Identifying Practical Knowledge for Introducing Information Systems in Community Social Care Agencies: A Scoping Review

Figures & data

Table 1. Database searches to identify relevant studies.

Database	Search	Scope
EBSCO, ProQuest	Limiters	Peer Reviewed; English Language; Published Date: 2000 onwards
WoS, Scopus	Limiters	English Language; Published Date: 2000 onwards; Peer reviewed
Google Scholar	Limiters	Published Date: 2000 onwards
EBSCO, ProQuest, WoS, Scopus	Search	information system* or digital or technolog* or informatics
	AND	social care or welfare or “human service*”
	AND	“social work*”
Google Scholar	Search	“information systems” and “social work” for 2000 onwards; Peer reviewed completed manually
EBSCO, ProQuest, WoS, Scopus, Google Scholar (manual)	NOT	nurs* or medi* or education or school or COVID or coronavirus or health or geog*

Table 2. Scoping review inclusion and exclusion criteria for studies.

Inclusion criteria	Exclusion criteria
IS and social work/care/service agency/ies	Does not have IS AND social work focus
Ways/how IS does/not support social work/care, including design, implementation, utilization	No case or IS/social work model or study and/or preface; editorial; literature review
Empirical/some of content; case study	No empirical focus
May include theoretic focus where a proposed model to address IS design is discussed and tested	Limited to ICT/ IT tools e.g., internet, AI, predictive tools, machine learning, website development
May include performance management, as part of IS, not its sole focus	Limited IS e.g., decision-making; performance management, resulting in limited ability to generalize
May refer to social work and other agency staff, agency managers, administration support staff in relation to IS	Health NOT social care AND IS focus, including hospital, COVID, telehealth, telecare; Medicine; Nurse/nursing
May include design/implementation ideas	Education – general, social work education focus
	Specific to place/population; limited generalizability
	Tools for specific programs; limited generalizability
	Privacy or cyber-security
	Employment HR/social work personnel matters

Figure 1. Database search study selection.

Table 3. Level of practical knowledge assistance by agency type.

Group	Level of practical knowledge assistance	NGO	NGO / Govt	Govt	Not stated	Total	NGO %
1	Limited practical knowledge (what does not work)	5	6	24	1	36	20.0%
2	Experimental Potential (what might work)	2	1	5	0	8	25.0%
3	More practical knowledge (what works)	5	0	1	0	6	83.3%
	Total	12	7	30	1	50	24.0%

Table 4. Practical knowledge matrix for an agency seeking to introduce IS.

Gp	Themes		Building blocks	Key strategies
1	IS context	1a	IS material properties	Iterative changes using user feedback; IS fit-for-purpose; properties align with s/work needs, supports nature of s/work
		1b	Research/IT expertise	Elicits stakeholder expertise; maps purpose of work; practical relevance; IT/researcher use ICT/design facilitation expertise; local; socio-technical
2	Agency context	2a	Agency status	Agency maturity aligns with IS task; clear needs; has internal capacity / capability; agency type is explicit; internally initiated vs externally driven
		2b	Agency change	Agency culture shows understanding of and preparation for change; managers more as designers; central vs locally led
3	User input	3a	User attributes	Understanding reflected in agency and IS design; cultural and users’ perspectives understood and planned around
		3b	IS user response	Understanding, use of and testing of wide user/stakeholder inputs part of design and follow up
4	Sector context	4a	Sector drivers	Understands impact of external drivers e.g., NPM and requirements; national variations in social work history
		4b	Local context	Situational knowledge understood and articulated e.g., language, power, ethnicity, organizational structure and size; type of IS; drivers

Table 5. Criteria for study assignment to groups of increasing practical knowledge.

Gp	Level of practical knowledge assistance	Inclusion criteria
1	Limited practical knowledge (What did not work)	Large, government/local authority agencies; generalizable
		Centrally led / imposed IS; variable/no localized input
		Largely evidence of barriers/ negative findings
		Limited examination of themes (Table 4); largely ‘as-is’
2	Experimental potential (What might work)	Test/model covered all four themes (Table 4); findings not yet tested
		Based on experience in earlier IS failure
3	More practical knowledge (What did work)	Covered all four themes as enabling factors (Table 4)
		Transferable practical knowledge to community agencies
		Building knowledge during research; using combined expertise
		Described enabling conditions/positive evidence

Appendix Table A1. Key information of selected studies, by group.

Author (Year)	Ctry	Aim	Study method/s	Qual / Quant	Agency Type	Study Roles	Theme
Group 1: Limited practical knowledge
Aasback (2022)	NOR	Examine ways counsellors’ roles and practices change because of IS introduction	Interview, participant observation, case study	Qual	Govt	S work	1,3,4
Barfoed (2019)	SWE	Reflect on how clients in social work are constructed when forms and questionnaires are part of everyday practice	Interview, participant observation, document analysis, field diary	Qual	Govt	S work, other, client	1,2,3,4
Burton and van den Broek (2009)	AUS	Examine professional interactions with and response to workplace changes when new technologies introduced, and how these developments divert professional responsibilities	Interview, survey, document analysis	Qual	Both	S work	1,2,3,4
Carrilio et al. (2004), Carrilio, 2005, 2008	USA	What are the reasons for variable IS utilization, and where organizational culture fits	File analysis, questionnaire, interview, case study	Both	Both	S work, other	2,3
Cronley and Patterson (2010) 2012	USA	Test relationships between organizational culture, individual characteristics and influences on staff behavior in relation to IS use	Questionnaire	Quant	NGO	S work	2,3
De Witte et al. (2016)	BEL	Test hypotheses about how social workers develop strategies to safeguard client interests in relation to IS, and to what extent this impacts on accountability	Interview	Qual	Govt	S work	1,3,4
Dearman (2005)	AUS	Effects of IS use on social worker autonomy	Interview, case study	Qual	Govt	S work	1,3,4
Devlieghere et al. (2017a); Devlieghere et al., 2017b, Devlieghere, Bradt, & Roose, 2018, Devlieghere, Bradt, & Roose, 2021; Devlieghere & Roose, 2018, 2019, 2020; De Corte et al., 2019	BEL	Examine government and policy rationales for introducing ISs; what strategies social workers implement to manage this rational turn in their work	Interview	Qual	Govt	S work	4
Gillingham (2013) 2011	AUS	Introduce concepts to understand interactions of social workers with IS and the need for different IS forms in Human Services	Interview, file analysis, field diary, workshop, participant observation	Qual	Govt	S work	1,2,3,4
Gillingham (2015b, 2014a, 2014b, 2014c, 2014d, 2015a, 2015c, 2015d, 2015e, 2016a, 2016c, 2016d, 2019a, 2019b); Gillingham & Graham, 2016	AUS	Articulate pitfalls in IS design and impacts of political context on social work practice; suggest areas of focus and how to support improved design (categorization, roles, users, attitude, organizational change)	Interview, workshop, document analysis, non/participant observation, field diary	Qual	NGO	S work, other	1,2,3,4
Gillingham (2016b)	AUS	Explore challenges for users of IS with an embedded practice framework	Interview, participant observation, file analysis, field diary	Qual	NGO	S work	1,3
Gillingham (2018)	N Std	Explore why a particular IS system failed	Interview	Qual	Not stated	S work, other	1,2
Gillingham (2021)	GBR	Explore why a form of IS may be particularly problematic	Interview, participant observation	Qual	Govt	S work, other	1,4
Hill (2014)	GBR	Explore how macro policy is translated into local practices, and some of the translation challenges	Interview, workshop, questionnaire, participant observation, document analysis	Qual	Govt	S work	1,2,3,4
Hoybye-Mortensen and Ejbye-Ernst (2019)	DNK	Explore purposes caseworkers see in the performance information that they take part in recording	Interview	Qual	Govt	S work	2,3
Huuskonen and Vakkari (2015, 2013)	FIN	What/how do social workers do workarounds when meeting IS obstacles; what types of information is recorded and why	Interview, non-participant observation	Qual	Govt	S work	3
Jeyasingham (2020)	GBR	Explore how agile working practices influence where and when social workers do their work, what materials and devices used, and how this affected their experiences	Interview, non-participant observation, document analysis, field diary	Qual	Govt	S work	1,2
Johnson (2013)	USA	Examine communication across teams at the early stages of IS use and whether IS helps this	Survey, focus group	Qual	Both	S work, other	1,3
Koskinen (2014)	FIN	What actors are involved and how change in a data system affects them and their space	Interview, document analysis, participant observation	Qual	Govt	S work	1,2,3,4
Loberg and Egeland (2023)	NOR	How emotions influence the use of digital technology, including IS	Interview, non/participant observation	Qual	Govt	S work	3
Martikainen et al. (2022)	FIN	Examine experiences and preferences of social welfare professionals participating in IS development	Survey	Quant	Both	S work, other	1,2,3
Monnickendam et al. (2005)	ISR	Use Joshi Implementation Model to examine IS resistance among Human Service workers	Questionnaire	Quant	Govt	S work, other	3
Moses et al. (2003)	USA	Explore workers’ satisfaction with a new IS: the impact on their work, expectations and organizational satisfaction post implementation	Survey, participant observation	Both	Govt	S work	3
Pithouse et al. (2012); White et al. 2009, 2010; Wastell et al. 2009, Wastell, White, Broadhurst, Peckover, & Pithouse, 2010;Broadhurst et al. 2010	GBR	Explore confounding impacts of government rationales and centrally prescribed IS, and results such as increase in latent errors in social work and worker micro-management	Interview, focus group, non/participant observation, file analysis	Qual	Govt	S work	1,2,3,4
Salovaara and Ylönen (2022)	FIN	Explore the extent client information systems support case-based social work	Survey	Quant	Govt	S work	1,3
Sarwar and Harris (2019)	GBR	Examine interaction between system designer (policy) and user (professional) and resulting use by social workers	Interview	Qual	Govt	S work	1,2,3,4
Savaya et al. (2006)	ISR	Explore differing IS input by social workers to the administrative and clinical aspects of IS	Questionnaire	Quant	Govt	S work	1,3
Savaya et al. (2004)	ISR	Explore the development phase for IS as it is iteratively introduced into an agency network	Interview, participant observation, file analysis, questionnaire	Both	Both	S work, client	1,2,3
Seniutis et al. (2021)	LTU	Explore and explain changes and interactions of practitioners with clients and managers arising from IS features	Interview, participant observation, questionnaire	Qual	Govt	S work, other	1,2,3,4
Shaw and Clayden (2010)	GBR	Understand the use and utility of IS, and differences from developers’ presumptions	File analysis, focus group, survey	Qual	Govt	S work, other, client	1,2,3,4
Shaw et al. (2009)	GBR	Illustrate and assess policy aspiration and its local implementation, and ways social workers understand and use their expertise	File analysis, focus group, survey	Qual	Both	S work, other, client	1,2,3,4
Smith and Eaton (2014)	USA	Assess the cultural fit of technology to work practice and culture	Interview, file analysis	Qual	Govt	S work	1,2,3
Spensberger (2019)	DEU	Describe reception of digitizing aspects of a social work theory into practice in IS	Non-participant observation	Qual	Govt	S work	1,2,3
Zhang and Gutierrez (2007)	USA	Test model to assess social work IT acceptance	Survey	Quant	NGO	S work	2,3
Zhu and Andersen (2021)	NOR	Advance understanding of mix of face-face and ICT-mediated work and identify their characteristics	Interview, participant observation, focus group	Qual	Govt	S work	1,2,4
Zorn (2003)	NZL	Understand how emotionality is/can be used in organizational communication when implementing IS	Interview, non-participant observation, case study	Qual	NGO	S work, other	3
Group 2: Experimental potential
Coursen (2006)	USA	Show ecosystems approach to resolve data model limitations in managing social work complexity	Document/data model analysis	Qual	NGO	No roles	1,2,3,4
Fitch (2004)	USA	Articulate what developing IS for clients rather than management purposes looks like	Data model analysis	Qual	Both	No roles	1,2,3,4
Ince and Griffiths (2011)	GBR	Identify what short and medium-term problems of IS can be solved and improvements made	Document analysis	Qual	Govt	No roles	1,2,3,4
Lagsten and Andersson (2018) Lagsten 2011	SWE	Contribute to research from literature and a stakeholder-based method for evaluating and improving IS	Interview, document analysis, workshop, participant observation	Qual	Govt	S work, other	1,2,3,4
Wastell and White (2014a) 2014b	GBR	Demonstrate alternative to current failing design approaches with user-centered design exercise to better support users in their electronic documentation	Workshop, non/participant observation	Qual	Govt	S work	1,2,3,4
Wastell et al. (2011)	GBR	Results of applying a computer-based simulation model of ICS	Interview, participant observation	Qual	Govt	S work	1,2,3,4
Wilson et al. (2007)	GBR	Report on design processes which help make IS sustainable	Workshop, mapping, participant observation	Qual	Govt	S work, other	1,2,3,4
Wilson et al. (2011)	GBR	Identify identity governance issues in the social care domain	Data model analysis	Qual	NGO	No roles	1,2,3,4
Group 3: More practical knowledge
Clapham et al. (2021)	AUS	Illustrate how Aboriginal community processes may be facilitated through using highly participative methodology when developing IS	Interview, survey, focus group, participant design, network analysis	Qual	NGO	S work, other, client	1,2,3,4
French and Stillman (2014)	AUS	How users manage contradictions between informationalization and people-centered welfare practice	Interview, survey, workshop, mapping, document analysis, participant design	Qual	NGO	S work, other	1,2,3,4
Goldkuhl (2012)	SWE	Explore the best approach so that a successful IT artifact (IS) is designed that meets local needs	Document analysis, participant observation, file analysis	Qual	Govt	S work, other	1,2,3,4
Stillman et al. (2009); Stillman & McGrath, 2008	AUS	Illustrate what helps non-business organizations prepare and introduce responsive ICT	Interview, survey, workshop, mapping, participant design	Qual	NGO	S work, other	1,2,3,4
Tregeagle (2016)	AUS	Demonstrate ICT development by an NGO to enhance practice and improve outcomes for children and families, building on workplace culture	Interview, file analysis, field diary, workshop, intensive consultation	Qual	NGO	S work, client	1,2,3,4
Yigitbasioglu et al. (2023)	AUS	Explore positive adoption of CMS in two different community agencies as seen in organizational routines post implementation	Interview, participant observation	Qual	NGO	S work, other	1,2,3,4

Groups 1–3 of articles: Article assignment as per criteria outlined in Table 5

Italics: Similar/same studies

(Ctry) Countries: AUS–Australia; BEL–Belgium; DEU–Germany; DNK–Denmark; GBR–United Kingdom; FIN–Finland; ISR–Israel; LTU–Lithuania; N Std–Not stated: NOR–Norway; NZL–New Zealand; SWE–Sweden; USA–United States of America

Qual/quant: Qualitative and/or quantitative methods

S work: Social work role

Theme: Article assessment as per themes outlined in Table 4

Aasback, A. (2022). Platform social work—A case study of a digital activity plan in the Norwegian Welfare and Labor Administration. Nordic Social Work Research, 12(3), 350–363. doi:10.1080/2156857X.2022.2045212

 Google Scholar

Barfoed, E. (2019). Digital clients: An example of people production in social work. Social Inclusion, 7(1), 196–206. doi:10.17645/si.v7i1.1814

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Burton, J., & van den Broek, D. (2009). Accountable and countable: Information management systems and the bureaucratization of social work. British Journal of Social Work, 39(7), 1326–1342. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcn027

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Carrilio, T., Packard, T., & Clapp, J. D. (2004). Nothing in—Nothing out. Administration in Social Work, 27(4), 61–75. doi:10.1300/J147v27n04_05

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Carrilio, T. (2005). Management information systems: Why are they underutilized in the social services? Administration in Social Work, 29(2), 43–61. doi:10.1300/J147v29n02_04

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Carrilio, T. (2008). Accountability, evidence, and the use of information systems in social service programs. Journal of Social Work, 8(2), 135–148. doi:10.1177/1468017307088495

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Cronley, C., & Patterson, D. (2010). How well does it fit? An organizational culture approach to assessing technology use among homeless service providers. Administration in Social Work, 34(3), 286–303. doi:10.1080/03643107.2010.481194

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

De Witte, J., Declercq, A., & Hermans, K. (2016). Street-level strategies of child welfare social workers in Flanders: The use of electronic client records in practice. British journal of Social Work, 46(5), 1249–1265. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcv076

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Dearman, P. (2005). Computerised social casework recording: Autonomy and control in Australia’s income support agency. Labor Studies Journal, 30(1), 47–65. doi:10.1177/0160449X0503000104

 Google Scholar

Devlieghere, J., Bradt, L., & Roose, R. (2017a). Governmental rationales for installing electronic information systems: A quest for responsive social work. Social Policy & Administration, 51(7), 1488–1504. doi:10.1111/spol.12269

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Devlieghere, J., Bradt, L., & Roose, R. (2017b). Policy rationales for electronic information systems: An area of ambiguity. The British Journal of Social Work, 47(5), 1500–1516. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcw097

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Devlieghere, J., Bradt, L., & Roose, R. (2018). Creating transparency through electronic information systems: Opportunities and pitfalls. The British Journal of Social Work, 48(3), 734–750. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcx052

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Devlieghere, J., Bradt, L., & Roose, R. (2021). Electronic information systems as means for accountability: Why there is no such thing as objectivity. European Journal of Social Work, 24(2), 212–223. doi:10.1080/13691457.2019.1585335

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Devlieghere, J., & Roose, R. (2018). Electronic information systems: In search of responsive social work. Journal of Social Work, 18(6), 650–665. doi:10.1177/1468017318757296

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Devlieghere, J., & Roose, R. (2019). Documenting practices in human service organisations through information systems: When the quest for visibility ends in darkness. Social Inclusion, 7(1), 207–217. doi:10.17645/si.v7i1.1833

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Devlieghere, J., & Roose, R. (2020). A policy, management and practitioners’ perspective on social work’s rational turn: There are cracks at every level. European Journal of Social Work, 23(1), 144–155. doi:10.1080/13691457.2018.1460324

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

De Corte, J., Devlieghere, J., Roets, G., & Roose, R. (2019). Top-down policy implementation and social workers as institutional entrepreneurs: The case of an electronic information system in Belgium. The British Journal of Social Work, 49(5), 1317–1332. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcy094

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Gillingham, P. (2013). The development of electronic information systems for the future: Practitioners, ‘embodied structures’ and ‘technologies-in-practice’. British Journal of Social Work, 43(3), 430–445. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcr202

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Gillingham, P. (2015b). Electronic information systems and human services organisations: Avoiding the pitfalls of participatory design. British Journal of Social Work, 45(2), 651–666. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bct126

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Gillingham, P. (2014a). Driving child protection reform: Evidence or ideology? Australian Social Work, 67(3), 377–389. doi:10.1080/0312407X.2013.877948

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

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

 Google Scholar

Gillingham, P. (2014c). Information systems and human service organizations: Managing and designing for the “occasional user”. Human Service Organizations: Management, Leadership & Governance, 38(2), 169–177. doi:10.1080/03643107.2013.859198

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Gillingham, P. (2014d). Repositioning electronic information systems in human service organizations. Human Services Organizations: Management, Leadership & Governance, 38(2), 125–134. doi:10.1080/03643107.2013.853011

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Gillingham, P. (2015a). Electronic information systems and human service organizations: The unanticipated consequences of organizational change. Human Service Organizations: Management, Leadership & Governance, 39(2), 89–100. doi:10.1080/23303131.2014.987412

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Gillingham, P. (2015c). Electronic information systems and social work: Principles of participatory design for social workers. Advances in Social Work, 16(1), 31–42. doi:10.18060/18244

 Google Scholar

Gillingham, P. (2015d). Electronic information systems in human service organisations: The what, who, why and how of information. British Journal of Social Work, 45(5), 1598–1613. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcu030

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Gillingham, P. (2015e). Implementing electronic information systems in human service organisations: The challenge of categorisation. Practice, 27(3), 163–175. doi:10.1080/09503153.2015.1014334

 Google Scholar

Gillingham, P. (2016a). Electronic information systems and human service organizations: The needs of managers. Human Service Organizations: Management, Leadership & Governance, 40(1), 51–61. doi:10.1080/23303131.2015.1069232

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Gillingham, P. (2016c). Technology configuring the user: Implications for the redesign of electronic information systems in social work. British Journal of Social Work, 46(2), 323–338. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcu141

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Gillingham, P. (2019a). Developments in electronic information systems in social welfare agencies: From simple to complex. The British Journal of Social Work, 49(1), 135–146. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcy014

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Gillingham, P. (2019b). From bureaucracy to technocracy in a social welfare agency: A cautionary tale. Asia Pacific Journal of Social Work and Development, 29(2), 108–119. doi:10.1080/02185385.2018.1523023

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Gillingham, P., & Graham, T. (2016). Designing electronic information systems for the future: Social workers and the challenge of New Public Management. Critical Social Policy, 36(2), 187–204. doi:10.1177/0261018315620867

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Gillingham, P. (2016b). Electronic information systems to guide social work practice: The perspectives of practitioners as end users. Practice, 28(5), 357–372. doi:10.1080/09503153.2015.1135895

 Google Scholar

Gillingham, P. (2018). Decision-making about the adoption of information technology in social welfare agencies: Some key considerations. European Journal of Social Work, 21(4), 521–529. doi:10.1080/13691457.2017.1297773

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Gillingham, P. (2021). Practitioner perspectives on the implementation of an electronic information system to enforce practice standards in England. European Journal of Social Work, 24(5), 761–771. doi:10.1080/13691457.2020.1870213

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hill, P. (2014). Supporting personalisation: The challenges in translating the expectations of national policy into developments in local services and their underpinning information systems. Social Policy and Society, 13(4), 593–607. doi:10.1017/S147474641400013X

 Google Scholar

Hoybye-Mortensen, M., & Ejbye-Ernst, P. (2019). What is the purpose? Caseworkers’ perception of performance information. European Journal of Social Work, 22(3), 458–471. doi:10.1080/13691457.2017.1366427

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Huuskonen, S., & Vakkari, P. (2015). Selective clients’ trajectories in case files: Filtering out information in the recording process in child protection. British Journal of Social Work, 45(3), 792–808. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bct160

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Huuskonen, S., & Vakkari, P. (2013). “I did it my way”: Social workers as secondary designers of a client information system. Information Processing & Management, 49(1), 380–391. doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2012.05.003

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Jeyasingham, D. (2020). Entanglements with offices, information systems, laptops and phones: How agile working is influencing social workers’ interactions with each other and with families. Qualitative Social Work, 19(3), 337–358. doi:10.1177/1473325020911697

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Johnson, L. B. (2013). A qualitative study of communication among child advocacy multidisciplinary team members using a web-based case tracking system. Journal of Technology in Human Services, 31(4), 355–367. doi:10.1080/15228835.2013.861783

 Google Scholar

Koskinen, R. (2014). One step further from detected contradictions in a child welfare unit—A constructive approach to communicate the needs of social work when implementing ICT in social services. European Journal of Social Work, 17(2), 266–280. doi:10.1080/13691457.2013.802663

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Loberg, I. B., & Egeland, C. (2023). ‘You get a completely different feeling’—An empirical exploration of emotions and their functions in digital frontline work. European Journal of Social Work, 26(1), 108–120. doi:10.1080/13691457.2021.2016650

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Martikainen, S., Salovaara, S., Ylönen, K., Tynkkynen, E., Viitanen, J., Tyllinen, M., & Lääveri, T. (2022). Social welfare professionals willing to participate in client information system development—Results from a large cross-sectional survey. Informatics for Health and Social Care, 47(4), 389–402. doi:10.1080/17538157.2021.2010736

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Monnickendam, M., Savaya, R., & Waysman, M. (2005). Thinking processes in social workers’ use of a clinical decision support system: A qualitative study. Social Work Research, 29(1), 21–30. doi:10.1093/swr/29.1.21

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Moses, T., Weaver, D., Furman, W., & Duncan, L. (2003). Computerization and job attitudes in child welfare. Administration in Social Work, 27(1), 47–67. doi:10.1300/J147v27n01_04

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Pithouse, A., Broadhurst, K., Hall, C., Peckover, S., Wastell, D., & White, S. (2012). Trust, risk and the (mis)management of contingency and discretion through new information technologies in children’s services. Journal of Social Work, 12(2), 158–178. doi:10.1177/1468017310382151

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

White, S., Broadhurst, K., Wastell, D., Peckover, S., Hall, C., & Pithouse, A. (2009). Whither practice-near research in the modernization programme? Policy blunders in children’s services. Journal of Social Work Practice, 23(4), 401–411. doi:10.1080/02650530903374945

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

White, S., Wastell, D., Broadhurst, K., & Hall, C. (2010). When policy o’erleaps itself: The ‘tragic tale’ of the integrated children’s system. Critical Social Policy, 30(3), 405–429. doi:10.1177/0261018310367675

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Wastell, D., White, S., & Broadhurst, K. (2009). The chiasmus of design: Paradoxical outcomes in the e-government reform of UK children’s services. Springer, 257–272. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-02388-0_18

 Google Scholar

Wastell, D., White, S., Broadhurst, K., Peckover, S., & Pithouse, A. (2010). Children’s services in the iron cage of performance management: Street-level bureaucracy and the spectre of Švejkism. International Journal of Social Welfare, 19(3), 310–320. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2397.2009.00716.x

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Broadhurst, K., Hall, C., Wastell, D., White, S., & Pithouse, A. (2010). Risk, instrumentalism and the humane project in social work: Identifying the informal logics of risk management in children’s statutory services. British Journal of Social Work, 40(4), 1046–1064. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcq011

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Salovaara, S., & Ylönen, K. (2022). Client information systems’ support for case-based social work: Experiences of Finnish social workers. Nordic Social Work Research, 12(3), 364–378. doi:10.1080/2156857X.2021.1999847

 Google Scholar

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

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Savaya, R., Monnickendam, M., & Waysman, M. (2006). Extent and type of worker utilization of an integrated information system in a human services agency. Evaluation and Program Planning, 29(3), 209–216. doi:10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2006.03.001

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Savaya, R., Spiro, S. E., Waysman, M., & Golan, M. (2004). Issues in the development of a computerized clinical information system for a network of juvenile homes. Administration in Social Work, 28(2), 63–79. doi:10.1300/J147v28n02_05

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Seniutis, M., Petružytė, D., Baltrūnaitė, M., Vainauskaitė, S., & Petkevičius, L. (2021). The impact of information system on interactions of child welfare professionals with managers and clients. Sustainability, 13(12), 6765. doi:10.3390/su13126765

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Shaw, I., & Clayden, J. (2010). Technology, evidence and professional practice: Reflections on the integrated children’s system. Journal of Children’s Services, 4(4), 15–27. doi:10.5042/jcs.2010.0018

 Google Scholar

Shaw, I., Bell, M., Sinclair, I., Sloper, P., Mitchell, W., Dyson, P., … Rafferty, J. (2009). An exemplary scheme? An evaluation of the integrated children’s system. British Journal of Social Work, 39(4), 613–626. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcp040

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Smith, R. S., & Eaton, T. (2014). Information and communication technology in child welfare. The need for culture-centred computing. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 41(1), 137–160. https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/jssw/vol41/iss1/8.

 Google Scholar

Spensberger, F. (2019). The digitalization of a social work theory: Experiences of a German child welfare social worker. International Social Work, 62(6), 1575–1579. doi:10.1177/0020872819865018

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Zhang, W., & Gutierrez, O. (2007). Information technology acceptance in the social services sector context: An exploration. Social work, 52(3), 221–231. doi:10.1093/sw/52.3.221

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Zhu, H., & Andersen, S. T. (2021). ICT-mediated social work practice and innovation: Professionals’ experiences in the Norwegian labour and welfare administration. Nordic Social Work Research, 11(4), 346–360. doi:10.1080/2156857X.2020.1740774

 Google Scholar

Zorn, T. E. (2003). The emotionality of information and communication technology implementation. Journal of Communication Management, 7(2), 160–171. doi:10.1108/13632540310807296

 Google Scholar

Coursen, D. (2006). An ecosystems approach to human service database design. Journal of Technology in Human Services, 24(1), 1–18. doi:10.1300/J017v24n01_01

 Google Scholar

Fitch, D. (2004). Client-controlled case information: A general system theory perspective. Social work, 49(3), 497–505. doi:10.1093/sw/49.3.497

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ince, D., & Griffiths, A. (2011). A chronicling system for children’s social work: Learning from the ICS failure. British Journal of Social Work, 41(8), 1497–1513. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcr016

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Lagsten, J., & Andersson, A. (2018). Use of information systems in social work—Challenges and an agenda for future research. European Journal of Social Work, 21(6), 850–862. doi:10.1080/13691457.2018.1423554

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Lagsten, J. (2011). Evaluating information systems according to stakeholders: A pragmatic perspective and method. Electronic Journal of Information Systems Evaluation, 14(1), 73–88. www.ejise.com.

 Google Scholar

Wastell, D., & White, S. (2014a). Beyond bureaucracy: Emerging trends in social care informatics. Health informatics Journal, 20(3), 213–219. doi:10.1177/1460458213487535

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Wastell, D., Peckover, S., White, S., Broadhurst, K., Hall, C., & Pithouse, A. (2011). Social work in the laboratory: Using microworlds for practice research. British Journal of Social Work, 41(4), 744–760. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcr014

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Wilson, R., Walsh, S., & Vaughan, R. (2007). Developing an electronic social care record: A tale from the Tyne. Informatics in Primary Care, 15(4), 239–244. doi:10.14236/jhi.v15i4.664

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Wilson, R., Martin, M., Walsh, S., & Richter, P. (2011). Re-mixing digital economies in the voluntary community sector? Governing identity information and information sharing in the mixed economy of care for children and young people. Social Policy and Society, 10(3), 379–391. doi:10.1017/S1474746411000108

 Google Scholar

Clapham, K., Hasan, H., Fredericks, B., Bessarab, D., Kelly, P., Harwood, V., Dale, E. (2021). Digital support for indigenous research methodologies. Australasian Journal of Information Systems, 25, 1–21. doi:10.3127/ajis.v25i0.2885

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

French, R., & Stillman, L. (2014). The informationalisation of the Australian community sector. Social Policy and Society, 13(4), 623–634. doi:10.1017/S1474746414000098

 Google Scholar

Goldkuhl, G. (2012). From action research to practice research. Australasian Journal of Information Systems, 17(2), 57–77. doi:10.3127/ajis.v17i2.688

 Google Scholar

Stillman, L., Kethers, S., French, R., & Lombard, D. (2009). Adapting corporate modelling for community informatics. VINE, 39(3), 259–274. doi:10.1108/03055720911004003

 Google Scholar

Stillman, L., & McGrath, J. (2008). Is it Web 2.0 or is it better information and knowledge that we need? Australian Social Work, 61(4), 421–428. doi:10.1080/03124070802441889

 Google Scholar

Tregeagle, S. (2016). Heads in the cloud: An example of practice-based information and communication technology in child welfare. Journal of Technology in Human Services, 34(2), 224–239. doi:10.1080/15228835.2016.1177479

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Yigitbasioglu, O., Furneaux, C., & Rossi, S. (2023). Case management systems and new routines in community organisations. Financial Accountability & Management, 39(1), 216–236. doi:10.1111/faam.12297

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar