Digital technologies have opened a new era for social work. Despite their potential benefits, their uptake remains limited. Guided by the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology, this scoping review maps factors influencing digital technology adoption among frontline social workers.
Methods
Following the Joanna Briggs Institute guidance and the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews, Chinese- and English-language literature published between 2015 and 2026 was searched. Twelve studies were included.
Results
Reported factors mapped onto performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence, facilitating conditions, and structural contexts. Adoption was shaped by perceived practice value, digital competence, organizational support, infrastructure, and service users’ digital access. Ethical challenges, including privacy and confidentiality, professional boundaries, algorithmic bias, and digital exclusion, also influenced technology acceptance.
Discussion
Technology adoption among social workers is a contextualized process of “selective integration.” Implications for practice and future research are discussed.
AasbackA. W.RøkkumN. H. A. (2021). Domesticating technology in pandemic social work. Journal of Comparative Social Work, 16(2), 172–196. https://doi.org/10.31265/jcsw.v16i2.387
2.
AfrouzR.LucasJ. (2023). A systematic review of technology-mediated social work practice: Benefits, uncertainties, and future directions. Journal of Social Work, 23(5), 953–974. https://doi.org/10.1177/14680173231165926
AkterH.AhmedW. (2025). Reevaluating the UTAUT framework in workforce MOOC adoption. Journal of Workplace Learning, 37(7–8), 437–454. https://doi.org/10.1108/JWL-10-2024-0247
5.
ArkseyH.O’MalleyL. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616
6.
AtesH.PolatM. (2025). Exploring adoption of humanoid robots in education: UTAUT-2 and TOE models for science teachers. Education and Information Technologies, 30(9), 12765–12806. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-025-13344-8
7.
BaeJ.LeeS.ChoiC. J. W. (2025). Expansion of digital technology use in the Korean Social Work Field. Journal of Social Service Research, 51(3), 663–677. https://doi.org/10.1080/01488376.2024.2402520
8.
BáezJ. C.AhnE.TamiettiA.VictorB. G.GoldkindL. (2026). Clinical social workers’ perceptions of large language models in practice: Resistance to automation and prospects for integration. Journal of Evidence-Based Social Work, 23(1), 42–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/26408066.2025.2542450
9.
BarakA.GroholJ. M. (2011). Current and future trends in internet-supported mental health interventions. Journal of Technology in Human Services, 29(3), 155–196. https://doi.org/10.1080/15228835.2011.616939
10.
BékésV.BőtheB.Aafjes-van DoornK. (2025). Acceptance of using artificial intelligence and digital technology for mental health interventions: The development and initial validation of the UTAUT-AI-DMHI. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 32(3), e70085. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.70085
11.
Bruheim-EscobarI.Wullum AasbackA.KvakicM. (2026). Digital technologies in social work: An umbrella review. European Journal of Social Work, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691457.2026.2621288
12.
ByrneJ.KirwanG. (2019). Relationship-based social work and electronic communication technologies: Anticipation, adaptation and achievement. Journal of Social Work Practice, 33(2), 217–232. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650533.2019.1604499
13.
CarterL.SchauppL. (2008). Efficacy and Acceptance in E-File Adoption.
14.
ChanC. (2016). A scoping review of social Media use in social work practice. Journal of Evidence-Informed Social Work, 13(3), 263–276. https://doi.org/10.1080/23761407.2015.1052908
15.
ChenJ. (2014). A probe into the characteristics and basic principles of network social work. Journal of Renmin University of China, 28(5), 71–78. In Chinese.
16.
DamschroderL. J.AronD. C.KeithR. E.KirshS. R.AlexanderJ. A.LoweryJ. C. (2009). Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: A consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implementation Science, 4(1), 50. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-4-50
17.
DavisF. D. (1985). A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems.
18.
DavisF. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
19.
FiorentinoV.RomakkaniemiM.HarrikariT.SaraniemiS.TiitinenL. (2023). Towards digitally mediated social work – the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on encountering clients in social work. Qualitative Social Work, 22(3), 448–464. https://doi.org/10.1177/14733250221075603
20.
García de Blanes SebastiánM.Sarmiento GuedeJ. R.AntonovicaA. (2022). Application and extension of the UTAUT2 model for determining behavioral intention factors in use of the artificial intelligence virtual assistants. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 993935. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.993935
21.
HoldenG.TuchmanE.BarkerK.RosenbergG.ThazinM.KuppensS.WatsonK. (2012). A few thoughts on evidence in social work. Social Work in Health Care, 51(6), 483–505. https://doi.org/10.1080/00981389.2012.671649
22.
HuY. (2022). The concept and development of digital social work and the ethical challenges faced by young social workers. Contemporary Youth Research, 5, 119–128. In Chinese.
23.
HuangC.WangL. (2025). Connotation, application and prospect of digital social work. Hebei Academic Journal, 45(3), 63–73.In Chinese.
JahanshahiD.TabibiZ.Van WeeB. (2020). Factors influencing the acceptance and use of a bicycle sharing system: Applying an extended unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT). Case Studies on Transport Policy, 8(4), 1212–1223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cstp.2020.08.002
26.
LagstenJ.AnderssonA. (2018). Use of information systems in social work – challenges and an agenda for future research. European Journal of Social Work, 21(6), 850–862. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691457.2018.1423554
27.
LeidnerD. E.KayworthT. (2006). Review: A review of culture in information systems research: Toward a theory of information technology culture conflict. MIS Quarterly, 30(2), 357–399. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148735
28.
López PeláezA.Pérez GarcíaR.Aguilar-Tablada MassóM. V. (2018). e-Social work: Building a new field of specialization in social work?European Journal of Social Work, 21(6), 804–823. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691457.2017.1399256
29.
MenonG. M.RubinM. (2011). A survey of online practitioners: Implications for education and practice. Journal of Technology in Human Services, 29(2), 133–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/15228835.2011.595262
30.
MishnaF.MilneE.BogoM.PereiraL. F. (2021a). Responding to COVID-19: New trends in social workers’ use of information and communication technology. Clinical Social Work Journal, 49(4), 484–494. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10615-020-00780-x
31.
MishnaF.SandersJ.FantusS.FangL.GreenblattA.BogoM.MilneB. (2021b). #Socialwork: Informal use of information and communication technology in social work. Clinical Social Work Journal, 49(1), 85–99. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10615-019-00729-9
32.
Montes De Oca MunguiaO.PannellD. J.LlewellynR. (2021). Understanding the adoption of innovations in agriculture: A review of selected conceptual models. Agronomy, 11(1), 139. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11010139
33.
NadavJ.KaihlanenA.-M.KujalaS.LaukkaE.HilamaP.KoivistoJ.KeskimäkiI.HeponiemiT. (2021). How to implement digital services in a way that they integrate into routine work: Qualitative interview study among health and social care professionals. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 23(12), e31668. https://doi.org/10.2196/31668
NordesjöK.ScaramuzzinoG. (2023). Digitalization, stress, and social worker–client relationships during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Social Work, 23(6), 1080–1098. https://doi.org/10.1177/14680173231180309
36.
OwenN. (2020). Feasibility and acceptability of using telehealth for early intervention parent counselling. Advances in Mental Health, 18(1), 39–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/18387357.2019.1679026
37.
PetersM. D. J.MarnieC.TriccoA. C.PollockD.MunnZ.AlexanderL.McInerneyP.GodfreyC. M.KhalilH. (2020). Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evidence Synthesis, 18(10), 2119–2126. https://doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-20-00167
38.
PinkS.FergusonH.KellyL. (2022). Digital social work: Conceptualising a hybrid anticipatory practice. Qualitative Social Work, 21(2), 413–430. https://doi.org/10.1177/14733250211003647
39.
ProctorE.SilmereH.RaghavanR.HovmandP.AaronsG.BungerA.GriffeyR.HensleyM. (2011). Outcomes for implementation research: Conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Administration and Policy in Mental Health, 38(2), 65–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-010-0319-7
40.
RamseyA. T.MontgomeryK. (2014). Technology-based interventions in social work practice: A systematic review of mental health interventions. Social Work in Health Care, 53(9), 883–899. https://doi.org/10.1080/00981389.2014.925531
41.
RecmanováA.VávrováS. (2018). Information and communication technologies in interventions of Czech social workers when dealing with vulnerable children and their families. European Journal of Social Work, 21(6), 876–888. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691457.2018.1441137
42.
RogersE. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (Fourth Edition). Free Press.
43.
RonaghiM. H.ForouharfarA. (2020). A contextualized study of the usage of the Internet of Things (IoT) in smart farming in a typical Middle Eastern country within the context of unified theory of acceptance and use of technology model (UTAUT). Technology in Society, 63, 101415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101415
SteersR. M.MeyerA. D.Sanchez-RundeC. J. (2008). National culture and the adoption of new technologies. Journal of World Business, 43(3), 255–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2008.03.007
46.
StraubD.LochK.EvaristoR.KarahannaE.StriteM. (2002). Toward a Theory-Based Measurement of Culture. 10(1).
47.
SuJ.WangY.LiuH.ZhangZ.WangZ.LiZ. (2025). Investigating the factors influencing users’ adoption of artificial intelligence health assistants based on an extended UTAUT model. Scientific Reports, 15(1), 18215. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-01897-0
48.
TriccoA. C.LillieE.ZarinW.O’BrienK. K.ColquhounH.LevacD.MoherD.PetersM. D. J.HorsleyT.WeeksL.HempelS.AklE. A.ChangC.McGowanJ.StewartL.HartlingL.AldcroftA.WilsonM. G.GarrittyC.StrausS. E. (2018). PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine, 169(7), 467–473. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850
49.
TsangW.-H. W.MoK. Y.-H.CheungJ.CS.WongE. Y.-W. (2022). Social workers’ acceptance of information and communication technology (ICT) in practice during COVID-19: Search for embracing ethical considerations in Hong Kong. Journal of Social Service Research, 48(5), 633–646. https://doi.org/10.1080/01488376.2022.2100562
50.
VenkateshV. (2022). Adoption and use of AI tools: A research agenda grounded in UTAUT. Annals of Operations Research, 308(1), 641–652. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-020-03918-9
51.
VenkateshV.MorrisM. G.DavisG. B.DavisF. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540
52.
VenkateshV.ThongJ.XuX. (2012). Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), 157–178. https://doi.org/10.2307/41410412
WolfL.GoldkindL. (2016). Digital native meet friendly visitor: A Flexner-inspired call to digital action. Journal of Social Work Education, 52(sup1), S99–S109. https://doi.org/10.1080/10437797.2016.1174643
55.
XueL.RashidA. M.OuyangS. (2024). The unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) in higher education: A systematic review. Sage Open, 14(1), 21582440241229570. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440241229570
56.
YeowP.Loow. h. (2009). Acceptability of ATM and transit applications embedded in multipurpose smart identity card: An exploratory study in Malaysia. IJEGR, 5(2), 37–56. https://doi.org/10.4018/jegr.2009040103
57.
ZeebareeM.AgoyiM.AqelM. (2022). Sustainable adoption of E-government from the UTAUT perspective. Sustainability, 14(9), 5370. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14095370
58.
ZhaoY.WangM. (2023). Digital sociology: Origins, development and prospects in international perspective. Sociological Studies, 38(2), 26–48, 226–227. In Chinese.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
