Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Summary

Social workers are increasingly using digital technology and online platforms in service delivery, with many services having moved online in 2020 following the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic. A systematic literature review was conducted to synthesize research on the benefits and uncertainties of technology-mediated social work practice. Relevant keywords were searched in the following databases, Scopus, EbscoHost, SocINDEX, and Google Scholar. A total of 28 articles were included in this review, and their findings were synthesized thematically.

Findings

The review revealed several benefits of using digital tools and online platforms, including providing services to the larger population and making social work more available and accessible. However, while technology was widely employed in social work practice, there were some uncertainties about the impacts of technology on practice, maintaining professional boundaries, and concerns over privacy and confidentiality.

Implication

There is a need for further support for social workers to access flexible, efficient, and creative tools to maintain the quality of service delivery. The interdisciplinary collaboration between social work bodies and organizations with technology developers will improve technology-mediated social work practice to be aligned with professional principles, ethics, and values.

Keywords

Social work social work practice systematic review ethics and values practice standards

The unprecedented changes in the 21st century have made contemporary social work practice more uncertain than before (Afrouz, 2021). The advent of digital technology, particularly following the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic, has transformed how social workers engage with service users. Such transformation has sparked debate on how professional values and ethics could be maintained when providing social work services through technology.

The history of using digital technology in social work has been described as paradoxical (Harris, 2021). For instance, there is an argument that social work has been slow or resistant in accepting technology in practice compared to other professions (see Bullock & Colvin, 2015; Dodsworth et al., 2013; López Peláez & Marcuello-Servós, 2018; Perron et al., 2010). However, Bullock and Colvin (2015) described social workers’ reactions as rightfully “cautious” in adopting digital technology. In addition, some scholars contended that shifting from face-to-face to virtual or online service delivery might benefit organizations’ desires for cost-cutting rather than placing clients’ needs at the forefront of service delivery (Harris, 2021; Murphy & Pardeck, 1992).

Given the uncertainties of providing social work services through digital means (Reamer, 2013), it is not surprising that social workers have demanded more evidence outlining the impacts of digital tools to ensure practices are ethical and inclusive. Nevertheless, during the COVID-19 pandemic, many social work services had to move to “remote” or online and technology-mediated service delivery as this became the only way to engage with service users. Now that digital technology has become a critical part of service delivery, evidence-based research can help identify the uncertainties and effectiveness of service delivery through technology within social work principles and values.

Historically, the phone-based helpline was established as a useful tool to provide crisis intervention and anonymous support without needing to colocate workers and service users physically. However, technology has moved beyond crisis intervention and has fundamentally changed communication, engagement, and client relationships. Now more than ever, technology increasingly meditates social work practices in many different contexts, including clinical social work, therapeutic practice, mental health treatment, and domestic violence intervention (Cortis et al., 2021; Mattison, 2012). Notably, technologies are not simply “add-ons” to service delivery; rather, they have transformed service provision, particularly if there is a loss of physical connection and proximity between social workers and their clients (Byrne & Kirwan, 2019). Therefore, using technology in service delivery and, more specifically, for client engagement requires significant adoption and innovation. To this end, this article explores the effectiveness, benefits, and uncertainties of delivering services through technology and provides relevant recommendations.

Technology-mediated social work practice

Digital tools and online applications have provided new insights into many professional settings. Those tools and applications can help professionals transfer information, manage data, and facilitate communication electronically and/or online (Zuppo, 2012). As such, digital applications created a new era in social work (López Peláez et al., 2018), which shifted practice and transformed service delivery (Berzin et al., 2015; López Peláez et al., 2018). Moreover, with the COVID-19 pandemic, social workers have found themselves in a fast-paced and continuous adaptation process involving new technological platforms and tools.

Terminologies used to explore and describe digital technologies in social work service delivery are still contested, including Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) in social work (Chan & Holosko, 2016; Mishna et al., 2017), e-social work (López Peláez & Marcuello-Servós, 2018), technology-mediated service delivery (Cortis et al., 2021), and online social work. Such terms are also used interchangeably in the literature. For this article, we use “technology-mediated social work” to reflect the purpose of this article on how social workers utilize digital tools and platforms as “mediators” of practice and service delivery.

The introduction of digital technology to mediate practice brings a new horizon for innovation and practice improvement (Harris & Birnbaum, 2015; López Peláez et al., 2018). People widely use the internet, with 5.1 billion people using mobile phones worldwide, among which 3.6 billion are internet users (GSMA, 2019); hence, there are more opportunities to access services such as social work via digital means. For example, many people in different geographical settings can access social work services via online platforms (Barsky, 2017; Dombo et al., 2014; Giffords, 2009). Also, digital technology and online platforms have shifted how service users interact with social workers and access social work services (Bullock & Colvin, 2015). Indeed, Mackrill and Ebsen (2018) argued that technology improved the accessibility of social work services and elevated the “seldom-heard” voices of hard-to-reach population groups.

However, using digital technology and online platforms has not been without uncertainty. The nature of digital technology is constantly changing (Turner, 2016) and, as a result, contemporary working environments have undergone profound transformations (Chan & Holosko, 2017). Technology-mediated social work practice is somewhat new, and its influence, risks, and associated ethical dilemmas are still emerging (Reamer, 2013). Also, there is some uncertainty about how to design digital tools that ensure best practices via online platforms (e.g., Zoom, Microsoft Teams, and WhatsApp; Wilkerson et al., 2021). Given the diversity of practice and services in social work, debates on how digital technology can or should mediate social work practice are multifaceted, and reaching a consensus on best practice is therefore difficult. Also, some of the social work's ethical requirements might be difficult to fulfill through technology-mediated practices (Dombo et al., 2014; Reamer, 2015). For example, Dombo et al. (2014) stated that social workers and service users are embracing digital technology while often facing unclear relationships and boundaries in the online environment. Indeed, the lack of a physical presence in relationships between social workers and service users has made maintaining professional boundaries less clear (Harris & Birnbaum, 2015; Reamer, 2015). Despite these concerns, Barsky (2019) argued that digital technology and online communication pose no greater risk than physically colocated “in-person” services. Yet, regarding uncertainties about practice requirements, there is a demand to improve practice guidelines and standards to deliver social work services through online platforms (Barsky, 2017; Reamer, 2015).

There is a call for social workers to stay current with the benefits and potential of advances in using technology for direct services and be aware of the uncertainties of employing technology in engagement with clients and their work more broadly. A systematic review of the research on the benefits and uncertainties of technology-mediated social work practice may help researchers and social workers stay abreast of such benefits and identify relevant uncertainties. It is anticipated that identified benefits and challenges of such a review might inform the development of best practice recommendations and a future research agenda for social work practitioners, educators, and researchers.

Aim and review questions

This systematic literature review aims to identify and synthesize the research reporting on technology-mediated social work practice. Based on this aim, two review questions were posed: (a) what are the benefits of technology-mediated social work practice? And (b) what are the uncertainties surrounding technology-mediated social work practice?

Methods

This systematic literature review was conducted in four phases: (a) systematic literature search and selection, (b) methodological quality assessment, (c) data extraction, and (d) data synthesis. These phases were undertaken according to the recommendations by Crisp (2015) and reported against the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 statement (Page et al., 2021). Phases 1 and 2 were facilitated using the online software, Covidence, while Phases 3 and 4 were facilitated using the qualitative research software NVIVO (Version 20; see www.qsrinternational.com).

Phase 1: Systematic literature search and selection

Electronic search strategy

Potential studies were located through the following electronic databases and websites: Scopus, EbscoHost, SocINDEX, Social Work Abstracts, Academic Research Complete, Springer Journals Online, Taylor and Francis Online, and Google Scholar. In addition, the reference lists of eligible articles were reviewed for possible additional articles. The search strategy involved the following keywords: social work, technology-mediated social work, information and communication technology, social media, and online social work practice (see Table 1). These keywords were nuanced according to each database's requirements. The initial search was conducted in February 2020, just as the COVID-19 pandemic emerged, and this article began to be written. The search was conducted a second time in August 2021 to capture any new research specific to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Table 1.
Search strategy and keywords used to identify articles.

Search (S) Keywords

S1 Technology

S2 Digital

S3 Internet

S4 Online platforms

S5 Web

S6 Virtual

S7 ICT

S8 Social media

S9 “S1” OR “S2” OR “S3” OR “S4” OR “S5” OR “S6” OR “S7” OR “S8”

S10 Social work

S11 E-social work

S12 Social workers

S13 “S10” OR “S11” OR “S12”

S14 Practice

S15 Social service

S16 Intervention

S17 “S14” OR “S15” OR “S16”

S18 Benefits

S19 Challenges

S20 “S18” OR “S19”

S21 COVID-19

S22 Remote

S23 “S21” OR “S22”

S24 “S9” AND “S13” AND “S17” AND “S20” AND “S23”

Note. ICT = Information and Communication Technologies.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

This review focused on articles that reported technology-mediated social work practice in engagement with clients and providing social work practice. Articles were included if they reported various technological tools as practicing mediums to engage with service users and professional relationships and deliver social work services to individuals, groups, and communities. Those articles provided evidence on how digital technology meditated service delivery in clinical social work, crisis intervention, therapeutic practice, and family and domestic violence intervention. All research methodologies and designs were included so long as they reported on the benefits and uncertainties of technology-mediated social work practice. Peer-reviewed articles published in English were reviewed. Articles published since January 2010 were included due to the dramatic changes in technological advances since this time. Previously published literature review articles on the topic were also included. Studies that only explored the role of technology as a part of broader organizational engagement and bureaucratic processes, the role of digital tools for information management and governance, and online social work education were excluded from this review. Commentaries, abstracts, and grey literature were also excluded. Further details on the inclusion and exclusion criteria are outlined in Table 2.

Table 2.
Inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Inclusion criteria
Peer-reviewed, empirical studies with no restriction on methodology used.

Literature review papers

Published in peer-reviewed journals since January 1, 2010

Articles published in English

Study informants were social workers or service users that have been involved with technology-mediated social work practice

Technology and online platforms were used in social work service delivery

Exclusion criteria
Papers not reporting on empirical studies or literature reviews, for example, opinion pieces, theoretical papers, or books.

Papers published before 2010 were excluded as technology and online platforms have changed dramatically in the last 10 years

Papers that only focused on using technology for information sharing and data storing

Literature selection

After duplicates were removed, two reviewers (the authors) independently screened the titles and abstracts of the retrieved literature for their relevance. Those potentially relevant articles were retrieved in full text and further reviewed for their inclusion or exclusion in this review. Any disagreements were resolved through consensus; for example, in deciding whether to include or exclude one article (Mishna et al., 2015), there was a disagreement between the reviewers based on the study sample (i.e., social work students). In arriving at a consensus decision, the reviewers openly presented their respective opinion for or against inclusion and reflexively considered feedback from each other. The mutually agreed outcome was to include the article because social work students provided counseling services. The review process (Figure 1) resulted in 28 articles being included in the review (Table 3).

Figure 1.
Process of literature selection according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA).

Table 3.
Summary of articles included in the review (n = 28).

Author/s (year) Country Design Sample/s (n) Instrument/s

Brownlee et al. (2010) Canada Qualitative 37 Semistructured interviews

Byrne et al. (2019) Ireland Qualitative 10 Focus groups

Chan (2016) – Scoping review 20^a PRISMA framework

Chan and Holosko (2017) Hong Kong Case study 5 Official Service Statistics
Meeting notes
Focus groups
Presentation notes

Cortis et al. (2021) Australia Quantitative 100 Online survey

Cwikel and Friedmann (2019) Israel Quantitative 123 Survey

Dodsworth et al. (2013) England Mixed-methods 18
205^b
27^b Survey
Focus groups

Goldkind et al. (2016) USA Quantitative 371 Survey

Harris (2021) Australia Mixed-methods 100
11 Survey
Interview

Im and George (2021) USA Qualitative 69
47

Kelly et al. (2021) USA Quantitative 1275 Survey

Lagsten and Andersson (2018) Sweden Qualitative 70^c Dialogue seminars
Semistructured interviews
Document analysis

Menon and Rubin (2011) USA Quantitative 14 Survey

Mishna et al. (2012) Canada Israel Qualitative 15 In-depth interviews
Focus groups

Mishna et al. (2015) Canada Qualitative 24
34^h Interview

Mishna et al. (2019) Canada
USA Quantitative 2609 (Canada)
1225 (USA) Survey

Mishna et al. (2020) Canada Qualitative 11 Semistructured interviews

Owen (2020) Australia Qualitative 13
9 ^e Semistructured

Ramsey and Montgomery (2014) USA Systematic review 6^a PRISMA framework

Recmanová and Vávrová (2018) Czech Republic Qualitative 25 Semistructured interviews
Focus groups

Pink et al. (2020) UK Qualitative 47 Interview

Sarwar and Harris (2019) UK 3×case studies 4 (Case 1)
3 (Case 2)
5 (Case 3) Semistructured interviews

Simpson (2017) UK Qualitative 13^d
5^e Focus groups

Sitter and Curnew (2016) Canada Case study 14^f Meeting notes
Storyboarding
Raw and final video footage
Field notes
Reflexive journaling

Stanfield and Beddoe (2016) Aotearoa (New Zealand) Qualitative 12 Interview

Ten Bruggencate et al. (2019) Holland Qualitative 20^g Focus groups

Trancă (2021) Romania Qualitative 23 Semistructured interviews

Van de Luitgaarden and Van der Tier (2018) Netherlands Qualitative 5
10 Interviews
chat conversations

Note. PRISMA = Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.

a
Articles included in the review; ^bfoster-carers; ^cmix of social workers, managers, service users, IT support, and IT managers; ^dservice users—young people; ^eservice users—adult; ^fparticipatory videos; ^gmix of social workers and older people-service users, ^hstakeholders. Samples without a superscript are social workers.

Phase 2: Methodological quality assessment

The two reviewers independently assessed the methodological quality of each included article according to Dixon-Woods et al. (2006) recommendations for assessing the quality of a methodologically diverse body of literature. The literature was not excluded based on the quality assessment but rather informed whether methodological quality might have impacted the study's findings.

Phase 3: Data extraction

All included articles were uploaded to NVIVO to assist the authors with data extraction. Summary data were extracted from each article: author/s, year of publication, country, research design, sample/s (n), and data collection instruments used. In addition, key findings from each article were extracted in the form of direct participant quotes (first-order data) and study author/s descriptions and interpretations (second-order data). The first author (RA) extracted these data, which were checked for accuracy and completeness by the second author (JL).

Phase 4: Data synthesis

The extracted first- and second-order data from the included articles were pooled using NVIVO, and a synthesis subsequently occurred (Kiteley & Stogdon, 2013; Pope et al., 2007) to determine the key themes relating to the benefits and challenges of technology-mediated social work practice. This involved an inductive thematic synthesis process (Thomas & Harden, 2008; Zimmer, 2006), which is an adaptation of Braun and Clarke's (2006) thematic analysis to the context of research synthesis with six recommended stages: familiarization of data, coding, generating initial themes, developing and reviewing the themes, refining, defining, and renaming themes, and finally writing up. The first author (RA) read each article's methodology and findings line-by-line to explore words and key points and code them. Similar codes were then grouped into a smaller set of larger themes in NVIVO that the second author (JL) checked for accuracy and completeness. In case of discrepancies, the two reviewers referred to the original publication for clarification and resolution through consensus. A summary of key themes and subthemes is presented in Table 4.

Table 4.
Main themes and subthemes identified from the review.

Main themes Subthemes

Benefits of technology-mediated and online social work practice Greater availability of social work services

The flexibility of social work services through technology

Benefits of technology-mediated social work following COVID-19

Uncertainties involved in technology-mediated and online social work practice Ethical dilemmas

Communication and engagement with service users Greater “digital divide”

Challenges of technology-mediated social work following COVID-19

The recommendations and training to improve using of technology

Results

All 28 articles included in this review focused on social work service delivery through technological tools and platforms. Of the 26 empirical studies, 19 focused on social workers, four focused on both social workers and service users, and only three reported service users’ views and experiences of using technology-facilitated social work. Included articles were conducted in diverse countries; however, the article collection is predominately from the Global North. Five articles reported studies conducted in the USA (17.8%), four from the UK (14.2%), and another four from Canada (14.2%). In addition, 18 articles (64.2%) used qualitative methodology, six articles (21.4%) used quantitative methodologies, two articles (7.1%) reported mixed methods, and another two (7.1%) reported literature reviews. The following sections present identified themes.

Benefits of technology-mediated social work practice

A synthesis of the included articles’ key findings showed a range of benefits in using technology in social work practice through digital tools and online platforms.

Greater availability of social work services

Technology-mediated social work services were reported as more available and accessible to a wider population (Byrne et al., 2019; Chan, 2016; Harris, 2021; Menon & Rubin, 2011; Mishna et al., 2015; Owen, 2020; Ramsey & Montgomery, 2014; Recmanová & Vávrová, 2018). In particular, the provision of services through online platforms enhanced the accessibility of social work to diverse population groups, particularly individuals with special needs or disabilities (Chan, 2016; Cwikel & Friedmann, 2019; Recmanová & Vávrová, 2018; Ten Bruggencate et al., 2019). In addition, the technology offered greater assistance in accessing hard-to-reach populations (Byrne et al., 2019). Thus, online engagement has become a complement to physically colocated, face-to-face service delivery (Mishna et al., 2012).

Social work services were available through online platforms that crossed geographical locations, as both Harris (2021) and Chan (2016) found that reaching remote and rural areas was more viable through online service delivery. Participants (social workers) in Menon and Rubin (2011) also reported that digital tools allowed people to access counseling services in their preferred language as they could engage with services beyond their geographical location. In addition, the online platform has become a unique tool for engaging young people who prefer such engagement (Harris, 2021).

The flexibility of social work services through technology

Social workers could also record their meetings and interviews with clients and reflect on them later, as Harris (2021) and Mishna et al. (2015) reported. Furthermore, articles reported technology assisting practitioners in accessing online databases, connecting to other professionals and sharing information, and undertaking social work practice via digital means (Brownlee et al., 2010; Chan & Holosko, 2017; Sitter & Curnew, 2016). Technology has also provided different ways of communication with clients, including written communication (Mishna et al., 2015), and the online or virtual visit was an efficient alternative to a home visit (Owen, 2020).

Technology-mediated communication also transformed relationships between service users and social workers, being collaborative and dialogical rather than hierarchical (Chan, 2016; Chan & Holosko, 2017). In addition, social workers who participated in Dodsworth et al. (2013) study reported that using technology appeared to reduce the professional-service user power imbalance and the social workers’ authority, thereby developing a sense of ownership among clients.

Participants (social workers) in Mishna et al. (2021) study described using technological tools as client-driven and flexible. Likewise, Pink et al. (2020) found that social workers felt comfortable engaging with children through a virtual connection. In Mishna et al.'s (2015) study, clients were more likely to feel comfortable being asked personal, intimate, and uncomfortable questions online. The practitioners who participated in Menon and Rubin’s (2011) study also stated that anonymity via online engagement reduced the social stigma of accessing services and enhanced service utilization. Thus, service users appreciated how they could remain anonymous through technology (Chan, 2016; Ramsey & Montgomery, 2014).

Benefits of technology-mediated social work following COVID-19

There has been a major shift to technology-mediated social work and online services due to the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic. Several articles published in 2020–2021 explored the impact of the sudden change in some social work settings. For example, Mishna et al. (2021, p. 487) described a “paradigm shift” in technology-mediated social work following COVID-19 that resulted in innovative ways to connect with service users. In addition, Trancă (2021) indicated that social workers had to rethink their practice and adapt to new communication modes with clients. Interestingly, social workers in this study found that shifting to online engagements and using online tools during the COVID-19 pandemic were useful, flexible, and efficient. As a result, they could reach the solution “faster than before the use of this means of communication” (Trancă, 2021, p. 11). Likewise, Cortis et al. (2021) found that the shifting to remote services was positive for both workers and clients, as workers enhanced their efforts and time with clients, and clients were more likely to accept this form of service at the time of COVID-19.

Mishna et al. (2021) conducted several studies on social workers’ experiences using digital tools and online platforms. They developed another study to investigate social workers’ responses to COVID-19 and their experiences of using technology following the pandemic. They found that social workers used various innovative digital tools as their agencies provided a wide range of digital tools and online platforms following the pandemic. The study also found that during the COVID-19 pandemic, social workers were less likely to feel worried about the dichotomy between the use of formal online platforms and informal social media in their practice and client engagement.

Uncertainties involved in technology-mediated social work practice

Included studies identified the uncertainties of using digital tools and online platforms in social work practice. These uncertainties centered around ethical dilemmas, communication and engagement with service users, the digital divide, and a paradigm shift in technology-mediated social work practice during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Ethical dilemmas

Included studies identified some ethical dilemmas that emerged since technology has become a part of service delivery. For example, Chan (2016) identified practice uncertainties regarding reliability, conﬁdentiality, and privacy when using technology as a means of practice. Mishna et al. (2019) explored social workers’ experiences in service delivery through online platforms in the US and Canada and found that professional boundaries were difficult to maintain. Byrne et al. (2019) also found that social workers were unsure how to access their clients’ information through online platforms.

Also, there were no clear directions for providing social work services via online platforms and social media (Goldkind et al., 2016). For example, Dodsworth et al. (2013) found that social workers were particularly concerned about breaching privacy in highly confidential cases like the foster care system. Likewise, for social workers who participated in Cwikel and Friedmann's (2019) study, clients’ privacy and confidentiality were critical, particularly in times of crisis. Notably, social workers were concerned regarding privacy for those clients who needed assistance using technology to access services (Mishna et al., 2012; Ten Bruggencate et al., 2019). This was particularly important as some clients might not have access to an appropriate set-up and private space at home or did not have a supportive family in crisis (Mishna et al., 2021).

Social workers who participated in Byrne et al.'s (2019) study reported that online activities generally enhanced surveillance levels in terms of managers of social workers and social workers of service users. Likewise, Sarwar and Harris (2019) found that technologically mediated surveillance, together with an audit culture, resulted in social workers becoming more responsive to their managers’ needs rather than the service users’ needs, therefore reducing their professional autonomy. Finally, included articles demonstrated that separating work and private spheres has become increasingly difficult for social workers (Mishna et al., 2019; Ramsey & Montgomery, 2014; Stanfield & Beddoe, 2016).

Communication and engagement with service users

The included articles revealed some complexities in developing rapport and professional relationships through online platforms, mainly due to the lack of face-to-face interactions in a physical space (Cwikel & Friedmann, 2019; Menon & Rubin, 2011; Mishna et al., 2012). Menon and Rubin (2011) and Mishna et al. (2012) found that communication was difficult through online platforms due to a lack of nonverbal engagement. Likewise, Trancă (2021) found that the frequency of communications and informal relationships between workers and clients decreased, and nonverbal feedback was less likely to be provided. Moreover, the emotional engagement with service users necessary for the child protection setting was difficult in an online environment (Pink et al., 2020). The emotional engagement was challenging because workers and service users were not together in a physical space (Mishna et al., 2015).

Simpson (2017) found that the young people who participated in their study demanded that social work services be faster with greater accessibility through digital tools and online platforms. Social workers who participated in Recmanová and Vávrová’s (2018) study perceived society as accelerating and demanding the speeding up of social work services. While digital tools have provided an opportunity to maintain relationships beyond the physical space, Mishna et al. (2012) also found that social workers felt the pressure of being available 24/7. Conversely, Van de Luitgaarden and Van der Tier (2018) argued that the nature of the technology made social work practice more directive, task-oriented, and problem-focused, and mainly dominated by workers.

Digital divide

Studies found that service users did not have equal access to online services due to a digital divide among marginalized individuals and communities (Chan, 2016; Cwikel & Friedmann, 2019; Im & George, 2022; Ramsey & Montgomery, 2014). Hence, for those who did not have access to digital tools, there was a risk of not having access to social work services (Mishna et al., 2021). The digital divide was particularly highlighted in Cwikel and Friedmann’s (2019) study, where poorer populations might not have full access to technology compared with more affluent communities. Brownlee et al. (2010), who conducted interviews with 37 social workers, found that apart from the digital divide, service users might not utilize digital tools and online platforms due to language barriers, limited technology skills, and a lack of privacy guidelines and transparency. Finally, Stanfield and Beddoe (2016) found that some social workers believed that delivering social work services through online platforms could be a constraint for some individuals and communities.

Uncertainties of technology-mediated social work following COVID-19

While the COVID-19 pandemic and following restrictions made remote services more viable, a major shift to technology-mediated social work services brought uncertainties. For example, Pink et al. (2020) reported that social workers who worked in child protection and had to shift their communication via digital tools desired to get back to physically based face-to-face connections with their clients. The sudden change was an issue in developing rapport with children and visiting their homes virtually, making transferring to online communication challenging. Furthermore, participants (social workers) in the study conducted by Im and George (2022) identified that refugee clients who had limited experiences of using digital tools had a stressful experience with accessing services, and therefore they had an issue making a connection online. Thus, social workers were uncertain whether online communication and technology were “an answer” to clients’ needs in some settings (Im & George, 2022, p. 13).

Kelly et al. (2021) found that while social workers had a smooth process of adaptation to all-virtual services, the shifting to remote and online for school social workers was challenging. They were unsure of the “best or “right” way to engage with students and how to motivate them to stay connected. Social workers also needed to allocate more time for their work and manage their working environment at home. Cortis et al. (2021) found that moving to remote services enhanced the uncertainty of the clients’ safety and how to conduct and review the risk assessment in a domestic violence service setting.

“Working from home” was also explored in the context of the pandemic for technology-mediated social work services (Kelly et al., 2021; Mishna et al., 2021). For participants (social workers) in the study by Kelly et al. (2021), technical issues were a concern when delivering services from home. In addition, Mishna et al. (2021) reported that social workers were more likely to check their working platforms outside their working hours. This potentially enhanced clients’ expectations that if workers work from home, why they did not respond to their emails all the time.

Recommendations and training to improve using of technology

The included studies provided recommendations to enhance the possibilities of using technology or reduce the uncertainties involved when technology mediates practice. For example, in Owen’s (2020) study, workers believed they should have access to adequate and reliable digital tools and support to provide appropriate services and relevant training. Likewise, Dodsworth et al. (2013, p. 788) emphasized that workers needed “flexible, efficient and creative” tools.

Van de Luitgaarden and Van der Tier (2018) reported that the online environment requires new skills to develop nonverbal engagement. Those skills will help workers develop adequate and sustainable client relationships (Mishna et al., 2021). Furthermore, Trancă (2021, p. 13) recommended adapting the procedures and communications between workers and clients for online engagement. Further recommendations were provided by Harris (2021, p. 9) to adjust relevant policy and practice guidelines as workers identified the difficulty of implementing the new guideline by the Australian Association of Social Workers on privacy and confidentiality over online platforms, and they described it as “overly cautious.”

Included articles also found that using digital tools and online platforms in service delivery needed spending considerable time and investment in training (Brownlee et al., 2010; Chan & Holosko, 2017; Im & George, 2022; Owen, 2020; Sarwar & Harris, 2019). To this end, social workers in Menon and Rubin (2011, p. 137) and Byrne et al. (2019) studies believed that social work education programs should incorporate digital technology in teaching practical subjects or, as they called, “e-intervention,” through which social work graduate will be ready for this form of practice. Menon and Rubin (2011) identified that workers needed specific training for text-based practice and engagement with online platforms. Recmanová and Vávrová (2018) also identified the drawbacks of not being prepared, such as slowing social work services, disengagement of service users, and possible resistance to new technology among social workers. Chan and Holosko (2017) reported that social workers needed ongoing training, which could result in a feeling of being overwhelmed. As such, Sarwar and Harris (2019) found that social workers preferred allocating their time to their service users over spending time on training.

Discussion

This systematic literature review demonstrated the impacts of a wide range of digital technology and online tools used for social work practice. Using technology as a medium for service delivery opened new opportunities for social work practice while bringing some uncertainties and challenges. As such, the findings of this review revealed greater accessibility and availability of social work services to individuals and communities, particularly people with special needs. Nevertheless, it is worth mentioning that reviewed studies were mainly focused on social workers’ experiences and viewpoints rather than service users’ experiences. Exploring service users’ experiences and viewpoints is a crucial element in demonstrating how service users experience using technology-facilitated services and what is required to improve service delivery. Thus, while some studies in this systematic review indicated the benefits of using technology, further research is needed to reveal the realities of using technological advances for marginalized people and communities.

The emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent restrictions have accelerated the shift in how workers and agencies use online platforms. At the time of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a limited choice of face-to-face service delivery within a physical workspace in many practice settings; therefore, many social work services shifted to online service deliveries. Interestingly, the findings showed that some social workers and clients welcomed the shift, and social workers were more likely to be flexible and innovative in using online platforms during the COVID-19 pandemic. Notably, the paradigm shift has been celebrated due to the positive adoption of technology and innovation in service delivery (Mishna et al., 2021). On the other hand, the sudden shift and moving to technology-mediated service delivery in some settings like refugee settlement, domestic violence, and child protection brought unique challenges and concerns. Thus, this systematic review indicated that while social workers and their agencies are open and welcoming to technology, in some fields, there is a greater need to tailor social work practice to some contexts and ensure that the safety of service users is not compromised. To this end, adjusting and developing technology-mediated practice for different groups of clients and different practice settings, particularly marginalized individuals and communities, will ensure that online platforms are available, inclusive, accessible, and safe.

Furthermore, the findings of this review indicated uncertainties and challenges in providing services through technology. The fast pace of advancing digital technology made some social workers less confident in adapting to such an accelerated digital environment (Parton, 2008). Nonetheless, the picture of challenges and uncertainties is beyond the social workers’ and clients’ willingness or lack of acceptance of using technology, as indicated by previous studies (see Bullock & Colvin, 2015; Dodsworth et al., 2013; López Peláez & Marcuello-Servós, 2018; Perron et al., 2010). Enhancing social workers’ knowledge and understanding of technology-mediated practice is necessary to ensure and improve their confidence in service delivery (Bullock & Colvin, 2015; Craig & Calleja Lorenzo, 2014). As this review revealed, the technology-mediated practice has become essential to social work service delivery (Goldkind & Wolf, 2015; Parton, 2008), particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic; social workers may no longer be able to return to a solely physically based face-to-face mode of working. Therefore, social work agencies should ensure adequate technical support and training in this process so that workers are not overwhelmed, and practice is not adversely affected.

Maintaining professional boundaries and privacy has become a significant ethical dilemma in service delivery through online engagement (Byrne et al., 2019; Chan, 2016; Mishna et al., 2012). The reviewed articles highlighted a lack of appropriate and relevant guidelines and policies to address such ethical dilemmas. Social work bodies must accelerate their efforts to develop guidelines to find the best way to manage ethical dilemmas and address privacy concerns and professional boundaries in technology-mediated social work (Wilkerson et al., 2021). This is particularly important to develop those at the time of crisis, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, when face-to-face social work was no longer viable. Those guidelines should also be developed with social workers to avoid being “overly cautious” or irrelevant to practice settings, as this has been identified as a significant challenge (Harris, 2021).

While social workers needed considerable time for relevant training to utilize relevant technology appropriately, studies indicated that some social workers felt that spending time on training would impact their capacities and workload time to allocate for their clients. The neoliberal approach to social work services within the social welfare system in many countries included in articles in this review offers limited time for social workers to work holistically to meet their clients’ needs (Spolander et al., 2014). Hence, it is unsurprising that social workers are willing to allocate more time to their service users than to obtain technological skills and knowledge. Nevertheless, training is crucial for using technological platforms in practice to provide high-quality service (Recmanová & Vávrová, 2018) and should be acknowledged in workers’ workloads. In addition to training, social workers should have an opportunity to be actively involved in designing proper tools, service delivery systems, and data management. To this end, there is a need for strong interdisciplinary collaboration and consolidated efforts to reflect social work core values, epistemology, and viewpoints (Bullock & Colvin, 2015; Fitch, 2015). Thus, as Baker et al. (2014) stated, this is the time that social workers should begin a dialogue with IT developers and interdisciplinary collaborations to develop proper tools and platforms for service delivery.

The findings also highlighted the complexity and uncertainties of the “digital divide” (see Steyaert & Gould, 2009) among users of social work services. The digital divide resulted in unequal service delivery within countries, nations, and communities. Moreover, the digital divide for those who do not have access to (quality) technology can be a barrier to reaching people who face intersecting oppressions and exclusions. In addition to addressing the digital divide, enhancing digital literacy is critical to ensure service users have a set of skills to “use technology confidently, creatively and critically” (Coldwell-Neilson, 2018, p. 104). Hence, social workers and activists need to advocate for service users to have greater access to technology and relevant training and ameliorate the negative impact of the current digital divide on service users’ lives. Reducing the digital divide and improving marginalized people's access and competency to use technology is particularly important during crises like the COVID-19 pandemic, as obtaining services is only possible through online platforms. The discussion has also begun on how social workers and service users should participate in designing digital means for service delivery to address the digital divide (Gillingham, 2014). Although the fast pace of technology and relative changes might potentially impact ways of collaborating, moving beyond our comfort zone is necessary to play a pivotal role in enhancing service users’ access to technology and improving social justice.

This is also noteworthy to mention that social work has recently begun using new platforms and technology; hence, those uncertainties might be a part of adopting and adjusting service delivery. Nonetheless, social work services must be ready for a comprehensive adoption of digital tools in practice in the future (Morley et al., 2019). This is particularly crucial that social workers can deliver online services in high-risk, hard-to-reach communities and unsafe areas. Thus, social work practice can be done remotely wherever possible, and the safety of workers and clients can be maintained. Countries worldwide should evaluate their possibilities of using technology and their capacities to develop online social work practices in those contexts. In addition, there should be an international collaboration and sharing of experiences and knowledge to address the challenges of this new and evolving model of service delivery within the new “COVID-normal” world.

Limitations

While this systematic review provided insight into the impacts of technological advances in service delivery and engagement with service users, it cannot provide a full picture of technology within social work, particularly regarding clients’ privacy, data security, and data management. Further empirical studies and data synthesis can explore this area and provide relevant recommendations. In addition, included studies mainly focused on social workers’ experiences, viewpoints, and perceptions. Further studies on service users’ experiences and viewpoints can help social work agencies, bodies, and social workers themselves to tailor their practice and develop the best practice model. Finally, the included studies conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic reported a shift in technology use. However, those impacts are still emerging; therefore, this argument may not indicate the full picture of technology-mediated social work practice at the time of the pandemic.

Conclusion

This systematic literature review revealed that technology and online tools had enhanced accessibilities and availabilities of social work services for a wider population. For some groups of service users, technology provides a comfortable and flexible way of engaging with services. However, while communication and engagement with service users have become more client-centered and flexible, online engagement has been a challenge for those who worked in settings like child protection and domestic violence. This review highlighted the need for further development of the best practice model when technology and online platforms are parts of service delivery. This should be developed by all parties, including social work education, agencies, registration bodies, and social workers.

Following the COVID-19 pandemic, social workers had more opportunities to use technology and online platforms in their service delivery. However, further research and evaluation of those services are needed to adjust and adapt the services through technology. This is important to acknowledge that moving to a remote and online model is not simply replacing face-to-face service engagement. Moving forward to using digital tools and online social work, social work practice must remain aligned with social work core values, principles, ethics, and social justice.

Search (S)	Keywords
S1	Technology
S2	Digital
S3	Internet
S4	Online platforms
S5	Web
S6	Virtual
S7	ICT
S8	Social media
S9	“S1” OR “S2” OR “S3” OR “S4” OR “S5” OR “S6” OR “S7” OR “S8”
S10	Social work
S11	E-social work
S12	Social workers
S13	“S10” OR “S11” OR “S12”
S14	Practice
S15	Social service
S16	Intervention
S17	“S14” OR “S15” OR “S16”
S18	Benefits
S19	Challenges
S20	“S18” OR “S19”
S21	COVID-19
S22	Remote
S23	“S21” OR “S22”
S24	“S9” AND “S13” AND “S17” AND “S20” AND “S23”

Author/s (year)	Country	Design	Sample/s (n)	Instrument/s
Brownlee et al. (2010)	Canada	Qualitative	37	Semistructured interviews
Byrne et al. (2019)	Ireland	Qualitative	10	Focus groups
Chan (2016)	–	Scoping review	20^a	PRISMA framework
Chan and Holosko (2017)	Hong Kong	Case study	5	Official Service Statistics Meeting notes Focus groups Presentation notes
Cortis et al. (2021)	Australia	Quantitative	100	Online survey
Cwikel and Friedmann (2019)	Israel	Quantitative	123	Survey
Dodsworth et al. (2013)	England	Mixed-methods	18 205^b 27^b	Survey Focus groups
Goldkind et al. (2016)	USA	Quantitative	371	Survey
Harris (2021)	Australia	Mixed-methods	100 11	Survey Interview
Im and George (2021)	USA	Qualitative	69 47
Kelly et al. (2021)	USA	Quantitative	1275	Survey
Lagsten and Andersson (2018)	Sweden	Qualitative	70^c	Dialogue seminars Semistructured interviews Document analysis
Menon and Rubin (2011)	USA	Quantitative	14	Survey
Mishna et al. (2012)	Canada Israel	Qualitative	15	In-depth interviews Focus groups
Mishna et al. (2015)	Canada	Qualitative	24 34^h	Interview
Mishna et al. (2019)	Canada USA	Quantitative	2609 (Canada) 1225 (USA) Survey
Mishna et al. (2020)	Canada	Qualitative	11	Semistructured interviews
Owen (2020)	Australia	Qualitative	13 9 ^e	Semistructured
Ramsey and Montgomery (2014)	USA	Systematic review	6^a	PRISMA framework
Recmanová and Vávrová (2018)	Czech Republic	Qualitative	25	Semistructured interviews Focus groups
Pink et al. (2020)	UK	Qualitative	47	Interview
Sarwar and Harris (2019)	UK	3×case studies	4 (Case 1) 3 (Case 2) 5 (Case 3)	Semistructured interviews
Simpson (2017)	UK	Qualitative	13^d 5^e	Focus groups
Sitter and Curnew (2016)	Canada	Case study	14^f	Meeting notes Storyboarding Raw and final video footage Field notes Reflexive journaling
Stanfield and Beddoe (2016)	Aotearoa (New Zealand)	Qualitative	12	Interview
Ten Bruggencate et al. (2019)	Holland	Qualitative	20^g	Focus groups
Trancă (2021)	Romania	Qualitative	23	Semistructured interviews
Van de Luitgaarden and Van der Tier (2018)	Netherlands	Qualitative	5 10	Interviews chat conversations

Main themes	Subthemes
Benefits of technology-mediated and online social work practice	Greater availability of social work services
	The flexibility of social work services through technology
	Benefits of technology-mediated social work following COVID-19
Uncertainties involved in technology-mediated and online social work practice	Ethical dilemmas
	Communication and engagement with service users Greater “digital divide”
	Challenges of technology-mediated social work following COVID-19
The recommendations and training to improve using of technology

Footnotes

Ethics

This study comprised an analysis of publicly available literature and thus approval by a formally constituted ethics committee was not required.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declarations of Conflict of Interests

The Authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

ORCID iD

Rojan Afrouz

References

Afrouz

(2021). Approaching uncertainty in social work education, a lesson from COVID-19 pandemic. Qualitative Social Work, 20(1–2), 561–567. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325020981078

Baker

Warburton

Hodgkin

Pascal

(2014). Reimagining the relationship between social work and information communication technology in the network society. Australian Social Work, 67(4), 467–478. https://doi.org/10.1080/0312407X.2014.928336

Barsky

(2017). Social work practice and technology: Ethical issues and policy responses. Journal of Technology in Human Services, 35(1), 8–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/15228835.2017.1277906

Barsky

(2019). Technology in field education: Managing ethical issues. Journal of Technology in Human Services, 37(2–3), 241–254. https://doi.org/10.1080/15228835.2019.1578326

Berzin

S. C.

Singer

Chan

(2015). Practice innovation through technology in the digital age: A grand challenge for social work . Retrieved February 1, 2020, from https://grandchallengesforsocialwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/WP12-with-cover.pdf

Braun

Clarke

(2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Brownlee

Graham

J. R.

Doucette

Hotson

Halverson

(2010). Have communication technologies influenced rural social work practice? British Journal of Social Work, 40(2), 622–637. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcp010

Bullock

A. N.

Colvin

A. D.

(2015). Communication technology integration into social work practice. Advances in Social Work, 16(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.18060/18259

Byrne

Kirwan

(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

10.

Byrne

Kirwan

Mc Guckin

(2019). Social Media surveillance in social work: Practice realities and ethical implications. Journal of Technology in Human Services, 37(2–3), 142–158. https://doi.org/10.1080/15228835.2019.1584598

11.

Chan

(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

12.

Chan

Holosko

M. J.

(2016). A review of information and communication technology enhanced social work interventions. Research on Social Work Practice, 26(1), 88–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731515578884

13.

Chan

Holosko

M. J.

(2017). The utilization of social media for youth outreach engagement: A case study. Qualitative Social Work, 16(5), 680–697. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325016638917

14.

Coldwell-Neilson

(2018). Digital literacy expectations in higher education . Open oceans: Learning without borders: ASCILITE 2018 Conference Proceedings.

15.

Cortis

Smyth

Valentine

Breckenridge

Cullen

(2021). Adapting service delivery during COVID-19: Experiences of domestic violence practitioners. The British Journal of Social Work, 51(5), 1779–1798. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcab105

16.

Craig

S. L.

Calleja Lorenzo

M. V.

(2014). Can information and communication technologies support patient engagement? A review of opportunities and challenges in health social work. Social Work in Health Care, 53(9), 845–864. https://doi.org/10.1080/00981389.2014.936991

17.

Crisp

B. R.

(2015). Systematic reviews: A social work perspective. Australian Social Work, 68(3), 284–295. https://doi.org/10.1080/0312407X.2015.1024266

18.

Cwikel

Friedmann

(2019). E-therapy and social work practice: Benefits, barriers, and training. International Social Work, 63(6), 0020872819847747. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020872819847747

19.

Dixon-Woods

Cavers

Agarwal

Annandale

Arthur

Harvey

Hsu

Katbamna

Olsen

Smith

(2006). Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 6(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-6-35

20.

Dodsworth

Bailey

Schofield

Cooper

Fleming

Young

(2013). Internet technology: An empowering or alienating tool for communication between foster-carers and social workers? British Journal of Social Work, 43(4), 775–795. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcs007

21.

Dombo

E. A.

Kays

Weller

K. J. S.

(2014). Clinical social work practice and technology: Personal, practical, regulatory, and ethical considerations for the twenty-first century. Social Work in Health Care, 53(9), 900–919. https://doi.org/10.1080/00981389.2014.948585

22.

Fitch

(2015). A conceptual framework for information technology in social work practice. Advances in Social Work, 16(1), 15–30. https://doi.org/10.18060/18291

23.

Giffords

E. D.

(2009). The internet and social work: The next generation. Families in Society, 90(4), 413–418. https://doi.org/10.1606/1044-3894.3920

24.

Gillingham

(2014). Electronic information systems and social work: Who are we designing for? Practice, 26(5), 313–326. https://doi.org/10.1080/09503153.2014.958454

25.

Goldkind

Wolf

(2015). A digital environment approach: Four technologies that will disrupt social work practice. Social Work, 60(1), 85–87. https://doi.org/10.1093/sw/swu045

26.

Goldkind

Wolf

Jones

(2016). Late adapters? How social workers acquire knowledge and skills about technology tools. Journal of Technology in Human Services, 34(4), 338–358. https://doi.org/10.1080/15228835.2016.1250027

27.

GSMA. (2019). The mobile economy 2019 . Retrieved February 17, 2020, from https://www.gsma.com/r/mobileeconomy/

28.

Harris

Birnbaum

(2015). Ethical and legal implications on the use of technology in counselling. Clinical Social Work Journal, 43(2), 133–141. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10615-014-0515-0

29.

Harris

(2021). Australian Social Workers’ understandings of technology in practice. Australian Social Work, 75(4), 420–432. https://doi.org/10.1080/0312407X.2021.1949025

30.

George

(2022). Impacts of COVID-19 on refugee service provision and community support: A rapid assessment during the pandemic. Social Work in Public Health, 37(1), 84–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/19371918.2021.1974639

31.

Kelly

M. S.

Benbenishty

Capp

Watson

Astor

(2021). Practice in a pandemic: School social workers’ adaptations and experiences during the 2020 COVID-19 school disruptions. Families in Society, 102(3), 400–413. https://doi.org/10.1177/10443894211009863

32.

Kiteley

Stogdon

(2013). Literature reviews in social work. Sage.

33.

Lagsten

Andersson

(2018). Use of information systems in social work-challenges and an agenda for future research. European Journal of Social work, 21(6), 850–862.

34.

López Peláez

Marcuello-Servós

(2018). e-Social work and digital society: Re-conceptualizing approaches, practices and technologies. European Journal of Social Work, 21(6), 801–803. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691457.2018.1520475

35.

López Peláez

Pérez García

Aguilar-Tablada Massó

M. 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

36.

Mackrill

Ebsen

(2018). Key misconceptions when assessing digital technology for municipal youth social work. European Journal of Social Work, 21(6), 942–953. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691457.2017.1326878

37.

Mattison

(2012). Social work practice in the digital age: Therapeutic e-mail as a direct practice methodology. Social Work, 57(3), 249–258. https://doi.org/10.1093/sw/sws021

38.

Menon

G. M.

Rubin

(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

39.

Mishna

Bogo

Root

Sawyer

J.-L.

Khoury-Kassabri

(2012). It just crept in”: The digital age and implications for social work practice. Clinical Social Work Journal, 40(3), 277–286. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10615-012-0383-4

40.

Mishna

Bogo

Sawyer

J.-L.

(2015). Cyber counseling: Illuminating benefits and challenges. Clinical Social Work Journal, 43(2), 169–178. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10615-013-0470-1

41.

Mishna

Fantus

McInroy

L. B.

(2017). Informal use of information and communication technology: Adjunct to traditional face-to-face social work practice. Clinical Social Work Journal, 45(1), 49–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10615-016-0576-3

42.

Mishna

Milne

Bogo

Pereira

L. F.

(2021). 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

43.

Mishna

Sanders

Fantus

Fang

Greenblatt

Bogo

Milne

(2019). # socialwork: Informal use of information and communication technology in social work. Clinical Social Work Journal, 49, 85–99. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10615-019-00729-9

44.

Morley

Ablett

Stenhouse

(2019). Technicist education: Paving the way for the rise of the social work robots? Critical and Radical Social Work, 7(2), 139–154. https://doi.org/10.1332/204986019X15491042559718

45.

Murphy

J. W.

Pardeck

J. T.

(1992). Computerization and the dehumanization of social services. Administration in Social Work, 16(2), 61–72. https://doi.org/10.1300/J147v16n02_05

46.

Owen

(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

47.

Page

M. J.

McKenzie

J. E.

Bossuyt

P. M.

Boutron

Hoffmann

T. C.

Mulrow

C. D.

Shamseer

Tetzlaff

J. M.

Akl

E. A.

Brennan

S. E.

(2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews, 10(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-020-01552-x

48.

Parton

(2008). Changes in the form of knowledge in social work: From the ‘social’ to the ‘informational’? British Journal of Social Work, 38(2), 253–269. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcl337

49.

Perron

B. E.

Taylor

H. O.

Glass

J. E.

Margerum-Leys

(2010). Information and communication technologies in social work. Advances in Social Work, 11(2), 67–81. https://doi.org/10.18060/241

50.

Pink

Ferguson

Kelly

(2020). Child protection social work in COVID-19: Reflections on home visits and digital intimacy. Anthropology in Action, 27(3), 27–30. https://doi.org/10.3167/aia.2020.270306

51.

Pope

Mays

Popay

(2007). Synthesising qualitative and quantitative health evidence: A guide to methods: A guide to methods. McGraw-Hill Education (UK).

52.

Ramsey

A. T.

Montgomery

(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

53.

Reamer

F. G.

(2013). Social work in a digital age: Ethical and risk management challenges. Social Work, 58(2), 163–172. https://doi.org/10.1093/sw/swt003

54.

Reamer

F. G.

(2015). Clinical social work in a digital environment: Ethical and risk-management challenges. Clinical Social Work Journal, 43(2), 120–132. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10615-014-0495-0

55.

Recmanová

Vávrová

(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

56.

Sarwar

Harris

(2019). Children’s services in the age of information technology: What matters most to frontline professionals. Journal of Social Work, 19(6), 699–718. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468017318788194

57.

Simpson

(2017). Staying in touch in the digital era: New social work practice. Journal of Technology in Human Services, 35(1), 86–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/15228835.2017.1277908

58.

Sitter

K. C.

Curnew

A. H.

(2016). The application of social media in social work community practice. Social Work Education, 35(3), 271–283. https://doi.org/10.1080/02615479.2015.1131257

59.

Spolander

Engelbrecht

Martin

Strydom

Pervova

Marjanen

Tani

Sicora

Adaikalam

(2014). The implications of neoliberalism for social work: Reflections from a six-country international research collaboration. International Social Work, 57(4), 301–312. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020872814524964

60.

Stanfield

Beddoe

(2016). Social work and social media in Aotearoa New Zealand: Educating social workers across shifting boundaries of social work identity. Social Work Education, 35(3), 284–296. https://doi.org/10.1080/02615479.2016.1154663

61.

Steyaert

Gould

(2009). Social work and the changing face of the digital divide. British Journal of Social Work, 39(4), 740–753. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcp022

62.

Ten Bruggencate

Luijkx

Sturm

(2019). How to fulfil social needs of older people: Exploring design opportunities for technological interventions. Gerontechnology, 18(3), 156–167. https://doi.org/10.4017/gt.2019.18.3.003.00

63.

Thomas

Harden

(2008). Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 8(1), 45. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-8-45

64.

Trancă

L. M.

(2021). New trends in the communication of social workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Buletinul Stiintific al Universitatii Politehnica din Timisoara, Seria Limbi Moderne, 20(1), 5–15. https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=987036

65.

Turner

(2016). Only connect’: Unifying the social in social work and social media. Journal of Social Work Practice, 30(3), 313–327. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650533.2016.1215977

66.

Van de Luitgaarden

Van der Tier

(2018). Establishing working relationships in online social work. Journal of Social Work, 18(3), 307–325. https://doi.org/0.1177/1468017316654347

67.

Wilkerson

D. A.

Wolfe-Taylor

S. N.

Kinney

M. K.

(2021). Adopting e-social work practice: Pedagogical strategies for student decision making to address technology uncertainty. Journal of Social Work Education, 57(2), 383–397. https://doi.org/10.1080/10437797.2019.1661920

68.

Zimmer

(2006). Qualitative meta-synthesis: A question of dialoguing with texts. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 53(3), 311–318. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2006.03721.x

69.

Zuppo

C. M.

(2012). Defining ICT in a boundaryless world: The development of a working hierarchy. International Journal of Managing Information Technology, 4(3), 13–22. https://doi.org/10.5121/ijmit.2012.4302

Inclusion criteria	Peer-reviewed, empirical studies with no restriction on methodology used. Literature review papers Published in peer-reviewed journals since January 1, 2010 Articles published in English Study informants were social workers or service users that have been involved with technology-mediated social work practice Technology and online platforms were used in social work service delivery
Exclusion criteria	Papers not reporting on empirical studies or literature reviews, for example, opinion pieces, theoretical papers, or books. Papers published before 2010 were excluded as technology and online platforms have changed dramatically in the last 10 years Papers that only focused on using technology for information sharing and data storing

A systematic review of technology-mediated social work practice: Benefits,uncertainties,and future directions

Abstract

Summary

Findings

Implication

Keywords

Technology-mediated social work practice

Aim and review questions

Methods

Phase 1: Systematic literature search and selection

Electronic search strategy

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Literature selection

Phase 2: Methodological quality assessment

Phase 3: Data extraction

Phase 4: Data synthesis

Results

Benefits of technology-mediated social work practice

Greater availability of social work services

The flexibility of social work services through technology

Benefits of technology-mediated social work following COVID-19

Uncertainties involved in technology-mediated social work practice

Ethical dilemmas

Communication and engagement with service users

Digital divide

Uncertainties of technology-mediated social work following COVID-19

Recommendations and training to improve using of technology

Discussion

Limitations

Conclusion

Footnotes

Ethics

Funding

Declarations of Conflict of Interests

ORCID iD

References