relation to the year of publication. Articles were limited to peer-reviewed studies in English language. Manual searching of the reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews were also conducted to minimise the possibility of missing articles, with suitable studies included.</p> <hd id="AN0191072499-9">Study Selection</hd> <p>The inclusion and exclusion criteria were developed prior to the systematic search and study selection. Studies were eligible for review if they described a collaboration between ECEC professionals and other cross-disciplinary professionals, or between ECEC organisation and other cross-sector agencies, to support the same group of children with SEND in the ECEC context. ECEC professionals are educators/teachers with varied qualifications (e.g., certificate, diploma, bachelor's degree, master's degree) who educate and care for young children aged 0–6 in various universal ECEC settings, including preschools, kindergartens, long day care centres, early learning centres, and childcare centres (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD], 2021). ECEC organisations are institutions or entities that provide and/or manage these early childhood education and care services. Cross-disciplinary professionals can have various backgrounds, with the expertise to support children with diverse SEND (e.g., mental health professionals, health practitioners, allied health professionals, social workers). SEND, in this paper, refer to the condition of a child that may need or require specific considerations, adaptations or extra support. Examples include developmental condition (e.g., ASD, developmental delay), disability, medical condition (e.g., diabetes), and exposure to trauma. Study design is not restricted for the scoping purpose. No restrictions were applied to the types of peer-reviewed articles included (e.g., empirical, descriptive), provided they met the inclusion criteria specified above. Studies were excluded when (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref70">1</reflink>) no specific collaboration was described, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref71">2</reflink>) the collaboration did not include early childhood professionals or early childhood organisations as one collaborative party (e.g., between health and social care), (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref72">3</reflink>) the collaboration was not between cross-disciplinary professionals (e.g., between parents and teachers, between teachers), and (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref73">4</reflink>) the collaboration was universal for all children (e.g., music).</p> <p>The initial search retrieved a total of 4257 results. Citations for all records were exported to Covidence software for screening, with 218 duplicates removed. Four thousand and thirty-nine title and abstracts were screened by one author against inclusion and exclusion criteria [<emph>YS</emph>]. Twenty percent of titles and abstracts were independently screened by a second author [<emph>AT</emph>] (inter-rater agreement: 83.33%); agreement for articles to be read in full was 100% after review and discussion between two reviewers. One researcher [<emph>YS</emph>] then independently screened the titles and abstracts of the remaining articles against the more specified inclusion and exclusion criteria. One hundred and ninety-six articles were then read in full to further assess the eligibility for inclusion [<emph>YS</emph>], with 20% co-screened by two reviewers. Discrepancies (inter-rater agreement: 94.44%) were discussed between reviewers and in consultation with the third author [<emph>CB</emph>], and 100% agreement was achieved. A total of twenty studies were included in the current review (see Fig. 2 for the PRISMA chart).</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 2 PRISMA chart</p> <hd id="AN0191072499-10">Data Extraction, Charting, and Analysis</hd> <p>Data were extracted from each article to an Excel spreadsheet by the first author [<emph>YS</emph>] and crossed checked by another author [<emph>CB</emph>]. This included information about (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref74">1</reflink>) study characteristics (author, year, country, article type, study design), and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref75">2</reflink>) characteristics of the described collaboration (collaboration terminology used, definition/description of the collaboration terms, collaboration context, children's special needs, professionals included, roles and responsibilities of each included professionals, components/steps of collaboration). If a study evaluated the described collaboration, then the study design, measurements tools, and outcomes reported were further extracted.</p> <p>A variety of data analysis methods were applied to address the specific research questions (RQs) of this study. To address the first RQ, frequency counts (Pollock et al., [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref76">48</reflink>]) were applied for analysing the collaboration terminologies used, children supported, and professionals included. Deductive basic qualitative content analysis was performed to answer the second research question on collaboration components. Basic qualitative content analysis, a descriptive approach for analysis and categorisation is helpful to map the results in addressing research questions (Pollock et al., [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref77">48</reflink>]), which is also recommended by JBI scoping review guidance (Peters et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref78">45</reflink>]). In addition, a pre-existing framework by Bricker et al. ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref79">10</reflink>]), which outlines the core collaboration elements (i.e., communicating, sharing, joint planning, contributing, compromising, modelling, acknowledging) in early intervention and early childhood special education was adopted. All cross-disciplinary collaboration initiatives in ECEC captured in this scoping review were examined against these components. Further, to address the third RQ, an inductive qualitative content analysis was performed to explore the enablers and barriers towards cross-disciplinary collaboration identified for each action level (i.e., the level of action at which the collaboration operates). For example, team-level refers to professionals who collaboratively deliver service to children, and agency-level is focused on organisations (e.g., ECEC, mental health services) that initiate the collaboration by providing outreach or integrated service. The first author independently coded all articles. A total of 23 codes were generated, and subsequently categorised as enablers and barriers at the professional level or agency level. These codes and categories were reviewed and discussed by the author team before reporting. NVivo software was used to assist with the coding and analysis process.</p> <hd id="AN0191072499-11">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0191072499-12">Characteristics of the Included Studies</hd> <p>A total of 20 articles were included in this scoping review, with their characteristics presented in Table 1. Though no date limits were applied during the search, all included articles were published between 2000 and 2022 inclusive. Ten studies were conducted in the United States, three were conducted in Canada, and two were examined in the United Kingdom context. The remaining studies were conducted one each in China, Israel, Australia, Singapore and New Zealand. Of the 20 included articles, thirteen were empirical studies. Among these, seven evaluated the outcomes of the collaborative initiatives (Cui et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref80">15</reflink>]; Davidson et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref81">16</reflink>]; Hernandez, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref82">23</reflink>]; Hunt et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref83">24</reflink>]; Hyter, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref84">25</reflink>]; Kaczmarek & Pennington, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref85">26</reflink>]; Mander & Moore, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref86">33</reflink>]). The remaining seven were non-empirical, including four practitioner papers that described how they practice cross-disciplinary collaboration in universal ECEC to support children with special educational needs (Branson & Bingham, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref87">9</reflink>]; Brinamen & Page, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref88">11</reflink>]; DeVore et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref89">17</reflink>]; Lamb, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref90">31</reflink>]).</p> <p>Table 1 Characteristics of the included studies</p> <p> <ephtml> <table rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left"><p>First author (Year, Country)</p></th><th align="left"><p>Collaborative terminology used</p></th><th align="left"><p>Description/definition of collaboration</p></th><th align="left"><p>Setting</p></th><th align="left"><p>Children targeted</p></th><th align="left"><p>Professionals included</p></th><th align="left"><p>Empirical</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>1</p></td><td align="left"><p>Cui (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr15">2022</xref>,</p><p>China)</p></td><td align="left"><p>Multi-disciplinary; cross-sectoral; integrated therapy model</p></td><td align="left"><p>-Practitioners function independently (e.g., in providing regular bodychecks and family education), but are also actively involved in classroom teaching, collaborative assessment sessions, and other community-based training activities</p><p>- The multi-disciplinary team members exchange knowledge and insight in a timely manner to form a tailor-made, comprehensive education and rehabilitation plan for individual students</p></td><td align="left"><p>Preschool</p></td><td align="left"><p>ASD</p></td><td align="left"><p>Teachers, paediatricians, SW, SLP, OT</p></td><td align="left"><p>Yes</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>2</p></td><td align="left"><p>Mclsaac</p><p>(<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr34">2020</xref>, Canada)</p></td><td align="left"><p>Collaborative governance</p></td><td align="left"><p>- Integrated Service Delivery (ISD). Continuum of ISD represented through the indicators of change: co-location, co-operation, coordination, collaboration, integration</p></td><td align="left"><p>EYCs across Nova Scotia</p></td><td align="left"><p>All children (including those with special needs)</p></td><td align="left"><p>Initiated by the provincial government and supported by local partnerships with non-profit organisations and community networks</p></td><td align="left"><p>Yes</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>3</p></td><td align="left"><p>Sinai‑Gavrilov</p><p>(<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr56">2019</xref>, Israel)</p></td><td align="left"><p>Multidisciplinary</p></td><td align="left"><p>- A unique therapeutic milieu consisting of a large group of professionals from various disciplines that are expected to form a cohesive team, delivering a well-integrated intervention</p></td><td align="left"><p>ASD preschool</p></td><td align="left"><p>ASD</p></td><td align="left"><p>Pedagogical staff (teachers, paraprofessional aids)</p><p>Therapeutic team (SLP, OT, Psychologist, SW, PT, Creative-art therapist)</p></td><td align="left"><p>Yes</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>4</p></td><td align="left"><p>Prelock (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr49">2017</xref>, USA)</p></td><td align="left"><p>Interprofessional</p></td><td align="left"><p>- Continuous engagement in reflective, purposeful service delivery that is more nuanced and truly collaborative</p></td><td align="left"><p>Early intervention & school-based context</p></td><td align="left"><p>ASD</p></td><td align="left"><p>Paediatrician, SLP, OT, ECT, PT, paraprofessional</p></td><td align="left"><p>Yes</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>5</p></td><td align="left"><p>Mander (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr33">2015</xref>, Canada)</p></td><td align="left"><p>Collaborate</p></td><td align="left"><p>/</p></td><td align="left"><p>Preschool</p></td><td align="left"><p>Communication delays</p></td><td align="left"><p>ECE, SLP</p></td><td align="left"><p>Yes</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>6</p></td><td align="left"><p>Watson (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr63">2014</xref>, USA)</p></td><td align="left"><p>Cross-disciplinary</p></td><td align="left"><p>/</p></td><td align="left"><p>Kindergarten</p></td><td align="left"><p>Children not responding to general education</p></td><td align="left"><p>Teachers, SLP</p></td><td align="left"><p>No</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>7</p></td><td align="left"><p>Payler (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr44">2013</xref>, UK)</p></td><td align="left"><p>Interprofessional</p></td><td align="left"><p>- Working alongside the other professional, each bringing a perspective of the child's needs to bear and encompassing a new, expanded version of those needs, thus expanding each individual's perspective of the child/needs and their joint response</p></td><td align="left"><p>Early Years Setting</p></td><td align="left"><p>Special educational needs</p></td><td align="left"><p>EYP, SLT, OT</p></td><td align="left"><p>Yes</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>8</p></td><td align="left"><p>Wong (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr65">2012</xref>, Australia)</p></td><td align="left"><p>Integrated services; Inter-professional teamwork</p></td><td align="left"><p>- Integrated services: A range of professionals work together in teams to provide families with access to a range of services in a seamless "joined-up" way</p><p>- Inter-professional work: collaboration and cooperation by professionals from different disciplinary backgrounds</p></td><td align="left"><p>Integrated early years services</p></td><td align="left"><p>/</p></td><td align="left"><p>/</p></td><td align="left"><p>Yes</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>9</p></td><td align="left"><p>Hernandez (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr23">2012</xref>, USA)</p></td><td align="left"><p>Collaboration push-in/ integrated model</p></td><td align="left"><p>- Collaboration itself is defined in a myriad of ways. Friend & Cook (1992) state collaboration is "a style for direct interaction between at least two co-equal partners voluntarily engaged in shared decision making as they work toward a common goal" (p.5). Others make reference to the cultural and contextual setting, the need for respect for each participant and a sense of problem ownership by each team member</p></td><td align="left"><p>Special preschool</p></td><td align="left"><p>Special needs</p></td><td align="left"><p>Special educators, SLP</p></td><td align="left"><p>Yes</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>10</p></td><td align="left"><p>Davidson (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr16">2012</xref>, UK)</p></td><td align="left"><p>Inter-agency</p></td><td align="left"><p>/</p></td><td align="left"><p>Childcare</p></td><td align="left"><p>Children at risk for protection, with parental mental health issues</p></td><td align="left"><p>Childcare services & mental health services</p></td><td align="left"><p>Yes</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>11</p></td><td align="left"><p>Brinamen (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr11">2012</xref>, USA)</p></td><td align="left"><p>Collaboration</p></td><td align="left"><p>Working side by side</p></td><td align="left"><p>Preschool</p></td><td align="left"><p>Children impacted by trauma</p></td><td align="left"><p>A community early education program & children's council of San Francisco (a resource & referral agency that provides mental health consultations)</p><p>Early childhood professionals & mental health professionals</p></td><td align="left"><p>No</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>12</p></td><td align="left"><p>Yeo (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr67">2011</xref>, Singapore)</p></td><td align="left"><p>Multidisciplinary</p></td><td align="left"><p>/</p></td><td align="left"><p>Preschool</p></td><td align="left"><p>Mild learning disabilities</p></td><td align="left"><p>Preschool educators, Psychologists, OT,</p></td><td align="left"><p>Yes</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>13</p></td><td align="left"><p>DeVore (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr17">2011</xref>, USA)</p></td><td align="left"><p>Teaming</p></td><td align="left"><p>- Using core teams of individuals representing multiple disciplines who are accountable to the child/family as well as one another</p></td><td align="left"><p>Preschool</p></td><td align="left"><p>Special needs</p></td><td align="left"><p>ECE, SLP, OT, PT</p></td><td align="left"><p>No</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>14</p></td><td align="left"><p>Murata (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr39">2009</xref>, USA)</p></td><td align="left"><p>Collaborative teaching</p></td><td align="left"><p>- Collaboration is defined as experts sharing information, so that all parties are informed and understand, communicating openly and demonstrating mutual respect for one another; collaboration employs the use of multiple professionals working together toward the common goal of a child's educational program</p></td><td align="left"><p>Preschool</p></td><td align="left"><p>Developmental delay</p></td><td align="left"><p>Preschool teachers, PT, OT</p></td><td align="left"><p>No</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>15</p></td><td align="left"><p>Branson (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr9">2009</xref>, USA)</p></td><td align="left"><p>Interagency</p></td><td align="left"><p>/</p></td><td align="left"><p>Preschool</p></td><td align="left"><p>Special needs (genetic disorder, ASD, down syndrome)</p></td><td align="left"><p>Early intervention (EI) agency, local education agency (LEA), preschools</p></td><td align="left"><p>No</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>16</p></td><td align="left"><p>Lamb (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr31">2008</xref>, New Zealand)</p></td><td align="left"><p>Transdisciplinary community of support</p></td><td align="left"><p>- A group of people working together and supporting each other towards shared goals, often taking different roles in achieving the common vision</p></td><td align="left"><p>Kindergarten</p></td><td align="left"><p>Special education needs</p></td><td align="left"><p>Parents, kindergarten teachers, an education support worker, SLP, early intervention teacher and psychologist</p></td><td align="left"><p>No</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>17</p></td><td align="left"><p>Frankel (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr18">2006</xref>, Canada)</p></td><td align="left"><p>Collaborate</p></td><td align="left"><p>/</p></td><td align="left"><p>Community-based early childhood settings</p></td><td align="left"><p>Special needs</p></td><td align="left"><p>Resource consultant, supervisors, teachers, parents</p></td><td align="left"><p>No</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>18</p></td><td align="left"><p>Hunt (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr24">2004</xref>, USA)</p></td><td align="left"><p>Collaborative teaming</p></td><td align="left"><p>- Team-teaching model, where an early childhood education teacher and a special education teacher shared responsibility for the education of all the children in their classroom</p></td><td align="left"><p>Preschool</p></td><td align="left"><p>Pre-schoolers with severe disabilities</p></td><td align="left"><p>Early childhood and special education teachers, instructional assistants, SLP, parents</p></td><td align="left"><p>Yes</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>19</p></td><td align="left"><p>Hyter (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr25">2003</xref>, USA)</p></td><td align="left"><p>Collaborative effort</p></td><td align="left"><p>/</p></td><td align="left"><p>HeadStart</p></td><td align="left"><p>Children with emotional or behavioural disorders</p></td><td align="left"><p>A collaborative effort between a university speech-language pathology program & Head Start program</p><p>Preschool teacher, SLP</p></td><td align="left"><p>Yes</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>20</p></td><td align="left"><p>Kaczmarek (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr26">2000</xref>, USA)</p></td><td align="left"><p>Transdisciplinary</p></td><td align="left"><p>- Transdisciplinary service delivery in early intervention emphasises joint responsibility and collaboration of team members from a variety of in the assessment of a child and in planning, implementing, and evaluating services for the child</p></td><td align="left"><p>Preschool</p></td><td align="left"><p>Children with moderate to severe disabilities</p></td><td align="left"><p>- Core classroom team: teacher, classroom assistants (paraprofessionals), SLP, hospital coordinator, supervisor/principal, parents</p><p>- Expanded team: OT, PT, art & PE teachers, psychologists, nurse</p></td><td align="left"><p>Yes</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <emph>ASD</emph> Autism Spectrum Disorder, <emph>SLP</emph> Speech-language pathologist, <emph>SW</emph> Social worker, <emph>PT</emph> Physical therapist, <emph>OT</emph> Occupational therapist, <emph>ECT</emph> Early childhood teacher, <emph>PE</emph> Physical education, <emph>EYP</emph> Early years practitioner, <emph>ECE</emph> Early childhood educator</p> <hd id="AN0191072499-13">RQ1: Terminologies Regarding Cross-Disciplinary Collaboration</hd> <p>Different terminologies were used across the included articles. Eight articles used the general term "collaborate", "collaboration", or "collaborative". The remaining articles have applied more specific terms, including "multidisciplinary", "transdisciplinary", "cross-disciplinary", "interprofessional", "inter-agency", "cross-sectoral", "integrated", "teaming". Authors of three articles used several terms interchangeably. Specifically, Cui et al. ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref91">15</reflink>]) used "multi-disciplinary", "cross-sectoral", and "integrated therapy model" in their article; Wong et al. ([<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref92">65</reflink>]) used "integrated services" and "inter-professional teamwork" in their manuscript; Hernandez ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref93">23</reflink>]) used both the general term "collaboration" and the more specific term "push-in/integrated model".</p> <p>The definitions of the terms used in each article were not always clear and consistent, with seven articles having no evident definitions to be extracted. Generally, articles with authors using general terms such as "collaborate" tended to not include a definition, with the exception of three papers (Brinamen & Page, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref94">11</reflink>]; Hernandez, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref95">23</reflink>]; Murata & Tan, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref96">39</reflink>]). Among these, Hernandez ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref97">23</reflink>]) included a brief review of how "collaboration" was defined in literature, from "a style for direct interaction between at least two co-equal partners voluntarily engaged in shared decision making as they work toward a common goal" (Friend & Cook, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref98">19</reflink>], p. 5), to engaging the cultural and contextual settings by highlighting the need for respect, and the ownership by all team members (Welch, 1998). Brinamen and Page ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref99">11</reflink>]) had a brief description of "collaboration" as "working side by side". Murata and Tan ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref100">39</reflink>]) defined "collaboration" as "employs the use of multiple professionals working together toward the common goal of a child's educational program".</p> <p>The definition of "multi-disciplinary collaboration" was provided only in one of three articles that included it. Specifically, Sinai-Gavrolov et al. ([<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref101">56</reflink>]) described such collaboration as "a unique therapeutic milieu consisting of a large group of professionals from various disciplines that are expected to form a cohesive team, delivering a well-integrated intervention." (p. 4635). "Interprofessional collaboration" was the term that was defined well within included studies. Payler and Georgeson ([<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref102">44</reflink>]) suggested "interprofessional collaboration" as "working alongside the other professional, each bringing a perspective of the child's needs to bear and encompassing a new, expanded version of those needs, thus expanding each individual's perspective of the child/needs and their joint response." (p.41). "Integrated" was explained in two of the three articles using them. Wong et al. ([<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref103">65</reflink>]) defined this as "a range of professionals including early childhood professionals work together in teams to provide families with access to a range of services in a seamless 'joined-up' way." (p. 81); Cui et al. ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref104">15</reflink>]) introduced the Integrated Therapy Model (ITM) and describing it as "characterized by a 'push-in' technique that facilitates direct interactions among children, therapists and teachers in the classroom setting." (p. 4475). However, the description for "cross-disciplinary", "cross-sectoral", "inter-agency" was not evident.</p> <hd id="AN0191072499-14">RQ1: Targeted Children and Professionals Involved in the Cross-Disciplinary Collaboration</hd> <p>Children targeted in included studies through cross-disciplinary collaboration were diverse. Three studies focused on supporting children with autism spectrum disorder (Cui et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref105">15</reflink>]; Prelock et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref106">49</reflink>]; Sinai-Gavrilov et al., [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref107">56</reflink>]), and children with mild to severe disabilities (Hunt et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref108">24</reflink>]; Kaczmarek & Pennington, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref109">26</reflink>]; Yeo et al., [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref110">67</reflink>]). Other studies targeted children with communication delays (Mander & Moore, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref111">33</reflink>]), children not responding to general education (Watson & Bellon-Harn, [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref112">63</reflink>]), those with developmental delays (Murata & Tan, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref113">39</reflink>]), emotional or behavioural disorders (Hyter, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref114">25</reflink>]), children impacted by trauma (Brinamen & Page, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref115">11</reflink>]), and children at risk for protection (Davidson et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref116">16</reflink>]).</p> <p>Professionals from multiple disciplines are involved in the collaboration to support children with SEND. Teachers are involved in all interprofessional collaboration described. Paraprofessional aids (e.g., teaching assistants) were explicitly described in five articles (Hunt et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref117">24</reflink>]; Kaczmarek & Pennington, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref118">26</reflink>]; Lamb, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref119">31</reflink>]; Prelock et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref120">49</reflink>]; Sinai-Gavrilov et al., [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref121">56</reflink>]). Leaders were involved in one study (Kaczmarek & Pennington, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref122">26</reflink>]), while special educators are described in two studies (Hernandez, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref123">23</reflink>]; Hunt et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref124">24</reflink>]). One study described the participation of art and PE teachers (Kaczmarek & Pennington, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref125">26</reflink>]). Allied health professionals also played a critical role in interprofessional collaboration. Specifically, speech language pathologists are most commonly involved in such collaboration (n = 12), followed by occupational therapists (n = 6). Physical therapists and psychologists were also identified in five and four included studies respectively. Mental health professionals (Brinamen & Page, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref126">11</reflink>]) and creative-art therapists (Sinai-Gavrilov et al., [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref127">56</reflink>]) are described in one article each. The inclusion of social workers is found in two studies (Cui et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref128">15</reflink>]; Sinai-Gavrilov et al., [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref129">56</reflink>]). Other commonly described professionals are health professionals, including paediatricians (Cui et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref130">15</reflink>]; Prelock et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref131">49</reflink>]), nurses and hospital coordinators (Kaczmarek & Pennington, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref132">26</reflink>]). Resource consultants (i.e., professionals who provide on-site support for both child, staff and families to promote inclusion) were introduced in one study (Frankel, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref133">18</reflink>]). How parents were involved in the collaboration to support children was explicitly discussed by four included articles (Frankel, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref134">18</reflink>]; Hunt et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref135">24</reflink>]; Kaczmarek & Pennington, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref136">26</reflink>]; Lamb, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref137">31</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0191072499-15">RQ2: Components of the Cross-Disciplinary Collaboration in ECEC</hd> <p>Different forms of cross-disciplinary collaboration efforts are seen in ECEC to support children with diverse SEND. Some were initiated by the authority institutions (e.g., provincial government; McIsaac et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref138">34</reflink>]), some were developed through outreach by health and/or social care organisations (e.g., hospital; Yeo et al., [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref139">67</reflink>]), and the remaining initiatives were all started with education professionals recognising the needs of children and reaching out for support and collaboration. For example, in Payler and Georgeson's ([<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref140">44</reflink>]) article, when staff had a concern about a child, they sought suggestions from a linked local authority Early Years Advisory Teacher [EYAT] who could provide referral support and assist with further cross-disciplinary collaboration (Payler & Georgeson, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref141">44</reflink>]). A similar role called resource consultant was described in Frankel ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref142">18</reflink>]). One unique form of collaboration was a therapeutic classroom (Yeo et al., [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref143">67</reflink>]), staffed by both early childhood and mental health professionals, reflecting a ten-year collaboration between two agencies (i.e., a community early education program, and a resource and referral agency that provides mental health services).</p> <p>A set of essential components core to collaboration in early intervention and early childhood special education identified by a review were adopted to guide the basic content analysis in the present scoping review. These components of collaborative practices include communicating, sharing, joint planning, contributing, compromising, modelling, and acknowledging (Bricker et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref144">10</reflink>]). Of these, "communicating" was evident in all included studies, followed by "sharing" and "joint planning", which were evident in 17 and 18 articles respectively (Table 2). "Contributing", which refers to the actions that support, strengthen, improve, or help each other move toward agreed-upon goals (Nijhuis et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref145">42</reflink>]) was evident in eight studies. "Acknowledging" (i.e., offering appreciation and feedback to other professionals) was evident in seven studies. "Compromising" and "Modelling" were evident in less studies. It is notable that only explicitly described practices were coded and ticked, we may thus miss studies that include some components yet did not explicitly describe.</p> <p>Table 2 Collaboration components (Guided by Bricker et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref146">10</reflink>])</p> <p> <ephtml> <table rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left" /><th align="left" colspan="7"><p>Collaborative Practices</p></th><th align="left"><p>Action Level</p></th></tr><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left"><p>Study</p></th><th align="left"><p>Communicating</p></th><th align="left"><p>Sharing</p></th><th align="left"><p>Joint Planning</p></th><th align="left"><p>Contributing</p></th><th align="left"><p>Compromising</p></th><th align="left"><p>Modelling</p></th><th align="left"><p>Acknowledging</p></th><th align="left"><p>Team/Agency</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>1</p></td><td align="left"><p>Cui et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr15">2022</xref></p></td><td align="left"><p>✔</p></td><td align="left"><p>✔</p></td><td align="left"><p>✔</p></td><td align="left"><p>✔</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Team</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>2</p></td><td align="left"><p>Mclsaac et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr34">2020</xref></p></td><td align="left"><p>✔</p></td><td align="left"><p>✔</p></td><td align="left"><p>✔</p></td><td align="left"><p>✔</p></td><td align="left"><p>✔</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>✔</p></td><td align="left"><p>State</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>3</p></td><td align="left"><p>Sinai‑Gavrilov et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr56">2019</xref></p></td><td align="left"><p>✔</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>✔</p></td><td align="left"><p>✔</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Team</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>4</p></td><td align="left"><p>Prelock et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr49">2017</xref></p></td><td align="left"><p>✔</p></td><td align="left"><p>✔</p></td><td align="left"><p>✔</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>✔</p></td><td align="left"><p>✔</p></td><td align="left"><p>Team</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>5</p></td><td align="left"><p>Mander & Moore, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr33">2015</xref></p></td><td align="left"><p>✔</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>✔</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>In-service Training for educators</p></td><td align="left"><p>✔</p></td><td align="left"><p>Team</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>6</p></td><td align="left"><p>Watson et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr63">2014</xref></p></td><td align="left"><p>✔</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>✔</p></td><td align="left"><p>✔</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Consultation & suggestion</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Team</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>7</p></td><td align="left"><p>Payler & Georgeson, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr44">2013</xref></p></td><td align="left"><p>✔</p></td><td align="left"><p>✔</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>✔</p></td><td align="left"><p>Agency</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>8</p></td><td align="left"><p>Wong et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr65">2012</xref></p></td><td align="left"><p>✔</p></td><td align="left"><p>✔</p></td><td align="left"><p>✔</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Team</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>9</p></td><td align="left"><p>Hernandez., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr23">2012</xref></p></td><td align="left"><p>✔</p></td><td align="left"><p>✔</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Team</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>10</p></td><td align="left"><p>Davidson et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr16">2012</xref></p></td><td align="left"><p>✔</p></td><td align="left"><p>✔</p></td><td align="left"><p>✔</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Agency</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>11</p></td><td align="left"><p>Brinamen & Page, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr11">2012</xref></p></td><td align="left"><p>✔</p></td><td align="left"><p>✔</p></td><td align="left"><p>✔</p></td><td align="left"><p>✔</p></td><td align="left"><p>✔</p></td><td align="left"><p>✔</p></td><td align="left"><p>✔</p></td><td align="left"><p>Agency</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>12</p></td><td align="left"><p>Yeo et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr67">2011</xref></p></td><td align="left"><p>✔</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>✔</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>✔</p></td><td align="left"><p>✔</p></td><td align="left"><p>Team</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>13</p></td><td align="left"><p>DeVore et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr17">2011</xref></p></td><td align="left"><p>✔</p></td><td align="left"><p>✔</p></td><td align="left"><p>✔</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>✔</p></td><td align="left"><p>Team</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>14</p></td><td align="left"><p>Murata & Tan, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr39">2009</xref></p></td><td align="left"><p>✔</p></td><td align="left"><p>✔</p></td><td align="left"><p>✔</p></td><td align="left"><p>✔</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Team</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>15</p></td><td align="left"><p>Branson & Bingham, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr9">2009</xref></p></td><td align="left"><p>✔</p></td><td align="left"><p>✔</p></td><td align="left"><p>✔</p></td><td align="left"><p>✔</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>✔</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Agency</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>16</p></td><td align="left"><p>Lamb, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr31">2008</xref></p></td><td align="left"><p>✔</p></td><td align="left"><p>✔</p></td><td align="left"><p>✔</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Team</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>17</p></td><td align="left"><p>Frankel, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr18">2006</xref></p></td><td align="left"><p>✔</p></td><td align="left"><p>✔</p></td><td align="left"><p>✔</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Team</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>18</p></td><td align="left"><p>Hunt et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr24">2004</xref></p></td><td align="left"><p>✔</p></td><td align="left"><p>✔</p></td><td align="left"><p>✔</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Team</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>19</p></td><td align="left"><p>Hyter., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr25">2003</xref></p></td><td align="left"><p>✔</p></td><td align="left"><p>✔</p></td><td align="left"><p>✔</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Team</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>20</p></td><td align="left"><p>Kaczmarek et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr26">2000</xref></p></td><td align="left"><p>✔</p></td><td align="left"><p>✔</p></td><td align="left"><p>✔</p></td><td align="left"><p>✔</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Team</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Please note only collaborative practices explicitly described in the articles were coded</p> <p>The action level of collaboration (e.g., team-level, agency-level) was determined for each collaborative initiative described in included studies. Table 2 presents the collaboration components explicitly described in each study, and their action level. Among which, most collaboration happens at the professional/team level (Cui et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref147">15</reflink>]; DeVore et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref148">17</reflink>]; Frankel, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref149">18</reflink>]; Hernandez, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref150">23</reflink>]; Hunt et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref151">24</reflink>]; Hyter, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref152">25</reflink>]; Kaczmarek & Pennington, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref153">26</reflink>]; Lamb, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref154">31</reflink>]; Mander & Moore, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref155">33</reflink>]; Murata & Tan, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref156">39</reflink>]; Prelock et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref157">49</reflink>]; Sinai-Gavrilov et al., [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref158">56</reflink>]; Watson & Bellon-Harn, [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref159">63</reflink>]; Wong et al., [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref160">65</reflink>]; Yeo et al., [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref161">67</reflink>]), with four studies described the collaboration at the agency/organisation level (Branson & Bingham, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref162">9</reflink>]; Brinamen & Page, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref163">11</reflink>]; Davidson et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref164">16</reflink>]; Payler & Georgeson, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref165">44</reflink>]). These include the inter-agency collaboration between childcare services and mental health services (Davidson et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref166">16</reflink>]), early education service and resource & referral agency that provides mental health consultations (Brinamen & Page, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref167">11</reflink>]), preschool, early intervention agency, and local education agency (Branson & Bingham, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref168">9</reflink>]). One collaboration was at the state level (McIsaac et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref169">34</reflink>]), initiated by the provincial government and supported by local partnerships with non-profit organisations and community networks.</p> <hd id="AN0191072499-16">RQ3: Enablers and Barriers for Cross-Disciplinary Collaboration in ECEC</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0191072499-17">Team-Level Enablers and Barriers</hd> <p>The majority of facilitators that emerged from inductive qualitative content analysis occur at the team level (see Table 3). At this level, pre-service Interprofessional Education [IPE] training, and professional capability and confidence stood out. Among professionals from diverse discipline participating in the collaborative effort, SLP appears to be the professionals who are more likely to receive interprofessional education training (Prelock et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref170">49</reflink>]; Watson & Bellon-Harn, [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref171">63</reflink>]). Pre-service IPE training (i.e., a process "when two or more professions learn about, from, and with each other to enable effective collaboration"; WHO, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref172">66</reflink>], p. 13) such as joint coursework and collaborative projects with other disciplines is identified as facilitator for in-service interprofessional practice. The team with distributed expertise (i.e., a network of expertise spread across the knowledge bases and skills of different professions; Edwards, 2009) is important for a smooth collaboration. To achieve this, professional skills and capability related to their own profession matter, which was found to affect their professional confidence, and competence to work in an interprofessional team (Davidson et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref173">16</reflink>]; DeVore et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref174">17</reflink>]; Frankel, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref175">18</reflink>]; Hernandez, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref176">23</reflink>]; Lamb, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref177">31</reflink>]; Mander & Moore, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref178">33</reflink>]; Wong et al., [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref179">65</reflink>]; Yeo et al., [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref180">67</reflink>]). This is particularly the case for early childhood teachers. "Common goal", "collective ownership" of the responsibility to support the child, and "role clarity" were identified as the basis for a successful cross-disciplinary collaboration. The synergy where all collaborative professionals work towards a shared goal through collective ownership and clarified roles lays the foundation for successful collaboration. During the collaboration, "information sharing", "inter-professional communication", "joint planning", "peer learning" are essential. It is notable that in occasions when oral communication is not always possible due to time insufficiency, written communication is proposed as an alternative way to main the inter-professional dialogue going (Lamb, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref181">31</reflink>]; Mander & Moore, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref182">33</reflink>]; Watson & Bellon-Harn, [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref183">63</reflink>]). Examples include "keeping a journal that remains in the classroom" (Watson & Bellon-Harn, [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref184">63</reflink>]) and "emails" between professionals (Lamb, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref185">31</reflink>]; Watson & Bellon-Harn, [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref186">63</reflink>]). Furthermore, "joint training", "inter-professional rapport and support", and "mutual professional respect" also emerged. If all professionals can feel that their professionalism is well regarded by other professionals, they are more likely to be empowered in disagreeing and exploring new pathways of actions (Lamb, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref187">31</reflink>]).</p> <p>Table 3 Enablers and barriers to cross-disciplinary collaboration</p> <p> <ephtml> <table rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left"><p>Enablers</p></th><th align="left"><p>Barriers</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Professional level</p></td><td align="left"><p>Pre-service IPE training [4, 6]</p><p>Professional capability and confidence [5, 8–10, 12, 13, 16, 17]</p><p>Common goal [6, 8, 14, 16–18, 20]</p><p>Collective ownership [8, 10, 11, 17, 18, 20]</p><p>Role clarity [3–6, 10, 13–15, 17, 20]</p><p>Information sharing [6, 16, 19]</p><p>Inter-professional communication [3–7, 13, 16, 17, 19, 20]</p><p>Joint planning [6, 7, 13, 16, 19, 20]</p><p>Peer learning [3, 16, 20]</p><p>Joint training [8, 10, 11, 17, 18, 20]</p><p>Inter-professional rapport and support [3, 6, 7, 8, 11–13, 16, 20]</p><p>Mutual professional respect [4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 16, 17]</p></td><td align="left"><p>Disparities in professional terminology and views [3, 8, 10]</p><p>Sufficient time for communication [5, 10, 16, 20]</p><p>Discontinuity of professionals [3, 10, 16, 20]</p><p>Lack of role clarity [3, 20]</p><p>Lack of professional respect for early childhood educational professionals [7, 8]</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Agency level</p></td><td align="left"><p>Principled engagement [2]</p><p>Established process and mechanism to support collaboration [2, 8, 9, 15, 17]</p><p>Strong leadership and administrative support [2, 5, 6, 15, 17]</p><p>Mutual understanding of the interests of all parties [2]</p><p>Shared motivation [2]</p><p>Capacity for joint action [2, 15]</p></td><td align="left"><p>Reinforced institutional boundary [7]</p><p>Complexity within early childhood workforce [2]</p><p>Inadequate resources to support joint action [2]</p><p>Administrative constraints [3, 7, 12]</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Five barriers were discussed across the included articles at the team level. "Disparities in professional terminology and views" was raised (Davidson et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref188">16</reflink>]; Sinai-Gavrilov et al., [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref189">56</reflink>]; Wong et al., [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref190">65</reflink>]). The discrepancies between different professional language and perspectives make it hard for cross-disciplinary professionals to reach consensus, make shared decisions and joint actions. "Sufficient time for communication" (Davidson et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref191">16</reflink>]; Kaczmarek & Pennington, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref192">26</reflink>]; Lamb, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref193">31</reflink>]; Mander & Moore, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref194">33</reflink>]) is another ongoing struggle; communication in any form is essential to forming and maintaining interprofessional relationship, and effective collaboration. "Discontinuity of professionals" (Davidson et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref195">16</reflink>]; Kaczmarek & Pennington, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref196">26</reflink>]; Lamb, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref197">31</reflink>]; Sinai-Gavrilov et al., [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref198">56</reflink>]), especially the high turnover of childcare professionals is a major difficulty to ensure consistency in inter-professional collaboration. Further, "Lack of role clarity" may result in imbalanced member participation in collaborative effort (Kaczmarek & Pennington, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref199">26</reflink>]; Sinai-Gavrilov et al., [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref200">56</reflink>]). Lastly, "lack of professional respect for early childhood educational professionals" were identified by two articles (Payler & Georgeson, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref201">44</reflink>]; Wong et al., [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref202">65</reflink>]). The historical undervaluation of professionals in the early years sector, especially those work in childcare settings, was raised by several researchers (e.g., Payler & Georgeson, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref203">44</reflink>]; Wong et al., [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref204">65</reflink>]). These create concerns regarding early childhood professionals' contributions being overlooked or less valued in interprofessional teams, compared to therapists.</p> <hd id="AN0191072499-18">Agency-Level Enablers and Barriers</hd> <p>Agency-level support for professionals to collaborate cross-disciplinarily is critical. Several agency-level enablers emerged (see Table 3), including "principled engagement" between all parties (i.e., engagement is built on guiding principles that support rapport and merits of all collaborating parties), "established process and mechanism to support collaboration", "strong leadership and administrative support", and "capacity for joint action". These factors play a significant role in supporting professionals from different agency to work collaboratively. For example, principled engagement enables collaborative agencies work across boundaries to solve problems, resolve conflicts, and create value. Acknowledging the time investment needed from each organisation to build mutual trust, develop a shared vision and accountability mechanisms through collaborative engagement, enabling organisations with supportive leadership, and a variety of communication strategies are necessary (McIsaac et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref205">34</reflink>]).</p> <p>Barriers at agency level were not discussed to the same extent as enablers in included studies. Only four challenges were raised. The first factor that hampers interprofessional collaboration are the institutional arrangements that reinforce boundaries between agencies (Payler & Georgeson, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref206">44</reflink>]), which may hamper the joint action needed. Meanwhile, the complexity within the early childhood workforce adds challenges for partners to develop shared goal and role clarity (McIsaac et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref207">34</reflink>]). Inadequate resources such as the lack of funding to support cross-sector data sharing, and allowing adequate time and space for professionals to communicate, are barriers (McIsaac et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref208">34</reflink>]). These may limit the collaborative's capacity for joint action (Mclsaac et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref209">34</reflink>]). Lastly, the administrative constraints (e.g., technicalities, logistics, paperwork) may overshadow professional considerations (Payler & Georgeson, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref210">44</reflink>]; Sinai-Gavrilov et al., [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref211">56</reflink>]; Yeo et al., [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref212">67</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0191072499-19">RQ4: Outcomes Reported from Cross-Disciplinary Collaboration in ECEC</hd> <p>While no specific conclusions on effectiveness on such collaboration can be drawn due to the scoping nature of the present literature review, positive impacts were seen both on child outcomes and professional capacity as a result of inter-professional collaboration. For example, Cui et al. ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref213">15</reflink>]) found children demonstrated increased motor abilities and reduced problem behaviour after the collaborative effort from teachers, paediatrician, social worker, SLP, and OT. It might be important to note that the majority of studies capturing the outcome of such cross-disciplinary collaboration are exploratory; no study has assigned a control group to investigate the effectiveness. What components of cross-disciplinary collaboration are effective, under what context, for whom, and why are also unknown. The detailed study design, outcome measured, measures, and outcomes were presented in Table S2.</p> <hd id="AN0191072499-20">Discussion</hd> <p>The need for cross-disciplinary collaboration to meet the diverse needs of young children in ECEC is evident. When multi-disciplinary professionals work together collaboratively, children are more likely to receive child-centred holistic integrated support. Recognising the prevailing siloed ways of working in early childhood settings (Reupert et al., [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref214">52</reflink>]), and the inherent challenges in affecting change given the entrenched nature of traditional practices grounded in existing policy, regulations, education, funding models and systems (Nicholson et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref215">41</reflink>]), the investigation of prospective pathways to collaboration represents a promising initial step forward. With growing implementation and understanding of integrated service delivery in health and social care, the increasing exploration of cross-sector collaboration in the education sector is also imperative due to the significant influence this context holds (e.g., universal accessibility by children). Within a context of increasing policy advocation for cross-sector collaboration in early childhood education, it is essential to explore the existing cross-disciplinary collaboration initiatives, their characteristics, components, enablers, barriers, and preliminary outcomes to inform future efforts. The current review contributes to this emerging field by systematically synthesising the research available in this space, offering new insights towards future implementation of cross-disciplinary collaboration in ECEC.</p> <p>The use and understanding of multiple terminologies around collaboration is inconsistent. Studies used different terminologies interchangeably, while the definitions lack uniformity across the included studies. Consequently, the level of collaboration conveyed through these terms often remains ambiguous. For instance, preliminary research consensus suggests that "multidisciplinary" denotes the lowest level of collaboration, whereas "transdisciplinary" signifies the highest degree of joint collaborative endeavours (Friend & Cook, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref216">19</reflink>]). However, this distinction is not consistently articulated and evident through the literature. Such inconsistency in terminology usage can create barriers for effective communication and understanding. This review identifies that the majority of cross-disciplinary collaboration described initiates and occurs at the professional/team level, with only a small portion initiated by government or larger organisation (agency level). Characteristics of cross-disciplinary collaboration and the support needed are different when collaboration occur at different action levels. It may be helpful to have terminologies indicating the action level of cross-disciplinary collaboration, such as "interprofessional" collaboration for team-level efforts, and "inter-agency" collaboration for initiatives at the agency level. It is possible that by employing such terminology, stakeholders across disciplines can have more clarity and consistent understanding of the level of collaborative action enacted.</p> <p>Cross-disciplinary collaboration involves effective teamwork among a variety of professionals from different disciplines to ensure the delivery of tailored education and care to children with diverse needs. Professionals from education (e.g., teachers, special educators, paraprofessionals, leaders), allied health (speech language pathologists, occupational therapists, physical therapists, psychologists, social workers), and health (paediatricians, nurses) are common players of cross-disciplinary collaboration to support young children with SEND in ECEC. Though it is promising to have these professionals from multiple disciplines join force together, the fundamental philosophical training, beliefs, and terminologies between these professionals are one barrier for effective collaboration (Bruder, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref217">12</reflink>]; Wong et al., [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref218">65</reflink>]). Pre-service IPE training that prepares professionals to work together emerged as an enabler to cross-disciplinary collaboration. The importance of IPE in higher education has been increasingly recognised in medicine and health (Goncalves et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref219">20</reflink>]; Grace, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref220">21</reflink>]), however less so in early childhood education (McMillan et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref221">35</reflink>]). As a result, IPE is not commonly embedded in pre-service teacher education. Incorporating such elements into pre-service education can be a promising step towards the future of disciplinary silo-breakdown. Evidence suggests that IPE has the potential to leave siloed and discipline-specific thinking behind and prepare professionals to consider other professions' perspectives (Thistlethwaite et al., [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref222">61</reflink>]). This could be a critical first step in preparing a workforce surrounding children that is collaborative ready.</p> <p>Effective cross-disciplinary collaboration is built on the competence and confidence of all professionals in their respective disciplines, coupled with an unbiased understanding of the unique contribution each discipline brings to the team. Building on these, enablers identified through included studies suggested some basics for successful teamwork, including (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref223">1</reflink>) common goal and collective ownership, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref224">2</reflink>) role clarity, (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref225">3</reflink>) timely information sharing, (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref226">4</reflink>) inter-professional communication, (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref227">5</reflink>) joint planning, (<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref228">6</reflink>) peer learning, (<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref229">7</reflink>) joint training, (<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref230">8</reflink>) interprofessional rapport and support, and (<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref231">9</reflink>) mutual professional respect. Of particular note is the importance of mutual professional respect; many articles pointed out that education professionals' voices may not always be valued to the same extent compared with allied health and health professionals (e.g., Payler & Georgeson, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref232">44</reflink>]; Wong et al., [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref233">65</reflink>]). One possible reason is the implicit nature of knowledge and skills often draw from by education professional (O'Connor et al., [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref234">43</reflink>]; Taylor, [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref235">60</reflink>]) that are less able to be easily articulated and justified than the "scientific" knowledge informing the practices of allied health and health professionals. Wong et al. ([<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref236">65</reflink>]) thus raised the concern about the possible marginalisation of early childhood professionals' perspectives in a cross-disciplinary team. Early childhood education professionals are trained professionals who spend significant amount of time with children, enabling them to have knowledge about children's interests, preferences, capacities, and developmental milestones. These insights, along with their pedagogical expertise, are essential to holistic child-centred support. Only if mutual professional respect is established can equitable recognition of all professionals' voices in decision-making processes aimed at achieving collective goals be maximised.</p> <p>Lastly, it is not surprising that communication emerged as a pivotal component and enabler of cross-disciplinary collaboration, with the notable hindrance being the perceived lack of time for effective communication. While oral communication may not always be feasible, the included articles suggest that written communication services as a viable alternative, with methods such as maintaining a journal in the classroom or utilising email updates and exchanges. It is emphasised that regular and ongoing dialogue among all collaborative parties is indispensable for sharing information, documenting and discussing approaches, and monitoring child progress (Hartman et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref237">22</reflink>]). Recognising the current challenge of time constraints for communication, organisations have a role to play in exploring ways to actively foster frequent opportunities for communication (Klein, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref238">30</reflink>]). Conversely, components such as "compromising", "modelling", and "acknowledging" appear to be more nuanced aspects of cross-disciplinary collaboration that are not always explicitly delineated in the literature, partly due to existing barriers identified in this review. For example, "compromising" necessitates the willingness of collaborative parties to adjust and consider alternatives (Nijhuis et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref239">42</reflink>]), which relies heavily on the establishment of trust and mutual professional respect.</p> <hd id="AN0191072499-21">Limitations</hd> <p>While this study is the first known study to systematically explore cross-disciplinary collaboration within ECEC, it is critical to note the scoping nature of this review. This means that the quality of evidence captured was not appraised, limiting the ability to draw specific conclusions regarding the effectiveness of these cross-disciplinary collaboration. However, it is important to note that scoping reviews typically do not include quality appraisals due to their broad focus. The inclusion criteria were limited to peer-reviewed articles in English, and gray literature was not included due to the absence of peer-review process. Although peer-reviewed practitioner papers were included, this inclusion and exclusion criteria may pose a risk of publication bias and result in the potential omission of valuable practical insights. This review specifically targeted the ECEC context, with this as a primary search term, potentially leading to the oversight of relevant studies where ECEC was not a central focus but still contributed to aspects of collaboration. Finally, due to the practical constraints, only 20% of articles were independently co-screened; the remaining articles were cross-checked by an additional author. Similarly, during the data analysis stage, double-coding was not performed, but all codes and categories were discussed and reviewed by the research team.</p> <hd id="AN0191072499-22">Implications</hd> <p>Despite these limitations, preliminary evidence suggests the positive outcomes of collaboration for both children and professionals. However, it is important to recognise that the study design utilised was primarily exploratory, with no controlled study design adopted; no study has investigated and clarified which components of cross-disciplinary collaboration are effective, under what context, and for whom. For example, it is unclear from this review how collaboration can optimally function when supporting children with various SEND, and whether there are important differences between the roles of each collaborator across different circumstances. Notably, while professional-level factors have been examined to some extent, agency-level enablers and barriers have been explored to a lesser extent. Considering how professionals from multiple disciplines rely on support and enabling environment from their respective agencies, investigating agency-level factors that facilitate or hinder cross-sector collaboration is imperative. Such exploration has the potential to inform the policies and procedures of relevant organisations. Practically, laying the groundwork for cross-disciplinary collaboration should begin with embedding IPE into pre-service education programs. This initiative could prepare future professionals from education, allied health, and health to be cross-disciplinary collaborative ready. Moreover, from an implementation standpoint, establishing an enabling system and garnering organisation-level support from all participating agencies are critical for professionals to effectively collaborate and achieve optimal outcomes for young children in need.</p> <hd id="AN0191072499-23">Declarations</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0191072499-24">Conflict of interests</hd> <p>The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and publication of this article.</p> <hd id="AN0191072499-25">Supplementary Information</hd> <p>Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.</p> <p>Graph: Supplementary file1 (DOCX 20 KB)</p> <hd id="AN0191072499-26">Publisher's Note</hd> <p>Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p> <ref id="AN0191072499-27"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref1" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Ainscow M, Miles S. Making education for all inclusive: where next?. Prospects. 2008; 37; 1: 15-34. 10.1007/s11125-008-9055-0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref2" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Australian Children's Education and Care Quality Authority (ACECQA). (2017). Guide to the national quality standard. Sydney, NSW: ACECQA.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref3" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Australian Government Department of Education [AGDE] (2022). Belonging, being and becoming: The early years learning framework for Australia (V2.0). Australian Government Department of Education for the Ministerial Council.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref4" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Australian Government (2024). Early years strategy 2024-2034. Web report. https://<ulink href="http://www.dss.gov.au/families-and-childrenprograms-services/early-years-strategy">www.dss.gov.au/families-and-childrenprograms-services/early-years-strategy</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref46" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Adams C, Hooker L, Taft A. Managing maternal and child health nurses undertaking family violence work in Australia: A qualitative study. Journal of Nursing Management. 2022; 30; 6: 1620-1628. 10.1111/jonm.13466</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref60" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Arksey H, O'Malley L. Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology. 2005; 8; 1: 19-32. 10.1080/1364557032000119616</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref10" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Black MM, Walker SP, Fernald LCH, Andersen CT, DiGirolamo AM, Lu C, McCoy DC, Fink G, Shawar YR, Shiffman J, Devercelli AE, Wodon QT, Vargas-Barón E, Grantham-McGregor S. Early childhood development coming of age: Science through the life course. The Lancet. 2017; 389; 10064: 77-90. 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31389-7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref43" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Brandt, K, Perry, B. D, Seligman, S, Tronick, E, & Brazelton, T. B. (2014). Infant and Early Childhood Mental Health: Core Concepts and Clinical Practice (First Edition). American Psychiatric Publishing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref87" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Branson DM, Bingham A. Using interagency collaboration to support family-centered transition practices. Young Exceptional Children. 2009; 12; 3: 15-31. 10.1177/1096250609332306</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bricker DD, Felimban HS, Lin FY, Stegenga SM, Storie SO. A proposed framework for enhancing collaboration in early intervention/early childhood special education. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education. 2022; 41; 4: 240-252. 10.1177/0271121419890683</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brinamen C, Page F. Using relationships to heal trauma: Reflective practices creates a therapeutic preschool. Young Children. 2012; 67; 5: 7-40</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bruder MB. Early childhood intervention: A promise to children and families for their future. Exceptional Children. 2010; 76; 3: 339-355. 10.1177/001440291007600306</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Castañer X, Oliveira N. Collaboration, coordination, and cooperation among organizations: Establishing the distinctive meanings of these terms through a systematic literature review. Journal of Management. 2020; 46; 6: 965-1001. 10.1177/0149206320901565</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Castro-Kemp S, Samuels A. Working together: A review of cross-sector collaborative practices in provision for children with special educational needs and disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities. 2022; 120. 10.1016/j.ridd.2021.104127104127</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cui J, Xie H, He X. Evaluation of the integrated therapy model in preschool education for children with autism spectrum disorder in China. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. 2022. 10.1007/s10803-022-05737-2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Davidson G, Duffy J, Barry L, Curry P, Darragh E, Lees J. Championing the interface between mental health and child protection: Evaluation of a service initiative to improve joint working in northern Ireland. Child Abuse Review. 2012; 21; 3: 157-172. 10.1002/car.1164</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> DeVore S, Miolo G, Hader J. Individualizing inclusion for preschool children using collaborative consultation. Young Exceptional Children. 2011; 14; 4: 31-43. 10.1177/1096250611428424</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Frankel EB. The knowledge, skills and personal qualities of early childhood resource consultants as agents of change. Exceptionality Education Canada. 2006; 16; 2–3: 35-58</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Friend M, Cook L. Interactions: Collaboration skills for school professionals. 20137; Pearson Education</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goncalves JRDSN, Goncalves RN, da Rosa SV, Orsi JSR, Moyses SJ, Werneck RI. Impact of interprofessional education on the teaching and learning of higher education students: A systematic review. Nurse Education in Practice. 2021; 56. 10.1016/j.nepr.2021.103212103212</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grace S. Models of interprofessional education for healthcare students: A scoping review. Journal of Interprofessional Care. 2021; 35; 5: 771-783. 10.1080/13561820.2020.1767045</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hartman SL, Stotts J, Ottley JR, Miller R. School-community partnerships in rural settings: Facilitating positive outcomes for young children who experience maltreatment. Early Childhood Education Journal. 2017; 45; 3: 403-410. 10.1007/s10643-016-0796-8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hernandez SJ. Evaluation of push-in/integrated therapy in a collaborative preschool for children with special needs. Journal of the American Academy of Special Education Professionals. 2012; 47: 77</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hunt P, Soto G, Maier J, Liboiron N, Bae S. Collaborative teaming to support preschoolers with severe disabilities who are placed in general education early childhood programs. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education. 2004; 24; 3: 123-142. 10.1177/02711214040240030101</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hyter YD. Language intervention for children with emotional or behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders. 2003; 29; 1: 65-76. 10.1177/019874290302900104</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kaczmarek L, Pennington R. Transdisciplinary consultation: A center-based team functioning model. Education and Treatment of Children. 2000; 23; 2: 156-172</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kahila S, Kuutti T, Heikka J, Sajaniemi N. Students' discourses on interprofessional collaboration in the context of Finnish early childhood education. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction. 2023. 10.1016/j.lcsi.2023.100736</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> King-Sears ME, Janney R, Snell ME. Collaborative teaming: Teachers' guides to inclusive practices. 20153; Brookes</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kishida, Y, Carter, M, & Kemp, C. (2020). Data practices in Australian early childhood programs for children with additional needs. Australasian Journal of Special and Inclusive Education,45(1). https://doi.org/10.1017/jsi.2020.16</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Klein JT. Evaluation of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2008; 35; 2: S116-S123. 10.1016/j.amepre.2008.05.010</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lamb J. Building communities of support around a child with special education needs: The effects of participatory action research. Kairaranga. 2008; 9: 32-37. 10.54322/kairaranga.v9i3.133</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Levac D, Colquhoun H, O'Brien K. Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology. Implement Science. 2010; 5; 1: 69. 10.1186/1748-5908-5-69</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mander D, Moore ND. Speech-language service delivery model in low socio-economic status preschools: An exploratory evaluation. Canadian Journal of Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology. 2015; 39; 3: 214-236</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McIsaac J, Kelly E, Turner JC, Kirk SFL. Exploring the foundation for collaborative governance to support early childhood in Nova Scotia. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal. 2020; 28; 4: 582-597. 10.1080/1350293X.2020.1783930</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McMillan D, Walsh G, Doherty A. Getting a better picture of the 'whole' child: A case for interprofessional learning in early childhood staff training. Practice. 2020; 2; 2: 145-160. 10.1080/25783858.2020.1831735</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Memon A, Kinder T. Co-location as a catalyst for service innovation: A study of Scottish health and social care. Public Management Review. 2017; 19; 4: 381-405. 10.1080/14719037.2016.1177107</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Miller GE, Coleman J, Mitchell J. Towards a model of interprofessional preparation to enhance partnering between educators and families. Journal of Education for Teaching. 2018; 44; 3: 353-365. 10.1080/02607476.2018.1465660</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Modderman C, Sanders R, Cordon E, Hocking C, Wade M, Vogels W. Integrating health systems for children and young people in out of home care: Challenging the nature of siloed service delivery in rural Australia. Australian Journal of Rural Health. 2023; 31: 670-679. 10.1111/ajr.12991</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Murata NM, Tan CA. Collaborative teaching of motor skills for preschoolers with developmental delays. Early Childhood Education Journal. 2009; 36; 6: 483-489. 10.1007/s10643-007-0212-5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nelis P, Pedaste M. A model of inclusive education in the context of Estonian pre-school education: a systematic literature review. Estonian Journal Education. 2020; 8: 138-163. 10.12697/eha.2020.8.2.06</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nicholson J, Reupert A, Grant A, Lees R, Maybery D, Mordoch EReupert A, Maybery D, Nicholson J, Gopfert M, Seeman M. The policy context and change for families living with parental mental illness. Parental psychiatric disorder: Distressed parents and their families. 2015; Cambridge University Press: 354-364. 10.1017/CBO9781107707559.034</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nijhuis B, Reinders-Messelink H, de Blécourt A, Olijve W, Groothoff J, Nakken H, Postema K. A review of salient elements defining team collaboration in paediatric rehabilitation. Clinical Rehabilitation. 2007; 21: 195-211. 10.1177/0269215506070674</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> O'Connor A, Skouteris H, Nolan A, Hooley M, Cann W, Williams-Smith J. Applying Intervention Mapping to develop an early childhood educators' intervention promoting parent–child relationships. Early Child Development and Care. 2019; 189; 7: 1033-1050. 10.1080/03004430.2017.1362401</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Payler JK, Georgeson J. Personal action potency: Early years practitioners participating in interprofessional practice in early years settings. International Journal of Early Years Education. 2013; 21; 1: 39-55. 10.1080/09669760.2013.771322</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Peters M, Marnie C, Tricco A, Pollock D, Munn Z, Alexander L. Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evidence Implement. 2021; 19; 1: 3-10. 10.1097/XEB.0000000000000277</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pennington DD. Collaborative, cross-disciplinary learning and co-emergent innovation in eScience teams. Earth Science Informatics. 2011; 4: 55-68. 10.1007/s12145-011-0077-4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pfeiffer DL, Pavelko SL, Hahs-Vaughn DL, Dudding CC. A national survey of speech-language pathologists' engagement in interprofessional collaborative practice in schools: Identifying predictive factors and barriers to implementation. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools. 2019; 50; 4: 639-655. 10.1044/2019_LSHSS-18-0100</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pollock D, Peters MDJ, Khalil H, McInerney P, Alexander L, Tricco AC, Evans C, De Moraes ÉB, Godfrey CM, Pieper D, Saran A, Stern C, Munn Z. Recommendations for the extraction, analysis, and presentation of results in scoping reviews. JBI Evidence Synthesis. 2023; 21; 3: 520-532. 10.11124/JBIES-22-00123</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Prelock PA, Potvin MC, Savard L. Interprofessional education and practice: A family-centred approach to autism. Seminars in Speech and Language. 2017; 38; 5: 360-367. 10.1055/s-0037-1607070</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rapport MJK, McWilliam RA, Smith BJ. Practices across disciplines in early intervention: The research base. Infants and Young Children. 2004; 17; 1: 32-44. 10.1097/00001163-200401000-00006</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reeves S, Pelone F, Harrison R, Goldman J, Zwarenstein M. Interprofessional collaboration to improve professional practice and healthcare outcomes. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2017. 10.1002/14651858.CD000072.pub3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reupert A, Straussner SL, Weimand B, Maybery D. It takes a village to raise a child: Understanding and expanding the concept of the "Village". Frontiers in Public Health. 2022; 10. 10.3389/fpubh.2022.756066756066</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rhoad-Drogalis A, Justice LM. Is the proportion of children with disabilities in inclusive preschool programs associated with children's achievement?. Journal of Early Intervention. 2020; 42; 1: 83-96. 10.1177/1053815119873100</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Robertson, N, & Ohi, S. (2016). Building a model of support for preschool children with speech and language disorders (Version 2). Deakin University. https://hdl.handle.net/10536/DRO/DU:30084934</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sanches-Ferreira M, Linder T, Lopes-dos-Santos P, Silveira-Maia M, Alves S. Portuguese parents' perceptions of transdisciplinary play-based assessment. Childhood Education. 2015; 91; 4: 300-306. 10.1080/00094056.2015.1069161</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sinai-Gavrilov Y, Gev T, Mor-Snir I, Golan O. Seeking team collaboration, dialogue and support: The perceptions of multidisciplinary staff-Members working in ASD preschools. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. 2019; 49; 11: 4634-4645. 10.1007/s10803-019-04175-x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sun Y, Blewitt C, Minson V, Bajayo R, Cameron L, Skouteris H. Trauma-informed interventions in early childhood education and care settings: A Scoping Review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse. 2024. 10.1177/15248380231162967</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sun Y, Bowden M, Cameron L, Skouteris H, Blewitt C. Understanding the need and opportunity for a trauma-informed early childhood organisations (TIO) program using Intervention Mapping. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood. 2024. 10.1177/18369391241250103</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sun Y, Tamblyn A, Morris H, Boothby C, Skouteris H, Blewitt C. Early childhood and primary school teachers experience and needs in working with trauma-impacted children: A systematic review and thematic synthesis. Children and Youth Services Review. 2023. 10.1016/j.childyouth.2023.107344</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Taylor S. Contested knowledge: A critical review of the concept of differentiation in teaching and learning. Warwick Journal of Education - Transforming Teaching. 2017; 1: 55-68</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thistlethwaite JE, Kumar K, Roberts C. Becoming interprofessional: Professional identity formation in the health professions. Teaching Medical Professionalism: Supporting the Development of a Professional Identity. 2016; 2: 140-154. 10.1017/CBO9781316178485.012</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> US Department of Health and Human Services. (2014). Child care and development block grant act of 2014: Plain language summary of statutory changes. Retrieved January 3, 2024. https://<ulink href="http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/occ/ccdbgact.pdf">www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/occ/ccdbgact.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Watson GD, Bellon-Harn ML. Speech-Language pathologist and general educator collaboration: A model for tier 2 service delivery. Intervention in School and Clinic. 2014; 49; 4: 237-243. 10.1177/1053451213509482</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wong S, Press F. Interprofessional work in early childhood education and care services to support children with additional needs: Two approaches. Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties. 2017; 22; 1: 49-56. 10.1080/19404158.2017.1322994</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wong S, Sumsion J, Press F. Early childhood professionals and inter-professional work in integrated early childhood services in Australia. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood. 2012; 37; 1: 81-88. 10.1177/183693911203700110</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> World Health Organization. (2010). Framework for action on inter-professional education and collaborative practice. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization Press. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://apps.who.int/iris/">http://apps.who.int/iris/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yeo LS, Neihart M, Tang HN, Chong WH, Huan VS. An inclusion initiative in Singapore for preschool children with special needs. Asia Pacific Journal of Education. 2011; 31; 2: 143-158. 10.1080/02188791.2011.566990</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zabeli, N, & Gjelaj, M. (2020). Preschool teacher's awareness, attitudes and challenges towards inclusive early childhood education: A qualitative study. Cogent Education,7(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2020.1791560</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Yihan Sun; Helen Skouteris; Andrea Tamblyn; Emily Berger and Claire Blewitt</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref101"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref106"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref110"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref112"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref133"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref145"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref172"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref215"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref217"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref219"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref220"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref221"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref222"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref234"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref235"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref237"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref238"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1503875
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Cross-Disciplinary Collaboration Supporting Children with Special Educational Needs in Early Childhood Education: A Scoping Review
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Yihan+Sun%22">Yihan Sun</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8944-3945">0000-0002-8944-3945</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Helen+Skouteris%22">Helen Skouteris</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9959-5750">0000-0001-9959-5750</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Andrea+Tamblyn%22">Andrea Tamblyn</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0572-6033">0000-0002-0572-6033</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Emily+Berger%22">Emily Berger</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5550-807X">0000-0001-5550-807X</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Claire+Blewitt%22">Claire Blewitt</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4990-2334">0000-0002-4990-2334</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Early+Childhood+Education+Journal%22"><i>Early Childhood Education Journal</i></searchLink>. 2026 54(1):381-398.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 18
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2026
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Information Analyses<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Early+Childhood+Education%22">Early Childhood Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Special+Needs+Students%22">Special Needs Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Early+Childhood+Education%22">Early Childhood Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Cooperation%22">Educational Cooperation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Interdisciplinary+Approach%22">Interdisciplinary Approach</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Special+Education%22">Special Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Child+Care%22">Child Care</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Barriers%22">Barriers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Influences%22">Influences</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Vocabulary%22">Vocabulary</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Definitions%22">Definitions</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Research%22">Educational Research</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1007/s10643-024-01836-0
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1082-3301<br />1573-1707
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: The need for cross-disciplinary collaboration to meet the diverse needs of young children in Early Childhood Education and Care [ECEC] is evident. When multi-disciplinary professionals work together collaboratively, children with special educational needs are more likely to receive child-centred, holistic, and integrated support. This scoping review systematically (1) identified the research evidence available on cross-disciplinary collaboration initiatives that include inclusive ECEC settings as one collaborating party; (2) compared and clarified key terminologies and definitions around collaboration; (3) categorised the enablers and barriers reported towards cross-disciplinary collaboration within ECEC; and (4) explored the preliminary outcomes of cross-disciplinary collaboration. A total of 20 articles were included. Findings contribute to the emerging field of cross-disciplinary collaboration in ECEC, offering valuable insights for future research and implementation efforts aimed at optimising outcomes for young children.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2026
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1503875
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1503875
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s10643-024-01836-0
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 18
        StartPage: 381
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Special Needs Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Early Childhood Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Cooperation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Interdisciplinary Approach
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Special Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Child Care
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Barriers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Influences
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Vocabulary
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Definitions
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Research
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Cross-Disciplinary Collaboration Supporting Children with Special Educational Needs in Early Childhood Education: A Scoping Review
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Yihan Sun
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Helen Skouteris
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Andrea Tamblyn
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Emily Berger
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Claire Blewitt
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2026
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1082-3301
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1573-1707
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 54
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Early Childhood Education Journal
              Type: main
ResultId 1