In Finland, many different professionals work in child and family services, including those provided by non-governmental organisations and churches, municipal early childhood education and other cultural and community organisations. Others form part of the social and health services provided by the recently established well-being services counties (Bulling, 2017; Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, 2023). These different services have been developed over a long period into separate areas of expertise (Bulling and Berg, 2018). The family centre model combines universal social and health services with more targeted welfare services (Busch et al., 2013). In this article, we use the term interprofessional to describe the cross-border activities and collaboration of professionals from different units, domains or sectors working together across areas of responsibility (Bulling and Berg, 2018). Using data from group discussions with professionals, we explored interprofessional collaboration in the field of family support in the open meeting places for families that form part of the low-threshold family centre service network (see Martinussen et al., 2017; Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, 2023; Virtanen et al., 2020).

According to Cedersund et al. (2021) and Hämäläinen et al. (2020), not all communities provide security and well-being on the individual or community level. Recent changes in family structures and the increasing vulnerability of families have revealed many differences between communities in family cultures, family support and family support networks. There is also an increasing need for a shared, socially sustainable approach to family and child welfare. This situation is an outcome of the global changes, crises and inequalities that influence families’ as well as children’s rights, and which underpin the need for child- and family-centred actions and policies (see Andreotti, 2021; Hämäläinen et al., 2020).

In this study, we focus on how voluntary interprofessional collaboration in the context of family support could be provided in a more sustainable way from the perspectives of professionals working in low-threshold open meeting places. Such low-threshold services for families include open kindergartens and other meeting places that children, accompanied by an adult caregiver, can attend without a prior appointment or registration (see Kaiser et al., 2022). Currently, low-threshold support for children and parents in Finland is already offered via interprofessional collaboration (see also Äikäs et al., 2022; Anderson, 2013).

We examined professionals’ narratives of their experiences rather than giving direct descriptions of events in open meeting places for families (see Phoenix, 2013; Squire, 2013). By adopting a narrative approach (Squire, 2013), we hoped to reveal possible contradictions, inconsistencies and tensions (see Clandinin and Rosiek, 2007; Ricoeur, 1991) involved in interprofessional work practices. A narrative approach can illuminate different experiences, potential challenges and underlying meanings related to interprofessional collaboration between workers from various sectors and units (Phoenix, 2013; Riessman, 2008; Squire, 2013). The present narrative framework enabled in-depth analysis of the relational actions constructing interprofessional collaboration.

The integration of social and health services refers to various measures and solutions that aim to coordinate and unify the structures and functions of welfare services (Cameron et al., 2014; Kodner, 2009; Lewis et al., 2010, p. 8; Willumsen et al., 2012). One manifestation of integration and the foundation of support is interprofessional collaboration, which has become a common method of working in family services, education, social work and healthcare (Bricker et al., 2022; D’Amour et al., 2008; Glaser and Suter, 2016).

Interprofessional collaboration in family services broadly describes how the different service providers produce ecological and resource-oriented outcomes by bringing together professionals and community members in an inclusive and encouraging way without fear of stigmatisation (Gillespie, 2009). Interprofessional collaboration also supports the creation of a common agenda and mutually agreed activities in the community at large (Kania and Kramer, 2011; Virtanen et al., 2020).

In reforming family services, the sharing of working methods and expertise – that is, interprofessional collaboration – plays a significant role. According to Bulling (2017), Champine et al. (2018) and Sanders et al. (2019), effective and open communication requires the service provider to be reachable and easily approachable, and to actively listen and understand. Professional expertise and services can be brought into open meeting places, enabling families to receive help, advice and support early and without any threshold criteria (see Kaiser et al., 2022; Martinussen et al., 2017). According to Virtanen et al. (2020), collaboration and partnership have traditionally been viewed as mechanisms to create bridges between organisations and institutions from the private, public and non-governmental sectors to enhance funder collaboratives, public–private partnerships and multistakeholder initiatives.

Agreed policies, operating principles and working methods, as well as pair and teamwork, facilitate the work of professionals, save resources and increase the well-being of both professionals working in a family centre and its network of operators (see Martinussen et al., 2017). According to Hämäläinen et al. (2020), sustainable family and child welfare and support require the recognition of values that consciously and unconsciously affect professionals’ practices, including that of interdependence.

In this study, the level of integration of family support refers to the coordination of social and health services from the perspectives of professionals (see Bulling and Berg, 2018; Martinussen et al., 2017). Such integration is often overlooked in debate on the reform of social and health services, in which the development of structures is generally seen as the main element (Willumsen et al., 2012). In this study, we understand social sustainability as a goal in reducing inequality in the well-being and participation of families (Dolan et al., 2020).

We applied narrative analysis to interpret the professionals’ talk in the focus group interviews (see Squire, 2013). The narrative analysis used in this study was based on a constructive and interpretative paradigm, and thus a story consisted of a plot description of events and experiences (see Calás and Smircich, 1999; Squire, 2013). The order and temporality of the events narrated did not alone make a story; instead, a story required an evaluation of the events and construction of their meanings (Mykkänen et al., 2017). We treated the narratives as raw material from which meaningful and intriguing stories could be constructed (see Polkinghorne, 1995).

In this section, we focus on three story types that we identified as describing interprofessional collaboration in family support open meeting places for families. The significance of the stories of interprofessional collaboration in the family support system was thus directly related to the open meeting places for families, where events and experiences are lived and experienced (see Elliot, 2005). We identified three story types: (1) the story of the Bridge Builder, who works between service silos; (2) the story of the Everyday Encounterer, who builds relationships in everyday life; and (3) the story of the Equality Seeker, who strengthens equality in the activities of families, professionals and communities.

The story types were composites created by extracting elements from the stories of several different participants in the five groups. These story types do not therefore represent the experience of a single person, but instead offer shared meanings for meeting place work. Each story type therefore represents a certain kind of interprofessional collaboration in family support. Next, we present each of the story types in detail and in the light of previous research.

Our narrative analysis produced three story types on the experiences of interprofessional collaboration in family support services of professionals working in open meeting places for families. The Bridge Builder, Everyday Encounterer and Equality Seeker story types revealed professionals’ voices and dreams about the need for awareness, actions and partnerships. The identified narratives yielded a picture of the current level of coordination of family support practices in the context of open meeting places for families. The story types, and the Everyday Encounterer type in particular, aimed to see improved relationships and reciprocity in these open meeting places (Dolan et al., 2020). The strength of the narrative approach lay in its ability to capture various standpoints and challenges in the interface of customer needs, professional boundaries and leadership tasks.

For the Bridge Builder, the family is a core institution (see Hämäläinen et al., 2020). Additionally, interprofessional family support was seen as a child’s right, a standpoint that helps in developing and implementing collaboration, measures and services that affect the lives of whole families (Virtanen et al., 2020). The participants seemed to work in a social pedagogical child- and family-oriented way with the shared goal of strengthening the family’s participation. This cooperation with parents could be described as family-friendly discussion (see Nivala et al., 2022).

Our results indicate that the implementation of the family centre model does not in itself guarantee a customer focus. The story types revealed the importance attributed to customer-oriented interprofessional guidance in ensuring the continuity of care or services (see Kaiser et al., 2022; Martinussen et al., 2017; Virtanen et al., 2020). One shortcoming identified in this study was the lack of information the professionals reported receiving about other services provided by their family centres. Getting to know other employees and their competencies was considered to facilitate the implementation of coordinated care (see Cameron et al., 2014; Kaiser et al., 2022). The challenges presented by family centres are usually related to the absence of clear cooperative structures and standardised information management models (see Busch et al., 2013; Virtanen et al., 2020).

We also found some points of convergence on the provision of socially sustainable family and child welfare support (see Hämäläinen et al., 2020). In the Equality Seeker story, interprofessional collaboration in family support at the low-threshold open meeting places for families was seen as socially sustainable, as it was linked to the promotion of participation, cultural identity and social cohesion (Hämäläinen et al., 2020; Ungar, 2021). Working in open meeting places for families enabled the real-life problems faced by children, families and their communities to be addressed. Our results provided insights on the more inconspicuous side of the current work done in Finnish open meeting places for families and highlighted the presence in them of the voices of interprofessional workers.

The results also suggest tools for approaching cooperation between services, not only as an administrative structure but also as a set of cooperative relationships built in the process of work and engagement in other activities, and guided by the ideals of encounter, equality and coordination. The results may also be useful in the planning, development and provision of low-threshold family services. With the help of open meeting places, the health and well-being of families with children could be further promoted by networking with other services in the vicinity.

Our study indicates that challenges in the welfare sector require new knowledge and ways of thinking, as well as shared understanding (see Cedersund et al., 2021). With the help of the Bridge Builder, who works between service silos, the Everyday Encounterer, who creates relationships in everyday life, and the Equality Seeker, who seeks to strengthen equality in activities across families, professionals and communities, it is possible to further understanding of interprofessional collaboration in family support services.

Our findings offer ideas on how to provide more effective support on the universal level for different families, including vulnerable families and children at risk. Working collaboratively on the universal level may mean that costly negative outcomes are less likely in the future (see Dolan et al., 2020; Virtanen et al., 2020). According to Auschra (2018), an atmosphere of mistrust can lead to regional behaviours and suspicions that prevent cooperation. This earlier finding may imply that more work is needed to expand cooperation and partnerships to support families (see Bulling and Berg, 2018; Ungar, 2021; Virtanen et al., 2020). Better coordination and the co-location of services for families generate economies and ensure the provision of the variety of supportive services that families need (see Dolan et al., 2020).

Our study suggests that to strengthen the change in attitudes and relationships between people requires a dialogic relationship between administrators, working group members, families and the wider community (see Ungar, 2021; Virtanen et al., 2020). Since cooperative skills develop through engagement in various roles and activities in working life, they cannot be limited to the skills needed in, for example, a professional’s own open meeting place for families. According to Virtanen et al. (2020), partnership is a crucial mechanism in the creation of safe and comprehensive well-being for children and families. Our study shows that partnership also needs to be approached from the viewpoint of children and through the lens of collective impact (Virtanen et al., 2020).

We noticed that the Bridge Builder, Everyday Encounterer and Equality Seeker story types and their motivational activities seemed to have some links with the singular of sociocultural animation (see Marrengula, 2010). It would be interesting to investigate sociocultural animation in expert practices in relation to parenting support. This study yielded insights into the possibility of applying sociocultural animation research as a practical approach to family support work, where research and practice come together in a reflexive perspective (see Marrengula, 2010). We could also present our study in a sociocultural way by showing how the focus group participants functioned as animators whose activities were targeted at supporting the parenting of families. The background organisation enabling this activity was the family centre’s low-threshold meeting place for families (Marrengula, 2010).

Furthermore, we have to take these changes in the ecological impact on the life of families into consideration, as they are likely to be significant (Andreotti, 2021). As Michael Ungar (2021) states, there is far less need for research on why things break down; far more is needed on how improve the functioning of systems and the principles that predict success and trust in collaboration. Our narrative study showed that the provision of time- and place-independent child support services had increased in recent years. It would also be important to examine how family support services view the physical non-meeting of people, especially now when many families around the world are being affected by wars and civil strife.