Context: Several United Nations agencies mandate the provision of inclusive vocational education and training (VET) for students with special educational needs (SEN). Nevertheless, despite these robust international commitments, empirical evidence supporting inclusive VET remains dispersed across multiple disciplines, national contexts, and thematic areas, resulting in a lack of cohesive synthesis of policies and practices. Therefore, this systematic review intends to ascertain evidence on inclusive VET across four analytical domains: 1) pedagogy, 2) institutional support, 3) school-to-work transition, and 4) digital tools and mental health.

Research Questions:

This systematic review was guided by the following specific research questions:

RQ1: Which pedagogical approaches and life skills are implemented in inclusive learning support for SEN learners in VET?

RQ2: What are the various institutional support mechanisms for SEN learners in VET programmes?

RQ3: What are the various transitional practices for SEN learners in VET?

RQ4: What are the various digital tools used and mental health support offered to SEN learners in VET?

Theoretical Framework:

This review adopts the ecological systems theory framework, primarily based on Bronfenbrenner's (1979) model, to explore the complex factors influencing inclusive VET. This approach facilitates the analysis of how different systems (such as teacher-student interactions and teaching methods), mesosystems (like school-to-work transition programmes and institutional support), exosystems (including VET policies and funding for digital tools), and macrosystems (such as international agreements like CRPD and national disability rights laws) interact to shape the experiences and outcomes of SEN learners in VET. Additionally, the study is guided by critical disability studies, which emphasise the social construction of disability and call for systemic changes rather than focusing on individual deficits. This dual theoretical perspective provides a thorough understanding of both the practical implementation of inclusive VET and the broader societal and policy contexts that either support or hinder true inclusion. The international scope of the review, covering 18 countries, offers a strong empirical foundation for cross-national comparisons and the identification of transferable best practices and systemic obstacles within the European and global VET environments.

Approach: Adhering to PRISMA guidelines, a search was conducted across five databases (ERIC, Web of Science, PubMed, Google Scholar, and Scopus) and through manual searches of four principal VET journals from January 2008 to April 2026.

Findings: The review included 40 peer-reviewed empirical studies from 19 countries across four analytical domains: pedagogy and life skills (n = 22), institutional support (n = 22), school-to-work transition (n = 28), and digital tools and mental health (n = 6, all with partial focus). Data across the studies were mainly from 1) SEN students, 2) parents of SEN, 3) teachers/staff of VET, and 4) experts of SEN-VET. Across the studies, four cross-national themes emerged, which are 1) a universal gap between policy and practice, in which inclusive VET is widely mandated but inadequately implemented; 2) the VET teacher serves as the de facto inclusion system, with institutional support fragile because it relies on individual teacher commitment rather than structural design; 3) a pre-VET bottleneck, in which the transition from school to VET is the strongest predictor of long-term Not in Employment, Education, or Training (NEET) risk for learners with SEN; and 4) a critical oversight in digital and mental health, with no primary-focus studies addressing artificial intelligence, assistive technology, or mental health specifically within VET for SEN students. There are different VET systems among countries; however, some countries consistently yield stronger outcomes. Conclusions: Achieving inclusive VET requires a systemic approach rather than relying on individual efforts alone. The evidence points to four priority actions: 1) addressing the universal policy-practice gap with accountability mechanisms, 2) reducing the burden on VET teachers by strengthening institutional support structures, 3) mitigating the pre-VET bottleneck by having early transition planning with employer and VET provider involvement, and 4) closing the critical evidence gap in digital and mental health requires targeted research funding for assistive technology, AI tools, and wellbeing interventions in VET contexts.

Urie Bronfenbrenner. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Harvard University Press. Cedefop. (2016). Leaving education early: Putting vocational education and training centre stage. Publications Office of the European Union. Hong, Q. N., Pluye, P., Fàbregues, S., Bartlett, G., Boardman, F., Cargo, M., Dagenais, P., Gagnon, M.-P., Griffiths, F., Nicolau, B., O’Cathain, A., Rousseau, M.-C., & Vedel, I. (2018). The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) version 2018 for information professionals and researchers. Education for Information, 34(4), 285–291. https://doi.org/10.3233/EFI-180221 OECD. (2018). Equity in education: Breaking down barriers to social mobility. OECD Publishing. Matthew J. Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., et al. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n. 71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71 Popay, J., Roberts, H., Sowden, A., Petticrew, M., Arai, L., Rodgers, M., Britten, N., Roen, K., & Duffy, S. (2006). Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews. ESRC Methods Programme. Thomas, J., & Harden, A. (2008). Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 8, 45. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-8-45 UNESCO. (2020). Global Education Monitoring Report 2020: Inclusion and Education All Means All. UNESCO Publishing.