Introduction: Collaborative approaches in speech-language pathology (SLP) aim to integrate the experience of clients and people important to them by including these stakeholders actively in decision making. This inclusion can lead to more effective, engaging, and safer SLP practice. A variety of collaborative approaches have evolved in response to sociocultural contexts, and as a result, there are many different approaches currently in use such as co-design, co-production, and co-creation. However, despite widening acceptance and utilisation of collaborative approaches, the use and evidence for these in SLP literature have not been considered collectively. The current study aims to explore how collaborative approaches, used to develop products or services in SLP, are reported in literature. Methods: Using narrative review methodology, a systematic search of three databases and hand searching were conducted to explore how collaborative approaches, used to develop products or services, are reported in SLP. Search terms reflected the breadth of collaborative approaches and the diverse nature of SLP across clinical practice. Following screening of initial data, 59 articles were identified for data extraction and narrative synthesis. An internationally recognised reporting checklist for stakeholder involvement called the Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public, Version 2 (GRIPP2), informed the reviewing process in addition to qualitative description. Results: Collaborative approaches across SLP practice were found to be diverse as were the terminology and tools used for collaboration. Two-thirds of the studies were published after 2020. The timing and involvement of stakeholders in collaborative approaches varied greatly; however, most stakeholder involvement was found in the conducting of research activities, compared to other areas such as planning, analysis, and reporting. The GRIPP2 review indicated strengths and opportunities in reporting of stakeholder involvement. When stakeholder involvement was rigorously reported it could include reflection on how stakeholders contributed within their communication abilities and how this contribution benefited the study. Conclusion: Collaborative approaches reported in SLP focused on valuing and respecting people with living experience of communication and swallowing difficulties. This narrative review contributes to the resources available to support decision-making and working together with stakeholders, encouraging SLPs to reflect, consider the context and respond. Future research could continue to strengthen consistency in terminology for collaborative approaches, use frameworks to plan and report stakeholder involvement and carefully consider involvement across the research continuum.