Professional Skills in Family Support: A Systematic Review

Abstract

Family support encompasses a wide variety of professionals, sectors, and intervention paradigms that make it difficult to systematize and standardize the skills needed by the family support workforce. The present study aimed to describe the relevant skills of professionals, organize the main skills into different categories, and contribute to the development of intervention standardization guidelines in the field of family support. So, a systematic literature review was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines. The search was carried out in five databases and included the analysis of quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods studies, and all studies were qualitatively assessed. Of the initial 3334 articles identified, 59 studies were included, and four categories were identified: professionals’ qualities, essential skills common to all professions and contexts, specific knowledge, and theoretical approaches necessary for family support. Most of the studies were from the United Kingdom, qualitative, published in the last 10 years, used small samples, and included a specific group of professionals. The included studies did not specify whether some skills or characteristics were considered more effective in practice, and they had bias issues related to social desirability. The implications for family support practice are discussed, as well as the gaps to be covered in future studies.

1. Introduction

The well-being and proper development of individuals hinge significantly on the family unit, underlining the importance of family support services to safeguard their rights, foster social inclusion, and facilitate progress (Devaney et al. 2022). Family support, defined as a formal practice in services working with and for children, adolescents, and families, needs to be considered in a holistic, ecological, and comprehensive way(Herrera-Pastor et al. 2020). Grounded in the needs and strengths of both the child and family, the approach to family support should emphasize the importance of relationships, support networks, and community contexts in the understanding of family dynamics (Daly et al. 2015; Dolan et al. 2020; Herrera-Pastor et al. 2020).

The field of family support involves a set of activities and access to practices that promote the creation of informal social networks through programs that combine statutory, voluntary, and private services and agencies (Dolan et al. 2020). Family counselling, parental education, family mediation, service coordination, and family skill development are some examples of activities carried out in family support practice. These activities aim to strengthen and preserve families, prevent separation, and ensure early intervention in families potentially at risk (Dolan et al. 2020; Herrera-Pastor et al. 2020).

Family support is sustained by a combination of social science theories, making it a promising and comprehensive field of interdisciplinary knowledge (Herrera-Pastor et al. 2020; Jiménez et al. 2019). Also, there has been a growing focus on the development of family-oriented policies, at both the European and global levels (Dolan et al. 2020). These family-oriented policies refer to government actions designed to support families, improve the well-being of their members, and strengthen family relationships. Yet, high levels of child poverty result from insufficient or ineffective family policies, and have significant medium- and long-term social costs (Ayala-Nunes 2019).

Since the adoption of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) in 1989, a consensus has grown among policymakers, academics, and professionals around the need to support families in fulfilling their parental roles. Parenting is understood as a valuable resource that should be supported and protected due to the crucial role it plays in the development and well-being of new generations (Jiménez et al. 2019; Rodrigo et al. 2015b).

Family support services should have a set of characteristics such as accessibility to families in communities, voluntary participation in activities, a focus on prevention, and the provision of a wide range of services (Balenzano 2021). However, there is a lack of mechanisms and resources to guarantee adequate family support for the well-being of children and whole families at the international and European levels (Dolan et al. 2020).

The Theoretical Foundation concerning Family Support Skills

Developed nations integrate family life into welfare policies, yet variations exist in child and family support services, influenced by diverse factors such as life conditions, national structures, and political trends. The way the state values children and perceives their well-being as a public responsibility influences the approach to family support. The differences in this level of responsibility can lead to disparities even within the same country (Ayala-Nunes 2019; Devaney et al. 2023; Dolan et al. 2020; Jiménez et al. 2019; Molinuevo 2013; Rodrigo et al. 2015a).

Family support practice involves working in a collaborative way and supporting different aspects of family functioning, since assisted families can have multiple problems (Zegarac et al. 2021). However, Devaney et al. (2022) identified some challenges that can negatively affect the provided services in the family support field, such as the need to balance the privacy of family life with human rights; institutional family norms that can create stigmas and barriers for certain families; traditional roles that may limit support to all family members; policies influenced by political agendas that may not translate into effective policies; gaps in policy implementation and provisions; and knowledge gaps that hinder the understanding of the real family needs and assessments of existing policies and services. Therefore, the lack of a systemic approach in policy and provision development can lead to fragmented systems that do not adequately address family well-being.

Family support practice requires a high level of skills, knowledge, expertise, and continuous professional development to respond appropriately and effectively to related challenges (Devaney et al. 2022). Thus, the family support workforce must include a variety of professionals and disciplines (e.g., social work, psychology, pedagogy, medicine, and law) (Jiménez et al. 2019).

The research on family support has used different conceptual approaches and professional practices (Jiménez et al. 2019). Child and family support services should adopt a multidimensional perspective, particularly pertaining to access to quality services and appropriate professional skills for supporting families and children throughout the childhood of the children (Dolan et al. 2020; Zegarac et al. 2021).

The skills of professionals in family support services are implemented in various contexts and structures around the world, often resulting in the use of different names for the same skill. Conversely, the same name is also applied to different skills (Zegarac et al. 2021). Therefore, first, it is crucial to define the skill construct as a complex term that refers to the ability to respond to complex situations in professional and personal contexts, through the conscious mobilization of practical actions, resources, knowledge, attitudes, and personal attributes. The purpose is to respond objectively, effectively, and tailored to each situation in different areas of knowledge (Oliveira and Rodrigues 2020). Skills go beyond functional aspects or inter-personal qualities. They comprise the use of cognitive aspects and ethical values (Zegarac et al. 2021).

On the one hand, scientific evidence has shown that the use of skills by professionals within intervention contexts positively influences clients’ and families’ engagement, client satisfaction with the services, and the effectiveness of the intervention in regard to empowering and improving parental skills, and the positive development of minors (Cameron et al. 2013; Connolly and Devaney 2016; Damiani-Taraba et al. 2017; Gallagher et al. 2012; Gladstone et al. 2014; Hedberg et al. 2018; Muurinen 2019; Slettebø 2013; Trotter 2002). Conversely, the use of these skills is influenced by the professionals’ engagement and perception of themselves as caring and helping people, the professionals’ experience, and the significant challenges they face at work (Damiani-Taraba et al. 2017; Kemp et al. 2014). The consensus among researchers is that using professional skills is important in family support practice.

Recently, the European Family Support Network (EFSN) proposed an integrative and inclusive model for understanding family support that combines three dimensions: practice, research, and policy (EFSN 2020). The main objective was to enhance professional practice and introduce new approaches to improve parental roles in these families (Herrera-Pastor et al. 2020). Thus, one of the main focuses of the current literature on family support is to analyze the actions carried out by professionals who provide parenting support, describe their practices, and consequently establish guidelines for improving this field of intervention (Dolan et al. 2020; Herrera-Pastor et al. 2020; Jiménez et al. 2019).

Identifying the necessary skills is essential to reflect on what represents and adds value for children and families concerning the family support services provided and the development of instruments to measure these skills (Forrester et al. 2020). It will also enable the standardization of these skills and a European understanding of the skills and qualifications of the family support workforce (Jiménez et al. 2019; Zegarac et al. 2021). This will ensure quality and objectivity in the provided services (Jiménez et al. 2019).

A systematic literature review (SLR) of the skills of professionals providing parental support could contribute to the development of guidelines that promote the standardization of these skills. It could also be beneficial to create a map outlining the key skills mentioned in the scientific literature that positively influence family support interventions.

In a systematic review of 40 studies by Zegarac et al. (2021), skills were categorized into three categories: personal qualities, technical skills, and specific knowledge. These categories highlight the importance of balancing technical expertise with learning from everyday experiences. However, the limitations included a focus on English studies and a lack of a quality assessment.

Organizations such as the Cochrane Collaboration provide clear guidelines and recommendations on the appropriate frequency for updating SLRs to ensure their relevance. Typically, an approximate period of 2 years is suggested (Higgins et al. 2022). Therefore, the limitations identified in the SLR of Zegarac et al. (2021) and the inclusion of studies limited to February 2020 justify an updated SLR. Three years have passed since the last review was conducted, fulfilling the recommended timeframe for its repetition.

Thus, the aims of this study were to (1) understand and describe the relevant skills of professionals providing parenting support; (2) organize the key skills into different categories, and (3) contribute to the development of guidelines that promote the standardization of interventions in the field of family support.

2. Methods

2.1. Type of Study

An SLR generates various types of knowledge. They are used to provide overviews of the state of the art in a specific field of knowledge and identify future research priorities; address research questions that could not be answered by individual studies to identify gaps in the primary research that should be revised in future studies; and generate or assess theories on how or why phenomena occur (Page et al. 2021). By summarizing all the studies conducted on a particular topic, an SLR confers greater visibility by not limiting the conclusions to the reading of only a few articles (Vilelas 2022).

SLRs are a widely used method in literature review because they involve a rigorous structure of procedures using explicit methods to enhance a comprehensive analysis and assess individual studies. It is, therefore, a comprehensive, transparent, and replicable methodology (Harris et al. 2014; Page et al. 2021; Vilelas 2022). Also, it is a less costly scientific investigation that employs pre-defined systematic methods to identify all relevant documents for a research question, assess the quality of these studies, extract the data, and synthesize the main findings (Vilelas 2022).

Currently, there is a strong consensus on the rigorous methodology and the stages of the SLR process that must be followed: (1) formulate research questions; (2) produce a research protocol and register it; (3) define eligibility criteria; (4) develop a search strategy and define information sources; (5) select studies; (6) qualitatively assess the included studies; (7) extract the data; (8) synthesize the literature and interpret the results; and (9) disseminate the results (Camilo and Garrido 2019; Donato and Donato 2019; Page et al. 2021; Wright et al. 2007; Vilelas 2022).

The present study aimed to provide a synthesis of the published research in the field of family support, specifically related to the skills of professionals working in parenting support. Considering the methodological characteristics of SLRs and their advantages, this study seeks to contribute to the standardization of the skills of the family support workforce, which can have an empirical, practical, and political impact.

2.2. Procedures

The present SLR was conducted according to the PRISMA criteria (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses; Page et al. 2021).

2.2.1. Research Questions

Two research questions were formulated: (1) What are the main skills used in the practice of family support? (2) How can these skills be organized into different categories to provide guidelines for intervention in family support?

2.2.2. Research Protocol and Registration

The research protocol was defined a priori to reduce potential errors and to ensure the objective conduct of the study. Subsequently, it was registered on PROSPERO, an international database of systematic reviews in health and social work, on 31 December 2022 (ID: CRD42022385283). The registration of the protocol enhances the overall transparency of the review, increases its visibility, and prevents duplication of the work (Vilelas 2022).

2.2.3. Eligibility Criteria

The following inclusion criteria were used: (1) studies about families whose children lived in a family environment and used family support services; (2) studies where an intervention was directed towards families; (3) quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-method studies; (4) studies published between January 2000 and February 2023; (5) publications in scientific and peer-reviewed journals; and (6) sources written in Portuguese, English, Spanish, or French.

The results from the databases search with the following criteria were not included: (a) books, literature reviews, or academic works; (b) studies involving children or parents of institutionalized children; (c) studies related to family support for the elderly; (d) studies where the intervention was exclusively focused on the child; (e) ineligible studies for qualitative assessment using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT, Hong et al. 2018); and (f) low-quality studies (i.e., those with an MMAT score below 50%).

2.2.4. Information Sources and Search Strategy

The search in this SLR was conducted in March 2023 and carried out in the following international scientific databases: MEDLINE, Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection, ERIC, Web of Science, and PsycInfo. The following search strategy was employed: “family* support” OR “family* training” OR “support* families” OR “assist* families” OR “skill*” OR “standard*” OR “good practice*” OR “ability” (topic) AND “workforce” OR “professionals” OR “casa worker” OR “supporter” OR “social worker” OR “psychologist” (topic) AND “child*” OR “adolesc*” OR “youth” (topic). The strategy was adapted to the different databases when necessary.

2.2.5. Study Selection

Initially, the research results were exported to an Excel spreadsheet and duplicates were removed. The relevance of the studies was determined first by screening the titles and subsequently by screening the abstracts of the obtained studies in the previous step.

During the title and abstract screening and selection stages, a support tool was used, the Rayyan QCRI. This tool is a free online application that helps researchers in SLR and meta-analysis processes (Johnson and Phillips 2018). It aims to provide a comprehensive control panel for researchers and streamline the initial screening of titles and abstracts through a semi-automated process (Johnson and Phillips 2018; Ouzzani et al. 2016). It relies on the researcher’s selection pattern to analyze probabilities for inclusion and make suggestions (Couban 2016; Ouzzani et al. 2016). However, this application requires planning before performing the SLR. It is important to use citation management software or a spreadsheet to collect the data and plan the next steps (Johnson and Phillips 2018). In this study, this was ensured by using an Excel spreadsheet.

After the title and abstract screening and selection stages, potentially relevant studies (i.e., they met our eligibility criteria) were submitted for a full-text review. Studies were excluded when the eligibility criteria were not verified. At least two authors were involved in all stages of the studies’ review, and the selection was conducted independently and blindly. In the case of a disagreement, the opinion of a third author was considered.

2.2.6. Qualitative Assessments of the Studies

Critical assessment tools enable one to formalize the study quality assessment process and guarantee that the process is systematic, transparent, and replicable. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed and documented using criteria from the MMAT (Hong et al. 2018). This instrument enables the assessment of systematic reviews that include qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-method studies (Hong et al. 2018).

To use the instrument, the researcher responds to two screening questions (“Are there clear research questions?” and “Do the collected data allow to address the research questions?”). If the researcher responds “No” or “Can’t tell”, it can indicate that it is not an empirical study and cannot be assessed via the MMAT criteria. For each included study, the suitable category is chosen and the description of the used methods is analyzed (Hong et al. 2018). For each type of study, five criteria are evaluated and graded as “Yes” (corresponding to 1 point) or “No” or “Can’t tell” (graded with 0 points). The assessment ranges from 0 to 5 points, where the score can be presented as a percentage: 0 = 0%, 1 = 20%, 2 = 40%, 3 = 60%, 4 = 80%, and 5 = 100%. However, for mixed-method studies, fifteen criteria are assessed (five for quantitative methods, five for qualitative methods, and five for mixed methods), and the overall quality cannot exceed the quality of its weakest component (Hong et al. 2018).

Since the instrument does not define cut-off values, the categories for characterizing the studies are arbitrary and defined by the researchers. In the present study, the adopted categorization included three types: (1) studies of low quality, with a score below 50%; (2) studies of medium quality, with a score between 50% and 80%; and (3) high-quality studies with a score equal to or higher than 80%. Lower-quality studies were excluded from the sample.

2.2.7. Data Extraction

During the analysis of the selected studies, information was extracted regarding author(s), publication date, title, aim(s), country, type of study, study design/methodology, data analysis, type and sample size, main findings, and study limitations.

2.2.8. Presentation of Results

A summary descriptive table was created with information from each study. The results provide a narrative synthesis of the main findings of the included studies, structured according to the organization and hierarchy of skills presented in the studies.

2.2.9. Ethics and Dissemination

The present research was a secondary study, and ethical approval was not required since no primary data collection was conducted. The results of this study aimed to contribute to research development in the field of family support and were specifically geared towards standardizing the core of professional skills in parenting support practices.

3. Results

The search in databases yielded a total of 3334 results, but 34 were duplicates, resulting in 3300 that were further screened based on their title and abstract. After analyzing the titles, 383 articles were selected for the abstract analysis stage. From these, 93 were selected for the full-text review. However, two articles were excluded as their full text were unavailable. Consequently, 91 articles were submitted for the full-text review (Figure 1).

Of the 91 analyzed articles, 41 were excluded because they (a) did not address professional skills (n = 29); (b) were literature reviews (n = 7); (c) used samples exclusively composed of institutionalized children, parents of children in foster care, or social work master’s students (n = 4); or (d) did not meet the requirements for applying the MMAT (Hong et al. 2018) and, consequently, for conducting a qualitative assessment (n = 1). From this review, 50 articles were selected for the final sample. Subsequently, the reference lists of the 50 selected studies were analyzed to identify other possible studies that might qualify, which led to 12 additional publications. Of the these, only nine were included, as the qualitative assessment score for three studies was below 50%. Thus, the corpus of analysis for this systematic review included 59 studies (Figure 1).

The 59 studies included in this study were published between 2000 and 2023 (Figure 2): from 2000 to 2004, 4 studies were published; from 2005 to 2009, 7 studies; from 2010 to 2014, 12 studies; from 2015 to 2019, 21 studies; and from 2020 to 2023, 15 studies. Most of the studies (71.19%) were published in the last 10 years, between 2013 and 2023.

The included studies were conducted around the world, including in Europe (EU) (n = 32), the United States of America (USA) (n = 12), Australia (n = 8), Canada (n = 6), and Costa Rica (n = 1). Regarding European countries, the studies were carried out in the UK (n=20), Italy (n = 2), Spain (n= 2), Germany (n = 1), Belgium (n = 1), Norway (n = 1), Romania (n = 1), Sweden (n = 1), Scotland (n = 1), and Estonia (n = 1). Two studies conducted in more than one European country were also included. Regarding the type of study, 37 were qualitative, 13 were mixed-method, and 9 were quantitative (

Table 1. Characterization of included studies (n = 59).

		Type of Study			Sample Size			Sample Composition		Data Analyses		Topics
Authors/Year	Country	Qua	Quan	Mix	Sm	Med	Large	Professionals	Families	Them Analysis	Descr./Induct Est	Qualities	Skills	Know	Appr
Littell and Tajima (2000)	USA		✓				✓	✓	✓		✓	✓	✓
Sheppard (2002)	UK			✓		✓		✓			✓	✓		✓
Trotter (2002)	AU	✓				✓		✓	✓	✓			✓	✓
Blue-Banning et al. (2004)	USA	✓				✓		✓	✓	✓			✓	✓
Platt (2008)	UK	✓			✓			✓	✓	✓		✓	✓	✓
Devaney (2008)	UK	✓			✓			✓		✓			✓
Whitton et al. (2008)	UK			✓	✓				✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
Woodcock and Tregaskis (2008)	UK	✓			✓				✓	✓			✓
Lawrence and Smith (2009)	AU	✓			✓			✓		✓				✓
Winter (2009)	UK	✓			✓			✓	✓	✓		✓	✓
Lietz (2009)	USA			✓		✓		✓		✓	✓		✓
Darlington and Feeney (2009)	AU			✓		✓		✓	✓	✓	✓		✓		✓
Leake et al. (2010)	USA			✓		✓		✓		✓	✓		✓	✓
Tregeagle (2010)	AU	✓			✓				✓	✓			✓
Nunes and Ayala (2010)	ES			✓	✓			✓		✓	✓		✓
Gladstone et al. (2012)	CAN			✓		✓		✓	✓	✓	✓		✓
Fordham et al. (2012)	AU		✓			✓			✓		✓		✓
Reimer (2013)	AU	✓			✓			✓	✓	✓			✓
Gladstone et al. (2014)	CAN		✓			✓		✓	✓		✓		✓	✓
Kemp et al. (2014)	USA		✓				✓	✓	✓		✓		✓		✓
Lindsay et al. (2014)	CAN	✓			✓			✓		✓			✓	✓
Wolfe (2014)	UK	✓			✓				✓	✓			✓
Biebel et al. (2014)	USA	✓			✓			✓		✓			✓
van Houte et al. (2015)	BE	✓			✓			✓		✓			✓
Torres and López (2015)	ES	✓			✓				✓	✓		✓	✓
Oliver and Charles (2016)	CAN			✓		✓		✓		✓		✓	✓
Migliorini et al. (2016)	IT	✓				✓		✓		✓			✓
Weiber et al. (2016)	SE	✓			✓			✓		✓			✓
Schaefer (2016)	USA	✓			✓			✓		✓	✓	✓	✓		✓
Whittaker et al. (2017)	UK	✓			✓			✓		✓		✓	✓		✓
Brassart et al. (2017)	CAN	✓			✓			✓		✓			✓	✓
Damiani-Taraba et al. (2017)	CAN			✓		✓		✓	✓		✓	✓	✓
Westlake and Jones (2017)	UK	✓			✓			✓		✓	✓		✓
Helm (2017)	UK	✓			✓			✓		✓		✓	✓
Matei and Ghenţa (2018)	ROU			✓			✓	✓	✓		✓		✓
Cort and Cline (2017)	UK	✓			✓				✓	✓			✓	✓	✓
Dolan et al. (2018)	UK	✓			✓			✓		✓				✓	✓
Mallette et al. (2018)	USA		✓				✓	✓			✓
Meysen and Kelly (2018)	DE, UK, PT, SI	✓			✓			✓		✓			✓		✓
Percy-Smith and Dalrymple (2018)	UK	✓			✓				✓	✓					✓
Rawlings and Blackmer (2019)	USA		✓		✓			✓			✓		✓	✓
Jiménez et al. (2019)	23 EU countries			✓	✓			✓		✓	✓				✓
Bernard and Greenwood (2019)	UK	✓			✓			✓		✓		✓	✓
Schultz et al. (2019)	USA			✓	✓			✓		✓	✓			✓
Stanford et al. (2020)	UK	✓			✓				✓	✓			✓	✓
Bosk et al. (2020)	USA		✓			✓		✓			✓	✓		✓
Villarreal-Montoya et al. (2020)	CR	✓			✓			✓		✓					✓
Hafford-Letchfield et al. (2020)	UK	✓			✓			✓	✓	✓		✓		✓
Saia et al. (2020)	EE	✓			✓			✓	✓	✓		✓	✓
Stabler et al. (2020)	UK	✓			✓				✓	✓		✓		✓
Sletten and Ellingsen (2020)	NO	✓			✓			✓		✓		✓	✓	✓
Rollins (2020)	AU	✓			✓			✓		✓		✓	✓
Forrester et al. (2020)	UK	✓				✓		✓		✓		✓	✓
Corradini and Panciroli (2021)	IT	✓			✓				✓	✓		✓	✓
Grant et al. (2021)	UK	✓			✓			✓		✓		✓	✓
O’Connor (2022)	UK	✓			✓			✓		✓					✓
Georg et al. (2022)	DE			✓	✓			✓		✓	✓		✓
Alexander et al. (2023)	AU		✓				✓	✓			✓			✓
Trawver and Brocious (2023)	USA		✓		✓			✓			✓	✓	✓	✓
Total		37	9	13	40	14	5	48	25	47	23	24	44	19	11

Note: Qua = qualitative; Quan = quantitative; Mix = mixed methods; Sm = small; Med = medium; Them Analysis = thematic analysis; Descr./Induct Est = descriptive and/or inductive statistics; Know = knowledge; App = approach; USA = United States of America; UK = United Kingdom; AU = Australia; ES = Spain; CAN = Canada; BE = Belgium; IT = Italy; SE = Sweden; ROU = Romania; DE = Germany; PT = Portugal; SI = Slovenia; EU = Europe; CR = Costa Rica; NO = Norway; EE = Estonia.

).

The study samples were analyzed according to their size and composition. Regarding size, a sample was considered large with more than 500 participants, a medium sample had 100 to 500 participants, and a small sample had less than 100 participants. Thus, 5 studies had a large sample, 14 had a medium sample, and 40 had a small sample. Concerning composition, 34 studies consisted exclusively of professionals, 14 included both professionals and families, and in the remaining 11 studies, the samples were exclusively composed of families (Table 1).

Studies that included families were organized into five categories: (a) families at psychosocial risk; (b) families with children with disabilities and/or neurodevelopmental disorders; (c) families from the general population supported by early childhood services; (d) families with children facing serious health conditions; and (e) families from the general population with school-aged children (see Appendix A).

Regarding professionals, three groups stood out: social workers (n= 26), child protection professionals (n = 11), and nurses (n = 7). However, the studies also included other professionals such as psychologists, preschool educators, pediatricians, teachers, special education teachers, occupational therapists, speech therapists, lawyers, police officers, and doctors (n = 27) (see Appendix A).

Regarding qualitative assessments, 31 studies obtained a score of 100%, 22 obtained 80%, and six obtained 60% (Appendix B).

The identified professional skills were organized into four categories, according to the systematization proposed by Mešl et al. (2023): (1) qualities of the professionals; (2) essential skills for the family support workforce common to all professionals and contexts; (3) specific knowledge required for performing essential family support skills; and (4) necessary theoretical approaches for the performance of essential family support skills (

Table 2. Organization of included studies by skill group.

Qualities of professionals	Littell and Tajima (2000); Sheppard (2002); Blue-Banning et al. (2004); Platt (2008); Whitton et al. (2008); Winter (2009); Torres and López (2015); Schaefer (2016); Oliver and Charles (2016); Whittaker et al. (2017); Damiani-Taraba et al. (2017); Helm (2017); Bernard and Greenwood (2019); Rawlings and Blackmer (2019); Hafford-Letchfield et al. (2020); Saia et al. (2020); Rollins (2020); Forrester et al. (2020); Bosk et al. (2020); Sletten and Ellingsen (2020); Corradini and Panciroli (2021); Grant et al. (2021); Georg et al. (2022); Trawver and Brocious (2023)
Essential skills	Partnership and collaboration	Trotter (2002); Blue-Banning et al. (2004); Whitton et al. (2008); Devaney (2008); Darlington and Feeney (2009); Tregeagle (2010); Reimer (2013); Gladstone et al. (2014); Wolfe (2014); Migliorini et al. (2016); Oliver and Charles (2016); Weiber et al. (2016); Whittaker et al. (2017); Matei and Ghenţa (2018); Mallette et al. (2018); Rawlings and Blackmer (2019); Rollins (2020); Stanford et al. (2020); Bernard and Greenwood (2019); Forrester et al. (2020); Corradini and Panciroli (2021); Grant et al. (2021); Trawver and Brocious (2023)
	Advocacy and empowerment	Trotter (2002); Leake et al. (2010); Tregeagle (2010); Fordham et al. (2012); Gladstone et al. (2012, 2014); Kemp et al. (2014); Wolfe (2014); van Houte et al. (2015); Oliver and Charles (2016); Cort and Cline (2017); Saia et al. (2020); Forrester et al. (2020); Corradini and Panciroli (2021)
	Good listening	Platt (2008); Wolfe (2014)
	Problem-solving	Littell and Tajima (2000); Trotter (2002); Lietz (2009); Migliorini et al. (2016); Oliver and Charles (2016); Schaefer (2016); Helm (2017); Rawlings and Blackmer (2019); Bernard and Greenwood (2019); Rollins (2020); Sletten and Ellingsen (2020)
	Building trust and confidence	Trotter (2002); Gladstone et al. (2012, 2014); Reimer (2013); Lindsay et al. (2014); Damiani-Taraba et al. (2017); Mallette et al. (2018); Stanford et al. (2020); Grant et al. (2021)
	Communication	Blue-Banning et al. (2004); Woodcock and Tregaskis (2008); Devaney (2008); Nunes and Ayala (2010); Wolfe (2014); Torres and López (2015); Westlake and Jones (2017); Corradini and Panciroli (2021); Grant et al. (2021)
	Information and referral	Platt (2008); Whitton et al. (2008); Darlington and Feeney (2009); Fordham et al. (2012); Biebel et al. (2014); Torres and López (2015); van Houte et al. (2015); Whittaker et al. (2017); Brassart et al. (2017); Rawlings and Blackmer (2019)
Specific knowledge	Sheppard (2002); Trotter (2002); Platt (2008); Lawrence and Smith (2009); Leake et al. (2010); Lindsay et al. (2014); Cort and Cline (2017); Dolan et al. (2018); Bosk et al. (2020); Gladstone et al. (2014); Brassart et al. (2017); Schultz et al. (2019); Rawlings and Blackmer (2019); Hafford-Letchfield et al. (2020); Sletten and Ellingsen (2020); Stabler et al. (2020); Stanford et al. (2020); Trawver and Brocious (2023); Alexander et al. (2023)
Practical approaches	Darlington and Feeney (2009); Kemp et al. (2014); Schaefer (2016); Cort and Cline (2017); Whittaker et al. (2017); Dolan et al. (2018); Mallette et al. (2018); Percy-Smith and Dalrymple (2018); Jiménez et al. (2019); Villarreal-Montoya et al. (2020); O’Connor (2022)

).

3.1. Qualities of the Professionals

Several studies emphasized the importance of professionals’ personal qualities or attributes in their relationship with clients (e.g., Winter 2009) because these qualities influence clients’ satisfaction with the professionals and services provided (Damiani-Taraba et al. 2017; Forrester et al. 2020; Rollins 2020; Stabler et al. 2020), as well as their engagement (Littell and Tajima 2000). In this SLR, 24 studies addressed the qualities of the professionals.

The studies identified a set of personal characteristics of the professionals that contribute to providing adequate and high-quality family support, including:

• Sensitivity (Platt 2008; Sheppard 2002);
• Respect (Blue-Banning et al. 2004; Hafford-Letchfield et al. 2020; Torres and López 2015; Trawver and Brocious 2023; Whitton et al. 2008);
• Trust (Bernard and Greenwood 2019; Blue-Banning et al. 2004; Saia et al. 2020; Torres and López 2015);
• Commitment (Blue-Banning et al. 2004; Torres and López 2015);
• Honesty (Platt 2008; Torres and López 2015);
• Transparency (Corradini and Panciroli 2021; Howarth et al. 2021; Oliver and Charles 2016);
• Empathy (Forrester et al. 2020; Georg et al. 2022; Grant et al. 2021; Rawlings and Blackmer 2019; Rollins 2020; Schaefer 2016; Winter 2009);
• Self-awareness (Bernard and Greenwood 2019; Schaefer 2016);
• Continuous learning attitude (Hafford-Letchfield et al. 2020; Schaefer 2016);
• Autonomy (Whittaker et al. 2017);
• Kindness (Damiani-Taraba et al. 2017);
• Dedication (Damiani-Taraba et al. 2017; Trawver and Brocious 2023);
• Curiosity (Helm 2017);
• Authenticity (Hafford-Letchfield et al. 2020);
• Patience (Rollins 2020).

The identified qualities can be developed and improved through learning experiences (Mešl et al. 2023).

3.2. Essential Skills for the Family Support Workforce Common to All Professionals and Contexts

The family support field covers a wide range of professions and it is, therefore, necessary to identify the common and essential skills for different professionals and contexts to ensure effective support for families. Several studies found that the use of adequate skills by professionals promotes positive outcomes for their clients (Fordham et al. 2012; Georg et al. 2022; Matei and Ghenţa 2018; Platt 2008; Trotter 2002).

Of the included studies, 44 identified the essential skills for the parenting support workforce. For greater systematization, the identified skills in different studies were organized into subcategories (cf. Mešl et al. 2023): (a) partnership and collaboration; (b) advocacy and empowerment; (c) good listening; (d) problem solving; (e) building trust and confidence; (f) communication; and (g) information and referral.

3.2.1. Partnership and Collaboration

To ensure that effective relationships are established with families, it is crucial to build collaborative relationships between clients and professionals, and this relationship must balance the construction of collaborative relationships with appropriate authority (Bernard and Greenwood 2019; Forrester et al. 2020; Rawlings and Blackmer 2019).

Collaboration between professionals is also fundamental to ensuring effective coordination between services and within intervention teams themselves (Darlington and Feeney 2009; Devaney 2008; Matei and Ghenţa 2018; Trawver and Brocious 2023; Weiber et al. 2016; Whittaker et al. 2017; Whitton et al. 2008). Overall, social skills are important for building relationships between individuals (Migliorini et al. 2016).

3.2.2. Advocacy and Empowerment

Professionals should have the ability to promote a positive change in the family, through the engagement and empowerment of its members (Cort and Cline 2017; Fordham et al. 2012; Gladstone et al. 2012; Kemp et al. 2014; Leake et al. 2010; Oliver and Charles 2016; Wolfe 2014). So, including clients in interventions and negotiating clear and mutually agreed-upon objectives are empowerment skills that foster active family engagement with services (Corradini and Panciroli 2021; Saia et al. 2020; Tregeagle 2010; Wolfe 2014). Additionally, reinforcing clients’ pro-social actions (Trotter 2002), promoting behavior changes (Forrester et al. 2020), and using motivational skills (van Houte et al. 2015) can also induce positive change.

3.2.3. Good Listening

Two studies emphasized the importance of active listening by professionals, referring to the ability to accurately and empathically listen and understand both verbal and non-verbal behaviors of the family members (Platt 2008; Wolfe 2014).

3.2.4. Problem Solving

Some studies identified problem-solving skills (Bernard and Greenwood 2019; Trotter 2002) as essential for professionals to use in family support. These comprise critical and impartial thinking (Helm 2017; Lietz 2009; Oliver and Charles 2016), reflective practice (Helm 2017; Rollins 2020; Schaefer 2016; Sletten and Ellingsen 2020), decision-making skills (Lietz 2009), planning skills (Littell and Tajima 2000; Migliorini et al. 2016), effective resistance management skills (Rawlings and Blackmer 2019), and conflict management skills (Bernard and Greenwood 2019).

3.2.5. Building Trust and Confidence

Some studies pointed to the importance of building trust in the professional’s relationship with the family for the success of the intervention (Grant et al. 2021; Lindsay et al. 2014; Reimer 2013). The establishment of a secure relationship between the professional and family is facilitated if the family understands how the professional can support them, which increases the commitment of both parties to the intervention; the professional’s ability to engage (Damiani-Taraba et al. 2017; Gladstone et al. 2012, 2014; Mallette et al. 2018; Stanford et al. 2020) also facilitates the building of trust and confidence.

3.2.6. Communication

Several studies concluded that effective communication among professionals, and between professionals and families is essential for efficient practice (Blue-Banning et al. 2004; Corradini and Panciroli 2021; Devaney 2008; Nunes and Ayala 2010; Torres and López 2015; Westlake and Jones 2017; Wolfe 2014; Woodcock and Tregaskis 2008). Therefore, adapting speech to the client, conveying information, engaging the client in bidirectional communication, and ensuring that the client has correctly understood the provided information are communication skills that professionals should employ in practice (Nunes and Ayala 2010; Torres and López 2015; Westlake and Jones 2017). It is also important to adopt a non-judgmental and welcoming attitude towards the family (Grant et al. 2021).

3.2.7. Information and Referral

Seven studies emphasized the relevance of providing appropriate information to families regarding their situation, the available family support services, and how professionals can support their positive development (Brassart et al. 2017; Fordham et al. 2012; Platt 2008; Rawlings and Blackmer 2019; Torres and López 2015; van Houte et al. 2015; Whitton et al. 2008). The identification of a family’s needs enables an understanding of the areas that require intervention and whether referral to other professionals and/or services is necessary (Biebel et al. 2014; Darlington and Feeney 2009; Whittaker et al. 2017).

3.3. Specific Knowledge Required for Performing Essential Family Support Skills

According to the intervention context, professionals need specific knowledge regarding essential skills that can contribute to improved performance and, consequently, effective practice. In this SLR, 19 studies identified domains of specific knowledge in the family support field.

Eight studies emphasized technical skills, including confrontation skills (Trotter 2002); motivational communication techniques (Schultz et al. 2019; Stabler et al. 2020); intervention techniques that take into account cultural diversity (Leake et al. 2010; Lindsay et al. 2014); intervention techniques for domestic family violence (Cort and Cline 2017; Dolan et al. 2018), and trauma intervention techniques (Bosk et al. 2020). Nine studies reflected on specific knowledge at the intervention level, such as understanding the family context (Brassart et al. 2017; Gladstone et al. 2014; Hafford-Letchfield et al. 2020; Platt 2008; Rawlings and Blackmer 2019), personalization and adaptation of the intervention to the family needs (Stanford et al. 2020), psychosocial risk assessments (Alexander et al. 2023; Trawver and Brocious 2023), and the use of specific assessment instruments (Rawlings and Blackmer 2019; Sletten and Ellingsen 2020).

One study highlighted the need for specific knowledge about the country’s legal and ethical framework regarding child protection (Rawlings and Blackmer 2019), and another reported that parents value professional’s specific knowledge, such as specialized knowledge related to the child’s autism-specific needs (Stanford et al. 2020).

3.4. Necessary Practical Approaches for the Performance of Essential Family Support Skills

Professionals base their interventions on theoretical–practical approaches that impact the use of essential family support skills. The most cited approach in the selected studies was the family strengths-based approach (Cort and Cline 2017; Dolan et al. 2018; Kemp et al. 2014; Schaefer 2016; Villarreal-Montoya et al. 2020). Other relevant approaches were identified, such as holistic and family-centered (Darlington and Feeney 2009; Mallette et al. 2018; Percy-Smith and Dalrymple 2018), person-centered (Percy-Smith and Dalrymple 2018; Whittaker et al. 2017), evidence-based (Jiménez et al. 2019), and relational approaches (O’Connor 2022).

In Appendix B, the objectives, main conclusions, limitations and/or strengths, and qualitative assessments of the analyzed studies are summarized.

4. Discussion

The present study aimed to be an review and to surpass the limitations of the SLR conducted by Zegarac et al. (2021), and to identify the essential skills of the family support workforce and organize them into different categories, following the previous study.

The search in the selected databases identified 3334 studies, of which, 59 met our eligibility criteria and were included. We note that, despite the high number of results regarding family support in the conducted research, the number of studies specifically focused on professional skills was significantly low, consistent with Zegarac et al. (2021).

The present study included a larger number of studies (N = 59) than the previous review of Zegarac et al. (2021) (N = 40) and encompassed a greater number of countries, namely, Italy, Germany, Belgium, Norway, Romania, Sweden, Scotland, Estonia, and Costa Rica. Additionally, we synthesized the selected studies in a new format, proposed by Mešl et al. (2023), which offered a more suitable and comprehensive categorization.

Regarding the analyzed studies, most of the research was published in the last 10 years (71.19%, from 2013 onwards), and at least one study per year was included, which was not observed in the previous period from 2000 to 2013. The largest number of publications also occurred in two periods, between 2015 and 2019 (n = 21), and between 2020 and 2023 (n = 15). These data evidence the recent interest of the scientific research community in professionals’ skills, making it a developing topic in family support research, and thus justifying the relevance of the present study.

The included studies were essentially conducted in four countries: the UK (n = 20), USA (n = 12), Australia (n = 8), and Canada (n = 6). In Europe, three countries stood out: the UK (n = 20), Spain (n = 2), and Italy (n = 2). However, most of the published European studies were conducted in the UK, highlighting it as the European country that produced the most research in this field. Also, only two studies (Jiménez et al. 2019; Meysen and Kelly 2018) covered multiple European countries and concluded that despite a shared commitment to child protection, significant cultural variations in the interventions and policy approaches exist among countries (Jiménez et al. 2019; Meysen and Kelly 2018).

Regarding the type of studies, there was a clear preference for qualitative methods (n = 37) that allow for the interpretation of the meaning of subjective reality for subjects (Vilelas 2022). A possible justification for the preferential use of these methods may be the need to understand and systematize the skills identified by professionals and families from their direct experience. This understanding is crucial for subsequent standardization and measurements.

In the analyzed studies, most of the samples were considered small (n = 40). This represents a limitation, and it indicates limited sample representativeness which also hinders generalization.

Concerning their composition, the studies’ samples consisted of parenting support professionals and/or families supported by services. A considerable diversity of samples is crucial because it allows us to understand and integrate both the perspectives of professionals and families, enriching the results. As professionals, social workers were the most common group in the studies (n = 26), consistent with Zegarac et al. (2021). Eleven studies mentioned samples that involved child protection professionals (e.g., Kemp et al. 2014; Rawlings and Blackmer 2019; Trawver and Brocious 2023; Trotter 2002) without specifying concrete professions, which represents a limitation of the studies. Future studies should characterize their samples in a more detailed way, which would facilitate greater generalization of results and, consequently, the possibility of standardization.

In the qualitative assessment of the studies, low-quality studies were excluded. The included studies were of average quality (n = 6) and high quality (n = 53). By ensuring the quality of the included studies, the results are likely to be more reliable.

Regarding the organization of professional skills, the results of this study seem to align with the categorization proposed by Mešl et al. (2023), and four categories were identified. These refer to skills expected in the context of family support, and their description allowed us to better understand which topics were more valued in the included research.

The intra- and inter-personal attributes of the professionals are important in their relationship with clients (Winter 2009) since they can impact clients’ participation in services (Littell and Tajima 2000). Some studies also emphasized the influence that some characteristics of professionals, such as accuracy, empathy, kindness, and authenticity, impact clients’ satisfaction with services (Damiani-Taraba et al. 2017; Forrester et al. 2020; Rollins 2020; Sletten and Ellingsen 2020).

Essential skills for parenting support, common to all professionals and contexts, were identified in 44 of the 59 included studies, making them the most referenced category in the studies, which suggested that the appropriate use of skills by professionals promotes positive outcomes (Fordham et al. 2012; Georg et al. 2022; Matei and Ghenţa 2018; Platt 2008; Trotter 2002) and higher levels of satisfaction in clients (Trotter 2002). The diversity of skills found in the studies highlighted the need to organize them into subcategories: partnership and collaboration, advocacy and empowerment, good listening skills, problem solving, building trust and confidence, user-friendly communication, and informing and referral. Within these defined subcategories, partnership and collaboration skills were the most cited, emphasizing the importance of collaborative relationships in intervention effectiveness (Rollins 2020). Collaboration is a key element in professional–client relationships (e.g., Blue-Banning et al. 2004; Grant et al. 2021; Rawlings and Blackmer 2019; Whittaker et al. 2017) and among professionals (e.g., Matei and Ghenţa 2018; Trawver and Brocious 2023; Whitton et al. 2008) to ensure effective and high-quality services.

Specific knowledge, another identified category, was related to the use of some types of technical skills (e.g., Bosk et al. 2020; Lindsay et al. 2014; Schultz et al. 2019), specific knowledge inherent to an intervention (e.g., Brassart et al. 2017; Gladstone et al. 2014; Rawlings and Blackmer 2019), and other fields of knowledge inherent to specific professional activities (Stanford et al. 2020). Regarding the specific approaches on which professionals base their interventions, the most referenced was the family strengths-based approach (e.g., Dolan et al. 2018; Schaefer 2016; Villarreal-Montoya et al. 2020), which appears to specify it as one of the key approaches in the family support field.

In this field, the professionals’ qualities and essential skills seem to transverse across all professional areas. However, the technical knowledge and approaches adopted by professionals differed according to their expertise area. Nevertheless, specific knowledge and approaches upon which their interventions are based have an impact on the performance of the professionals’ core skills (Mešl et al. 2023).

The included studies predominantly identified topics related to the qualities of professionals (n = 24) and the essential skills common to various professions and contexts in family support (n = 44). Thus, our results appear to reflect a greater recognition of general characteristics and skills applicable to all professional groups, regardless of the context in which they work. This allows us to standardize them in a comprehensive model for all professionals working in the family support field. It also highlights the importance of developing training or education for professionals that addresses personal attributes and essential skills, since both can be developed and improved through learning experiences.

5. Conclusions

The present study contributes to the development of the family support field by sharing an update and supplementation to the SLR conducted by Zegarac et al. (2021) and a systematization of the results according to the organization proposed by Mešl et al. (2023), which also revealed a synchronization among these different studies.

The organization of the identified skills included in this SLR allows for their standardization and generalization to professionals in family support, which hopefully contributes to the construction of a model of professional skills in this field. The present study also emphasizes the centrality of the qualities of professional and essential skills common to all professionals and contexts, which can be key variables to consider in future research.

The organization of skills into categories and the analysis of each study according to each category enabled the identification of two areas of potential intervention for professionals. The results highlight the need to focus the training and development of professionals on the qualities and the essential skills common to all professionals. In this regard, it is crucial, first, to understand and describe the existing training programs in the field of family support in European countries and the specific aspects they target in their interventions. Subsequently, a training program could be developed for professionals to directly develop or enhance their personal attributes and general skills relevant to the family support area.

This study aimed, in general, to contribute to the standardization of skills for the family support workforce. By organizing the results of various studies into skill categories and emphasizing those that appeared to be more valuable, based on the direct experience of families and professionals, the present study represents a clear scientific advancement in this research field, despite there still being a long way to go. The family support field is a current focus of researchers from various social sciences, and it is expected that more studies will emerge, particularly regarding the skills of professionals.

These findings are relevant and have potential implications for professionals and services. The topics of identified skills may provide valuable insights for developing what is likely to be helpful for children and families in practice.

The identification of professional skills for family support field is crucial to ensuring the quality of services provided, promoting professional development, standardizing services, evaluating performance, informing human resources policies, and strengthening advocacy and funding for family support programs.

6. Limitations

Some limitations were identified in the analyzed studies that should be considered. First, the professionals involved in the selected studies were predominantly social workers, which limits the generalization of results to professionals from other groups. It would be important to expand the study samples to other groups of professionals in the family support field, such as psychologists, educators, pediatricians, physicians, nurses, and lawyers, to improve the results’ generalizability and standardization. Also, it would be essential to find out how to analyze the literature on family support skills in other areas and professions that may use different terms. Despite the description of skills, no study addresses whether there are skills or characteristics of professionals that are more effective. Finally, many studies indicated that professionals can describe idealized skills or respond according to expectations that may not reflect the skills they use in their professional practice. Thus, it would be interesting to develop observational studies to describe and evaluate the skills that professionals actually use in their practice to compare these with their perceptions and reported skills.

Limitations can also be identified in the present study. First, only peer-reviewed scientific studies with their full text available were included, which may have excluded relevant articles. It might be worthwhile to explore books, book chapters, and grey literature to investigate whether other pertinent studies should be integrated.

Our sampled studies predominantly included one professional group, social workers, which may indicate that the identified skills are mostly related to the intervention of this professional group and may not be representative of other professionals in the family support field. Future studies should ensure the inclusion of several groups to allow generalization to a wider range of professionals. As the aim of this work was to identify the skills of the family support workforce, the families’ and professionals’ most valued skills were not explored independently, which would be an interesting topic for future research.

Finally, despite the present study ensuring the inclusion of studies in four languages, it is possible that relevant studies in other languages would complement our insights and findings. Although the qualitative assessment was also a strength of this study since it allowed a differentiation in terms of quality levels and the inclusion of only those considered of medium and high quality, the MMAT (Hong et al. 2018) does not define categories for evaluating studies, which may introduce some subjectivity in the researchers’ choices. It would have been important to complement this tool with another quality assessment instrument to increase the objectivity of the assessments and the instrument’s validity.