SynthesisBMC psychology2026
Cross-professional collaboration between music therapists and special education teachers in autism interventions: a grounded theory qualitative meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study adopted a grounded theory qualitative meta-analysis approach to examine cross-professional collaboration between music therapists and special education teachers engaged in musical interventions for children with autism spectrum disorders. All reported findings derive from thematic prevalence analysis and theoretical saturation criteria rather than statistical quantification. Through systematic interpretive synthesis of 42 primary qualitative studies published between 2010 and 2024, open coding procedures yielded fifteen core collaboration elements. These elements were organized into three hierarchical tiers based on thematic prevalence index (proportion of studies identifying each element) and theoretical salience: primary elements (appearing in > 80% of studies) included shared goal development, communication frequency, and role clarity; secondary elements (60–80%) encompassed mutual respect, resource sharing, and decision-making processes; tertiary elements (< 60%) comprised technology integration, environmental adaptation, and professional boundary management.Axial coding analysis subsequently revealed a four-phase collaboration development process—relationship initiation, partnership consolidation, collaborative implementation, and outcome optimization—by mapping causal conditions, contextual factors, and action strategies across studies. Selective coding then integrated these categories into eight distinct collaboration model types, ranging from parallel cooperative approaches to integrated co-treatment models, with study participants describing varying levels of collaborative integration and perceived effectiveness. Building upon this three-stage coding progression, we developed the Cross-Professional Collaboration Model for Autism Intervention (CPCMAI), a descriptive and explanatory theoretical framework illustrating how collaboration quality mediates the relationship between professional inputs and child developmental outcomes.Several methodological boundaries warrant acknowledgment. The reliance on qualitative synthesis necessarily limits causal inference, and findings reflect interpretive patterns across heterogeneous study contexts rather than statistically generalizable effects. Future empirical validation through mixed-methods designs remains essential before widespread implementation. Despite these constraints, the findings offer theoretically-grounded guidance for practitioners and administrators seeking to optimize interprofessional service delivery, underscoring the significance of attending systematically to both structural and relational dimensions of collaborative partnerships.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.