https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1667-5235
ABSTRACT
Purpose
This systematic review aims to identify and synthesize the available evidence on the receptivity toward, perceived advantages and challenges of remote service delivery among social work clients and practitioners during the context of COVID-19.
Method
Two electronic databases were searched from 2020 to 2022. Identified papers were screened against the established eligibility criteria, yielding 15 papers. Two additional papers were further identified through hand-search. As heterogeneity of studies was high, a narrative synthesis was performed to summarize the overall evidence.
Results
Our review provides evidence that remote service delivery holds the potential to increase access to services among selected client populations as well as promote a sense of empowerment for clients and opportunities for practice enhancement for practitioners.
Discussion & Conclusion
The findings from our study highlighted the need for innovative solutions and practical considerations for ongoing remote service, including the careful considerations of social work clients’ and practitioners’ suitability, the need for provision of training and ongoing support to optimize practitioners’ well-being. As the delivery of services transition to face-to-face or remain remote, further research is needed to assess the promise of remote practice in optimizing overall service delivery, while maintaining client-reported satisfaction.
Since the onset of COVID-19 pandemic, service delivery via remote modalities, which include telephone, videoconference, e-mail, text message, and web-based interventions has flourished (Glauser, Citation2020).
To mitigate the spread of COVID-19, widespread policies such as lockdowns and safe distancing measures (e.g., working from home, limits to group sizes) were implemented. However, these measures had a profound impact on service providers and organizations that primarily rely on face-to-face interactions with their service users, particularly those in the healthcare and social service sectors (Cudjoe & Abdullah, Citation2020; Fuller, Citation2022). Remote service delivery methods became the primary mode of communication for these front-line professionals in their attempts to maintain continued engagement with service users whilst safeguarding their health and safety (Boahen, Citation2020; Farkas & Romaniuk, Citation2020; Galea et al., Citation2020; Krist et al., Citation2020). Correspondingly, health and human service organizations across the globe have witnessed an increase in the usage of video consultations from 22% to 71%, and an increase in phone consultations from 39% to 81% (Thompson, Citation2021). The rapid upsurge in the use of remote modes across the healthcare and social service sectors thus warrants further examination into its effectiveness, challenges, and opportunities in both the short- and long-term.
Social work practice in COVID-19 context
Prior to COVID-19, service delivery in social work was conducted primarily via face-to-face modality (Galea et al., Citation2020). The pandemic had brought upon an unparalleled shift from face-to-face to remote service delivery, in response to the safe-distancing restrictions imposed (Galea et al., Citation2020; Reamer, Citation2020). This unprecedented shift has prompted increased attention on the distinctions between face-to-face and remote service delivery as well as curiosities about the effectiveness of such remote practice.
Amid growing evidence of effectiveness, potential benefits and drawbacks of remote interventions continue to be debated (AlAteeq et al., Citation2020; R. King et al., Citation2006; Mohr et al., Citation2013). Proponents of remote interventions highlighted the way in which remote practices have allowed practitioners to maintain continuity of care and therapeutic relationship with their clients during COVID-19 (Richards & Viganó, Citation2013; Situmorang, Citation2020). Further, the use of technology has helped to improve client engagement as potential barriers related to work commitments, childcare, transportation were removed (Hopkins & Pedwell, Citation2021; McKenny et al., Citation2021).
Alongside benefits, ethical concerns and limitations associated with remote practices have been highlighted. While the transition to remote services enhanced some clients’ access to services, it has also posed greater barriers for others. In particular, “digital divide” presents a significant concern as vulnerable clients face barriers to remote services due to age, lack of access to technology, and lack of digital literacy (Bryant et al., Citation2018). Other studies cited ethical challenges relating to privacy and confidentiality (Pascoe, Citation2023; Reamer, Citation2018; Rummell & Joyce, Citation2010). Practitioners also identified boundary difficulties as the flexibility accorded by remote means created an increased pressure to respond outside of working hours (Al-Habaibeh et al., Citation2021).
Previous systematic reviews have examined the prevalence of remote service delivery and studied the effectiveness of and preferences toward remote over traditional face-to-face service delivery (Ersahin & Hanley, Citation2017; Pulat & Barutçu-Yıldırım, Citation2021; Zainudin et al., Citation2020). However, most of these reviews present a one-sided perspective, either from a client-focused or practitioner-focused lens (Connolly et al., Citation2020; Ersahin & Hanley, Citation2017; Pulat & Barutçu-Yıldırım, Citation2021). In addition, past reviews posited remote service delivery as a secondary mode of engagement and portrayed limited relevance to the pandemic context (Richards & Viganó, Citation2013; Zainudin et al., Citation2020). Hence, this review paper seeks to provide a more holistic lens through incorporation of both clients’ and practitioners’ perspectives. In doing so, the objectives of this review are to:
examine the receptivity among social work clients and practitioners toward remote service delivery within the context of COVID-19.
review the perceived advantages and challenges of remote service delivery among social work clients and practitioners within the context of COVID-19.
Aligned with the study’s objectives, the research queries are as follows:
What types of remote service delivery were adopted during COVID-19?
What were the levels of receptivity and readiness among clients and practitioners toward remote service delivery?
What were the advantages of remote service delivery perceived by clients and practitioners?
What were the challenges of remote service delivery perceived by clients and practitioners?
Materials and methods
Search strategies
A systematic search was conducted on 6th April 2022 via EBSCO database and Google Scholar. Record management was supported by Rayyan (Ouzzani et al., Citation2016). The search strings used for the systematic search strings are illustrated in .
Table 1. Search strings used for systematic search.
Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Articles eligible for inclusion in this systematic review were those published in English with full-text access from 2020 to 2022. Other key inclusion criteria include:
Empirical study of remote service delivery during COVID-19 pandemic.
A focus on the effectiveness of and receptivity toward remote service delivery.
A focus on studies conducted in the field of social work, or related fields of counseling and therapy.
Remote service delivery considered in this review includes both synchronous (i.e., requires both clients and practitioners to be online at the same time) and asynchronous (i.e., allows for lag time in communication between clients and practitioners) forms (Rochlen, Zack, et al., Citation2004). displays the full list of inclusion and exclusion criteria. Articles had to meet all eligibility criteria to be included in the systematic review.
Table 2. List of inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Study selection and data extraction
The main and second authors independently screened titles, abstracts and appraised full articles against the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Discrepancies between both authors in the assessment of selected items were resolved through discussion and clarifications of the relevant inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Both authors extracted key information from the 17 studies into an Excel spreadsheet containing the following column headings:
Reference information (author(s), year of publication)
Country
Aims/purpose/research questions
Sample size
Study design
Types of remote service delivery employed
Key findings of relevance to this review
The extracted information was checked for comprehensiveness and accuracy by two additional researchers.
Data synthesis
Given the heterogeneity of the studies included in this review, conducting a meta-analysis was not feasible (McGregor et al., Citation2016). Therefore, a narrative synthesis approach was employed, which involved categorizing data using thematic analysis. The use of narrative synthesis is a prevalent approach for synthesizing data in systematic reviews, particularly when mixed methods studies (qualitative, quantitative, and mixed) are involved, as was expected in this review (Rodgers et al., Citation2009; Tong et al., Citation2012). The approach to narrative synthesis outlined in “Guidance on the Conduct of Narrative Synthesis in Systematic Reviews” by Popay et al. (Citation2006) was employed for this review. The preliminary synthesis involved developing an initial description of the findings from the included studies and organizing them to facilitate the identification of patterns across the records (Popay et al., Citation2006). Thematic analysis was then conducted to categorize multiple ideas and conclusions from the studies into relevant themes related to the research questions of this review (Pope et al., Citation2007).
Results
Literature search result
shows the outcome of the systematic searches and selection process, in accordance with the preferred reporting items of systematic reviews. The initial literature search produced 1,019 results. After removal of 126 duplicates, the titles, and abstracts of 893 items were screened for relevance by two researchers. Seven hundred and twenty-five records were excluded due to irrelevance. Of the remaining 168 relevant records, 118 were excluded as they were non-empirical studies. Fifty items were selected for full examination and a further 34 were excluded against the selection criteria. A hand search of reference list of the remaining 15 articles was conducted and 2 additional studies were identified. In total, 17 studies were included in this systematic review.
Figure 1. Flow chart of systematic search.
Characteristics of included studies
This paper aimed to identify and synthesize the available evidence on the receptivity toward, perceived advantages and challenges of remote service delivery among social work clients and practitioners during the context of COVID-19. As such, aligned with this paper’s objective, the 17 included studies were conducted between the year 2020 and 2022, with the majority published in 2021 (n = 10). The studies were conducted in eight different countries: Australia (n = 5), United States (n = 4), United Kingdom (n = 3), Canada (n = 1), China (n = 1), Israel (n = 1), Nigeria (n = 1), and the Philippines (n = 1).
Eight of the included studies adopted qualitative study design, four studies employed a mixed methods design, four studies employed cross-sectional design, and one study used a quantitative study design. Among the qualitative studies, three studies employed a phenomenological approach to gain insights of the lived experiences of both clients and practitioners. In Alston et al. (Citation2021)’s study, the researchers employed an integration of narrative literature review and cross-sectional survey, designed with the intent to use international research to inform the research findings of their survey.
In terms of data collection methods, the use of online means for data collection was predominant across studies as the pandemic had restricted face-to-face contact. Nine studies relied primarily on the use of online survey questionnaires, which comprised of a mixture of open- and closed-ended questions. Seven studies conducted semi-structured interviews, which served either as their main data-gathering method or as a follow-up to supplement the survey findings. Among these seven studies, four studies conducted the interviews via remote means (i.e., either telephonically or videoconferencing), while two studies conducted the interviews in-person. One study did not specify whether the interviews were held in-person or remotely. In another study, the researchers have also relied on virtual focus groups to validate the information shared across participants.
Studies that mainly relied on semi-structured interviews generally had smaller sample sizes, at n = 31 or less. For the majority of the studies which conducted survey, the sample sizes ranged from n = 100 to n = 2470.
presents the studies based on their target population – either clients or practitioners. Clients-focused studies were organized based on the type of services that they received, while practitioners-focused studies were organized based on their practice areas and type of expertise. The types of services that clients received include mental health therapy and couples’ therapy. Practitioners include social workers from a plethora of practice areas such as youth work, palliative care, and domestic violence, as well as therapists and counselors. Hence, the breadth of this systematic review is wide-ranging and representative of social work practice.
Table 3. Key characteristics of included studies.
Types of remote service delivery employed
As reflected in , 10 studies detailed the use of multiple types of remote modalities between clients and practitioners. The remote modalities ranged from synchronous communication methods, such as teleconferencing and phone calls, to facilitate real-time communication, to asynchronous methods, such as e-mail, or text messaging, which allows for a lag time in communication between client and practitioner.
Faced with the need to quickly adapt to the COVID-19 restrictions, Alston et al. (Citation2021) reported a decrease in face-to-face contact among majority of practitioners (80%), whilst highlighting an accompanying increase in remote contact via phone (85%), videocalls (40%) and online chat (34%). Another study observed a similar shift, as they indicated remote service delivery as the most frequent modality (76%) during the pandemic (Ashcroft et al., Citation2022). Amid the rapid shifts toward remote service modalities, the authors also took note of continued face-to-face contact among a small proportion of practitioners (10%) (Ashcroft et al., Citation2022). The practitioners who participated in the two studies were employed in various fields of social work practice, such as hospital, schools, addiction and mental health treatment, and their client populations spanned all age groups. Drawing parallels across both studies, the practitioners reported an increase in requests for remote counseling services from clients with a range of mental health challenges and clients in situations of domestic violence. Reflecting upon their experiences, some practitioners in Ashcroft et al. (Citation2022) study expressed concerns about the decreased access to remote services for some client populations, such as children, elderly clients, and homeless populations.
In tracking the types of platforms adopted, Zoom emerged as the most commonly used platform across five studies, followed by WhatsApp in facilitating synchronous communication between practitioners and their clients. Findings from two studies further outlined a variety of teleconferencing platforms, including thera-LINK, Simple Practice, theraNest, Skype, Google Hangouts, PEXIP, Slack, Post, Goto, and Gruveo. Aside from the synchronous communication modalities, three studies documented the use of asynchronous use of e-mail and text messaging among practitioners to connect regularly with their clients. In addition, the practitioners surveyed in Lombardi et al.’s study (Lombardi et al., Citation2022) reported using a combination of at least two platforms to maintain and strengthen communication with their clients.
Two studies also identified the use of unique social media platforms as alternate tools in bridging remote service delivery. One study noted the emergence and potential of Weibo (similar to Twitter) as a service delivery tool in China (Wang et al., Citation2021) while the other study documented how youth workers leveraged on social media platforms such as Instagram and Facebook to connect with their youth clients (Rosenberg et al., Citation2021). These platforms are versatile in their application to practice, as they can be synchronous and asynchronous in nature.
Receptivity and readiness toward remote service delivery
The sub-themes and codes relating to clients’ and practitioners’ level of receptivity and readiness toward remote service delivery are presented in .
Table 4. Thematic mapping: level of receptivity and readiness toward remote service delivery.
Level of receptivity toward remote service delivery
All 17 articles acknowledged the shift to remote service delivery was inevitable at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Two studies, which evaluated the experiences of service users, indicated a general receptivity toward remote service delivery. Clients surveyed in another study, however, reported a sense of “making do” with remote service delivery. While they perceived remote service delivery as a necessary adaptation during the pandemic, they found it difficult having to adjust to the remote platforms due to their preference toward face-to-face engagement. Hence, they experienced the feelings of “making do” with remote service delivery.
Similarly, practitioners sustained mixed views over their receptivity toward remote service delivery. Eight studies indicated that practitioners are generally open to transit their practices to remote modes. These practitioners view the shift as necessary and effective, with two studies indicating that the changes were successful and created “new opportunities” for service delivery (Carrington et al., Citation2021; Rosenberg et al., Citation2021). However, practitioners in three other studies dissented from such positive views toward remote service delivery. Notably, the practitioners’ prior negative experiences with and preferences about remote service delivery had contributed to their disinclination to engage remote service delivery as a primary approach during the pandemic.
Preferences toward remote service delivery
It is noted that the receptivity and willingness to engage in remote service delivery could be hinged upon the subjective preferences of clients and practitioners (Barker & Barker, Citation2022; Kysely et al., Citation2020). Supporting this notion, Barker and Barker (Citation2022) found that practitioners who preferred face-to-face mode of service delivery expressed reluctance to increase their own comfort with and improve their competency in utilizing remote platforms. In another study, it was observed that the novelty of remote therapy services in Nigeria led to some clients being hesitant to use them due to their lack of knowledge and uncertainty about their effectiveness (Ogueji et al., Citation2021). However, the majority of the participants remained open and willing to try out remote therapy as they recognized its importance and potential benefits (Ogueji et al., Citation2021). One participant also mentioned that his participation in the research had positively influenced his receptivity to remote therapy, as he gained new insights and knowledge about the service through his involvement in the study (Ogueji et al., Citation2021). Similarly, although clients in Maier et al. (Citation2021) study experienced initial discomfort with the shift to remote platforms, their perceived benefits of remote service delivery helped them to adjust and form a more positive attitude toward remote therapy. Three studies have also highlighted participants’ views and keenness on adopting hybrid mode – combining virtual and physical modes – to strengthen therapeutic work (Cook & Zschomler, Citation2020; Cortis et al., Citation2021; Kysely et al., Citation2020).
Level of readiness toward remote service delivery
The level of preparation by social service organizations and practitioners toward the shift to remote service delivery during COVID-19 was another prominent theme highlighted across studies. Six studies, based on the practitioners’ perspectives, detailed the adaptations and organizational support that propelled them to navigate the anticipated challenges of remote service delivery. The practitioners described varying levels of support from their organizations, such as the provision of the necessary mobile devices to support remote working, and regular review of remote working arrangements to ensure their wellbeing. In the same vein, the creative use of different therapeutic approaches was emphasized as a key ingredient in preparing and facilitating practitioners’ adjustment to remote work in four studies. For instance, the practitioners interviewed in Cook and Zschomler’s (Citation2020) study recalled having to improvise and experiment with various backgrounds on video call platforms to capture the interest of their younger clients. Conversely, two studies highlighted practitioners’ consensus on the lack of foresight and preparation from their employers, which hindered their level of readiness and preparation during the transition to virtual modes.
Perceived advantages of remote service delivery
presents a summary of the sub-themes and codes surrounding clients’ and practitioners’ perceived advantages of remote service delivery.
Table 5. Thematic mapping: perceived advantages of remote service delivery.
Clients’ experiences
Logistical Advantages & Sense of Comfort
Three studies highlighted the advantages of remote service delivery from the clients’ perspectives. In terms of the logistical advantages, two studies cited that remote service delivery accorded greater convenience, as clients could access services at the comfort of their home, thereby saving on traveling time and cost. Moreover, the clients in Kysely et al. (Citation2020) study credited remote service delivery for providing a comfortable space as clients reported feeling less threatened and more relaxed at their own homes as compared to the perceived impersonal atmosphere of traditional therapeutic spaces. Findings from Maier et al.’s study (Maier et al., Citation2021) further elaborated on the elements of comfort associated with remote space, as the clients expressed feeling safer and more at ease being in their own personal space instead of having to worry about being recognized by someone they know when they attend face-to-face sessions in a physical office.
Means of Empowerment
Clients interviewed in Kysely et al. (Citation2020) study also identified remote services as a means of empowerment, as they reported feeling more enabled by the technology. The authors explained that the perceived physical distance created by the remote platform gave them greater ownership of their own space, since the therapist appeared to be more removed from the situation (Kysely et al., Citation2020). This thus empowers the clients to feel more in charge and responsible over the session, which facilitated a sense of disinhibition as clients found it easier to share their emotions and engage in self-disclosure (Kysely et al., Citation2020). Similarly, clients surveyed in another study agreed that the perceived physical distance makes it more comfortable for them to open up during the remote session (Ogueji et al., Citation2021).
Practitioners’ experiences
Logistical Advantages
Practitioners in five other studies highlighted the practical benefits (i.e., time & cost saving) brought forth by remote service delivery. Noting the reduced need for traveling (e.g., conducting home visits), the shift to remote platforms has allowed them to manage their time more meaningfully and to be more responsive to their clients’ needs. Practitioners interviewed in Ashcroft et al. (Citation2022) study added that these practical benefits translated into positive impacts on their well-being. Relatedly, two studies emphasized how remote practice has facilitated client engagement and accessibility to services, as the remote means helped bridge geographical, transportation and psychological barriers for particular groups of clients. Specifically, practitioners described the ways in which the transition to remote services increased access for clients residing in remote locations, and for clients who experience transportation issues, such as youth clients who rely on their parents or guardians for transport to attend face-to-face session (Mishna et al., Citation2021). Some practitioners also noted that clients who experienced anxiety found remote services to be more accessible and better suited to their circumstances (Mishna et al., Citation2021).
Sense of Comfort
Corroborating clients’ sentiments on the sense of comfort tied to remote platforms, practitioners surveyed in three studies shared observations of their clients presenting to be more comfortable and at ease as they were able to access session through platforms that were familiar or safe to them. For instance, practitioners who leveraged on social media platforms to engage remotely with their youth clients found that their clients were more receptive as their familiarity with social media helped them feel more open and comfortable (Rosenberg et al., Citation2021). In their work with survivors of domestic violence, the practitioners commented that the increased anonymity offered by remote services, especially telephone counseling, translated into greater comfort for the survivors as they could seek support in a way that is safest for them to share (Cortis et al., Citation2021).
Means of Empowerment
Four studies provided examples of how remote modalities can empower clients. Herein, the sense of empowerment was evident in how remote platforms created a shift in power balance by giving clients more options and greater ownership over selecting the platforms they prefer to initiate and seek support from their workers. For instance, Cook and Zschomler (Citation2020) reported that the indirect nature of asynchronous modes of communication, such as text messaging, increased the sense of control among clients, as they could take their time to respond to their workers, as opposed to the spontaneity of speech in face-to-face sessions. Additionally, some practitioners shared observations that the option to switch the camera on or off during remote sessions offered another means of empowerment of clients as they could choose how they wish to interact with their workers (Mishna et al., Citation2021). Findings from three studies further noted that the increased sense of empowerment and control associated with the features of the remote platforms helped enhance client openness and disinhibition to talk about issues that they did not feel comfortable discussing in a face-to-face setting.
Practice Enhancement
Practitioners in Smith and Gillon’s (Citation2021) study identified practice enhancement as another benefit of remote platforms. In addition to strengthening existing skills such as listening and attentiveness skills, the practitioners reported the development of new skills like reflective skills, which involves an increased self-awareness and ability to reflect on their experiences, thoughts, and feelings (Smith & Gillon, Citation2021). Explaining this, the practitioners shared that the lack of visual cues and physical connectedness in the remote space prompt them to reflect more deeply on their clients’ contexts, such as their mood during the session, and the quality of the therapeutic processes (Smith & Gillon, Citation2021). In doing so, the practitioners reported an enhancement in practice as their development of reflective skills enabled them to be more attuned to the remote sessions and helped strengthen the therapeutic communication, understanding, and relationship with their clients (Smith & Gillon, Citation2021). Practitioners in three studies further illustrated how the varied means via remote service delivery helped widen opportunities for service engagement. For example, Cook and Zschomler (Citation2020) highlighted the special features of asynchronous platforms in value-adding to traditional face-to-face service – following up with a text in between traditional sessions to bridge and maintain the therapeutic connection with clients.
Perceived challenges of remote service delivery
The sub-themes and codes related to clients’ and practitioners’ perceived challenges of remote service delivery are illustrated in .
Table 6. Thematic mapping: perceived challenges of remote service delivery.
Clients’ experiences
Logistical Limitations
Four studies identified various logistical limitations such as the lack of technological resources, limited Internet access, connectivity issues, and digital illiteracy, which hindered clients’ access to remote services. Certain barriers were found to be more salient for particular groups of clients, such as digital illiteracy among the elderly clients, high Internet charges, poor network coverage, and limited access to stable Internet services for those residing in rural and remote geographical regions. Ogueji et al. (Citation2021) and Wang et al. (Citation2021) further drew attention to the implications of digital illiteracy among clients, as they noted that the lack of digital-related knowledge and skills could heighten clients’ frustrations and thereby increases clients’ reluctance to utilize remote services.
Concerns about Safety and Risks
In Kysely et al. (Citation2020) study, clients surfaced concerns relating to their safety and confidentiality. While the clients did not experience safety concerns personally, they expressed concerns about the potential for volatile situations to escalate without the physical presence of the practitioner to provide timely intervention (Kysely et al., Citation2020). Across two studies, clients shared concerns about the safety of information exchanged during remote session and the risk of illegal recording of their sessions, which could compromise the confidentiality of their discussions. Clients surveyed in Ogueji et al. (Citation2021) study also cited the inability to find a private space as another threat to the confidentiality and privacy of the remote sessions.
Concerns about Practitioners’ Practice Challenges
In addition, three studies noted clients’ concerns about practitioners’ competency in delivering interventions via remote means. For instance, clients in two studies highlighted the lack of training and skills among their practitioners in navigating the nuances of remote services (Maier et al., Citation2021; Ogueji et al., Citation2021). Explaining this, clients in Maier et al. (Citation2021) study identified the lack of creative considerations among practitioners in addressing the logistical and distance limitations as another barrier in their remote service utilization experiences. Some clients also cited difficulties in rapport building as another practice challenge among practitioners and shared that it posed a hurdle to effective therapeutic outcomes and relationship (Kysely et al., Citation2020; Ogueji et al., Citation2021).
Practitioners’ experiences
Logistical Limitations
Majority of the studies (n = 11) attributed logistical limitations as the primary challenge toward effectiveness of remote service delivery. Reflecting upon their experiences of delivering remote services, practitioners in three of the studies were cognizant of the logistical barriers faced by their clients – high Internet cost, poor connectivity, limited digital skills and discomfort with technology.
Relatedly, seven studies acknowledged that these logistical barriers reflected wider and critical issues of the “digital divide” (i.e., discrepancies in skills, access to technology and resources) among vulnerable populations, which create technological challenges for various populations. For instance, Carrington et al. (Citation2021) highlighted the impact of geopolitical differences on the “digital divide,” as they found that issues like lack of poor Internet connectivity or coverage, particularly affected clients living in rural, regional, and remote communities. Ashcroft et al. (Citation2022) also noted that remote services created barriers for elderly clients who were digitally illiterate and for the homeless populations who lacked access to the technology required for remote services. Five studies shared similar observations about the likelihood of heightened challenges for certain clients due to their age group, accessibility, and presenting issues. Across three of these studies, practitioners agreed that children are harder to engage via remote service delivery, as they tended to be easily distracted and hence, are more suited to be engaged in-person. Carrington et al. (Citation2021) identified clients with disabilities as another vulnerable group as they found that the shift to remote platforms did not always adequately account for their disability or health condition. In the context of domestic violence, findings from four studies indicated that remote modes might not be suitable for victims of domestic violence, especially for those living with perpetuators of abuse, due to associated privacy (i.e., inability to find a private space) and safety (i.e., subjected to surveillance by perpetuators) concerns.
Practitioners themselves have also been affected by logistical limitations. Across three studies, issues relating to Internet connectivity and services were commonly cited by practitioners who were based in varying geographical regions, including urban, remote, and rural areas. Alston et al. (Citation2021) noted that these issues could be attributed to the reliance on satellite connections in rural and remote areas and the slow rollout of fiber connections to replace copper wire connections in urban settings. Further, Pascoe (Citation2021) and Smith and Gillon (Citation2021) contended that such technological limitations pose a major inhibition toward productive practitioners-clients communication as they affect the quality of the remote sessions and disrupt the therapy flow. Practitioners in three studies also identified the lack of technological support by their employers as another key hurdle, which impended their ability to transit effectively to remote services.
Practice Challenges
From the practitioners’ perspectives, remote service delivery has brought about challenges in conducting therapeutic work as indicated in nine studies. Practitioners in three studies shared similar concerns over the lack of training and possessing inadequate technological skills to undertake remote practice effectively. Although most practitioners lauded the use of technology as enabling them to adapt their service delivery to clients during the pandemic, some practitioners surfaced the need for training and upskilling as they revealed that it was their first time using remote technologies to deliver services, and hence, lacked the technical competency to navigate the remote space (Carrington et al., Citation2021). In their study, Barker and Barker (Citation2022) reported that less than a quarter of their sample had received training related to remote service delivery. The lack of training and prior experience created difficulties among the practitioners in assessing which of their clients was more effectively served with remote therapy than face-to-face interventions (Barker & Barker, Citation2022).
Other practice challenges identified include difficulties in rapport-building and risk assessment. In two studies, practitioners noted that the absence of non-verbal cues in the remote space made it difficult for them to read their clients’ body language and nuances in cues, which hindered the rapport-building process and therapeutic communication with their clients. Most importantly, findings from six studies indicated that practitioners’ capacity to make assessments with respect to risks, home conditions, safety, signs of abuse, and mental health were compromised in the remote space. Drawing upon their experiences of remotely supporting women who were experiencing domestic abuse during the pandemic, some practitioners shared that the loss of visual cues usually provided through face-to-face work had restricted their ability to conduct accurate assessment of their clients’ home environment and risk levels, as well as ascertain the safety and wellbeing of their clients (Pfitzner et al., Citation2022). Recognizing these challenges, many practitioners expressed a loss of control in managing risk-related situations remotely and highlighted a need for robust ethical guidelines to safeguard their clients’ safety (Smith & Gillon, Citation2021).
Practitioners in two studies also reported a loss of control over the remote therapeutic process as they shared that they were no longer able to control the environment and interactions with their clients as they would in face-to-face settings. Explaining this, some practitioners noted that clients can choose to disengage and “disconnect” from the remote space if they felt uncomfortable, thereby contributing to their perceived loss of control over the therapeutic process (Smith & Gillon, Citation2021).
Concerns about Clients’ Safety and Risks
Practitioners raised similar concerns over clients’ safety when utilizing remote services. Ten studies highlighted that remote service delivery may risk the privacy and confidentiality of clients when engaging in counseling process or risk assessment. For instance, researchers noted that some clients may not have the space and privacy at home to engage in the remote therapeutic process without distractions and interruptions, as the presence of their partner or children at home limited their freedom to share certain sensitive topics (Carrington et al., Citation2021; Cortis et al., Citation2021). In cases of domestic abuse, practitioners shared accounts of their clients being fearful about their phone calls being overheard and not having a private space to speak freely due to increased monitoring and surveillance by perpetuators at home (Cook & Zschomler, Citation2020). Practitioners also reported challenges in protecting their clients’ privacy and confidentiality due to possible security breaches and information mishandling over the Internet (Carrington et al., Citation2021). The challenges in ensuring privacy and confidentiality were observed to have led clients to reject remote spaces, exacerbating further challenges for practitioners to reach out to the clients or conduct accurate assessments of the clients’ predicament (Barker & Barker, Citation2022; Rosenberg et al., Citation2021; Smith & Gillon, Citation2021).
Concerns about Practitioners’ Well-being
Seven studies reported practitioners’ concerns about their well-being following the implementation of remote services during COVID-19. Practitioners in five studies elucidated the implications of remote services translating to longer working hours, increased workload, alongside a lack of organizational support. Relatedly, practitioners confided that remote service delivery increased feelings of isolation from their colleagues, and such feelings could potentially lead to burnout and fatigue (Alston et al., Citation2021; Carrington et al., Citation2021; Pascoe, Citation2021). Additionally, six studies identified practitioners’ challenges in drawing distinct boundaries between their professional and personal self when home becomes their workspace. Alston et al. (Citation2021) and Mishna et al. (Citation2021) further asserted that the blurring of personal-professional boundaries poses far wider implications on practitioners’ emotional well-being.
Discussion
This paper sets out to examine social work clients’ and professionals’ receptivity toward, as well as review their perceived advantages and challenges of remote service delivery during the context of COVID-19. A total of 17 studies were included in this systematic review.
Receptivity & preferences toward remote service delivery
The articles reviewed indicate that clients and practitioners are generally open and receptive toward remote service delivery. Supporting this, prior works found that many clients and therapists hold positive views toward online therapy (Cavanagh & Shapiro, Citation2004; Skinner & Latchford, Citation2006) and are willing to contemplate its use (Skinner & Latchford, Citation2006). Similar sentiments were also shared by other frontline professionals as they valued remote service delivery in facilitating continuity of services and interactions, especially with clients from vulnerable populations (Connolly et al., Citation2022).
Aligned with extant literature, the findings also revealed clients’ and practitioners’ beliefs and perceptions of remote modalities as major contributors toward their receptivity toward remote service delivery (Apolinário-Hagen et al., Citation2018; Bastemur & Bastemur, Citation2015). Several factors were found to shape these beliefs and perceptions. The results from this systematic review identified how prior negative experiences with technology and sense of comfort with face-to-face platforms contributed to practitioners’ resistance toward remote platforms. Supporting this, prior studies found that some practitioners may place high value on face-to-face communication and hence be more skeptical toward remote platforms, while others may be more comfortable working with clients from a distance, particularly when it comes to witnessing displays of emotion, and hence prefer remote practice (Conley Tyler & McPherson, Citation2006; Syme, Citation2004). Such experiences may be associated with one’s educational background or age, which influences their receptivity toward and confidence with navigating remote platforms (Syme, Citation2004). In addition, the findings of this review align with previous studies which have identified the novelty of remote practice as well as frequently cited ethical and logistical concerns as potential factors that contribute to preexisting negative attitudes, inaccurate expectations, and skepticism toward remote therapy (Apolinário-Hagen et al., Citation2018; Barak, Citation1999; Batterham & Calear, Citation2017; Crisp & Griffiths, Citation2014; S. A. King & Moreggi, Citation1998; Mar et al., Citation2014; Murphy & Mitchell, Citation1998). As such, recognizing and addressing these factors could be helpful in shaping a more positive attitude and greater receptivity toward remote practice among practitioners and clients.
Clients’ & practitioners’ perceived advantages and challenges
Findings from the 17 articles illuminated similarities and differences in clients’ and practitioners’ perceptions regarding their perceived advantages and challenges of remote service delivery.
Logistics considerations
Findings from this systematic review recognized the advantages of remote service delivery in eliminating traveling time and reducing transport costs, as well as in supporting specific populations in overcoming psychological, transport and physical barriers. These findings corroborate with previous studies, which highlighted the time- and cost-saving benefits associated with remote service delivery (Mallen et al., Citation2005, Citation2011; Rochlen, Beretvas, et al., Citation2004). Supporting the current findings, prior studies noted that remote practice helped enhance access for clients residing in rural or underserviced areas, clients living with social anxiety, clients who face language barriers or personal stigma in seeking help (Cwikel & Friedmann, Citation2019; Mishna et al., Citation2015; Rochlen, Beretvas, et al., Citation2004).
Notwithstanding the logistical advantages, researchers cautioned against a “one-size-fits-all” application of remote service delivery. As reflected in the findings from this systematic review, the appropriateness and suitability of both clients and practitioners for remote interventions present a critical consideration. In this context, suitability refers to the compatibility of clients and practitioners with the technology and resources required for remote service delivery. Evident in the review, disparities in digital access and literacy created an unintended logistical barrier for other vulnerable populations, such as the homeless population and elderly clients, in accessing remote services. This finding is aligned with prior work by Hopkins and Pedwell (Citation2021) who found that the move to remote sessions has emphasized clients’ divergent technological needs and digital divide. Their survey with clinicians revealed that the shift to online services had benefited clients with adequate technology access and digital literacy skills but excluded client populations who lacked digital access or digital literacy skills (Hopkins & Pedwell, Citation2021). The digital divide was found to be particularly pronounced among vulnerable groups such as lower socio-economic groups, and racial and ethnic minority groups (Hopkins & Pedwell, Citation2021; Pang et al., Citation2021). Consistent with current findings, researchers have also pointed out that geopolitical differences could exacerbate existing inequalities, with some regions or countries having limited availability of affordable digital services such as Internet access, software, or online subscriptions due to disparities in digital infrastructure, which further limits access to resources for clients from lower socio-economic backgrounds (Srinuan & Bohlin, Citation2011).
While some researchers have noted the benefits of remote service delivery for persons with disabilities (PWD) (Rochlen, Beretvas, et al., Citation2004), findings from our review and related body of literature identified the existence of a disability digital divide (Bunyi et al., Citation2021; Johansson et al., Citation2021; Pettersson et al., Citation2023). Despite the availability of assistive technology to facilitate digital access for PWD, they often face limitations in the range of options available and lack the necessary training, support, or assistance to use them effectively (Harris, Citation2014). Moreover, the wide variety of disabilities and distinct accessibility needs also meant that some PWD are excluded more than others (Dobransky & Hargittai, Citation2016). For instance, a recent study by Johansson et al. (Citation2021) found that individuals with intellectual, language-, and memory-related disabilities reported greater digital exclusion than individuals with visual impairments. This finding could be attributed to greater focus and efforts being placed on vision and other sensory impairments in guidelines, standards, and policies (Bunyi et al., Citation2021; Johansson et al., Citation2021). Hence, researchers have called for a more comprehensive and intersectional approach to addressing the disability digital access – one that considers the unique needs of individuals with various types of disabilities (Bunyi et al., Citation2021; Johansson et al., Citation2021).
Just as not every client is appropriate for remote services, the findings also reflect the importance of assessing practitioner’s suitability for remote practice. Corroborating previous research, the findings identified technical difficulties and inadequate equipment as major logistic barriers that bear impact on the quality of remote service delivery by practitioners (McBeath et al., Citation2020). However, even with the necessary equipment in place, the lack of proper technical training may lead to practitioners struggling to troubleshoot issues and navigate the remote platforms effectively, which can contribute to their discomfort with and affect their suitability for remote practice (Maurya et al., Citation2020; McBeath et al., Citation2020). Supporting the current findings, related studies have highlighted a lack of technical training among practitioners as a key issue (McCulloch et al., Citation2022). For instance, a survey of social work practitioners conducted by McCulloch et al. (Citation2022) found that many practitioners, especially newly qualified social workers, reported feeling unprepared for remote practice and indicated a need for additional training and support in this area. Therefore, it is essential to provide practitioners with the necessary support and training to navigate the technical aspects of remote practice and enhance their suitability for remote service delivery.
Taken collectively, the findings reinforce the need to consider one’s suitability and appropriateness for remote service delivery. Importantly, noting the need to maintain remote options beyond COVID-19, Bornheimer et al. (Citation2022) emphasized the urgency to review existing policies and supports in bridging the divide in digital access and skills among clients and practitioners.
Adaptive use of remote therapeutic space
Aside from logistic considerations, findings also revealed considerations about the adaptive creation and use of remote therapeutic space. Aligned with past studies, the findings indicated that remote space may offer unique advantages in creating a comfortable and non-threatening therapeutic space, which can facilitate positive outcomes (Barak & Grohol, Citation2011; Mohr et al., Citation2013). Moreover, the findings showed that the perceived physical distance and anonymity accorded by remote space holds the potential to empower clients to take greater ownership and control over their own care, as well as facilitate greater disinhibition to share. Likewise, this was found in past studies, where clients were seen to be less defensive when accessing remote space. Therefore, they may become more honest and comfortable to disclose plausibly embarrassing and stigmatizing information (Manhal-Baugus, Citation2001; Maples & Han, Citation2008).
Moreover, supporting the findings in this review, another study found that clients appreciated the flexibility and ownership given to them in selecting their preferred remote platforms, as well as the increased sense of control they felt through text-messaging, as they could take their time to craft, edit or even delete messages (Pang et al., Citation2021). Researchers further highlighted that such adaptive use of remote space reflects the value of client-centered care in social work practice as clients are empowered to take an active role in their care and access services that are catered to their individual needs and preferences (Simpson & Reid, Citation2014).
Nevertheless, ensuring the adaptive use of remote space involves the consideration of clients’ unique circumstances and needs. In line with prior studies, findings from this systematic review highlighted that some clients, especially victims of domestic violence, may not feel comfortable accessing remote service due to concerns about the perpetuator’s presence in the same home environment or their potential use of surveillance technologies (Banks et al., Citation2020; Bradbury-Jones et al., Citation2020; Garcia et al., Citation2022). Additionally, as cited in Carrington et al. (Citation2021) study, other factors such as the availability of childcare support need to be considered, as the presence of children potentially limit the space for clients to engage in remote session in a conducive and confidential manner (Mishna et al., Citation2014). In ensuring a client-centered approach, these findings underscore the need for practitioners to work collaboratively with clients to determine the best approach to remote therapy, including selecting appropriate technology and platforms that meet their needs and preferences (Pang et al., Citation2021).
Further, the findings highlighted the need for practitioners to be mindful of the potential ethical concerns associated with the use of adaptive remote space. Consistent with current findings, researchers have raised similar concerns regarding potential breach of confidentiality and privacy associated with remote service provision (Barney et al., Citation2020; Burgoyne & Cohn, Citation2020; Endale et al., Citation2020; Greenbaum, Citation2020; Langarizadeh et al., Citation2017; Looi & Pring, Citation2020). For instance, a study by Barney et al. (Citation2020) found that some clients were hesitant to disclose sensitive information due to privacy concerns, as they were unsure if the remote session was being recorded or if their information was being shared with others. Burgoyne and Cohn (Citation2020) similarly noted the potential for breaches in confidentiality and privacy when using remote technology, particularly when it comes to the storage and transmission of client information. Additionally, Langarizadeh et al. (Citation2017) pointed out the need to ensure that remote therapy adheres to ethical guidelines and standards, such as those related to informed consent and confidentiality, to ensure that clients’ rights and wellbeing are protected. Taken together, these studies highlight the importance of addressing ethical concerns related to adaptive remote space and implementing measures to ensure the privacy and confidentiality of clients’ information.
Practitioners’ well-being & self-care
The review has highlighted the unprecedented impact of work-from-home arrangements and remote service delivery on the well-being of practitioners. The struggles of remote work and its relative impact on practitioners’ self-care was a prominent theme among the review findings. Consistent with past studies, remote service delivery during the pandemic is noted to have brought upon unprecedented challenges to practitioners’ well-being such as the lack of access to available help, long working hours, fear of the disease, and lack of resources (Awang, Citation2020; Seng et al., Citation2021). McCulloch et al. (Citation2022) further added that these challenges reduced opportunities for practitioners to re-charge, reflect and receive support, thereby subjecting them to a heightened risk of burnout.
Amid such an unprecedented crisis, organizational support has been identified as a primary mitigating factor in easing psychological distress among social workers (Gillen et al., Citation2022; Sull et al., Citation2015). Indeed, researchers have called for greater recognition of practitioners’ struggles and emphasized the essential role that organizational and professional leadership plays in advocating for institutional changes to enhance and provide continued support for practitioners as they cope with the pandemic (Greenberg et al., Citation2020).
Enhance remote service delivery practices
A recurring theme among the findings points toward the need for support and training among practitioners in navigating remote space. Evident in the findings, the rapid transition to remote practices during the global pandemic had discounted the time needed for relevant technical training and support for some practitioners, thus contributing to haphazard implementation of remote services. Correspondingly, critics have highlighted that access and exposure to technology do not necessarily equate to one’s proficiency in digital skills (Wilson et al., Citation2017). The concept of “intraprofessional digital divide” introduced by Wolf and Goldkind (Citation2016) further emphasizes the disparity in digital proficiency among practitioners, as they observed that some practitioners may be more fluent with modern technology and digitally mediated practices than others. For instance, Maurya et al. (Citation2020) noted that social work practitioners who were new to remote practice often reported feeling overwhelmed by the technical aspects of providing remote services. They also noted that the adoption of technology was more likely among younger social workers, and that older social workers were more likely to experience difficulties in adopting new technologies (Maurya et al., Citation2020). These studies indicate that the “intraprofessional digital divide” is a real issue in social work, and that practitioners may benefit from targeted training and support to address this divide.
Concerns over practitioners’ clinical skills present another significant theme in the findings. Although some practitioners shared that their remote practice experiences had facilitated enhancement of specific skills such as attentiveness and reflective skills, challenges in assessment via remote space remain a major concern. Likewise, past studies documented practitioners’ anxiety surrounding remote management of risks cases, as the lack of cues constraints their ability to formulate accurate assessment of their clients’ risk levels (Marcelin et al., Citation2021). In fact, Carlbring and Andersson (Citation2006) advised against engaging in remote practice for clients who require immediate attention, such as those who are significantly depressed, who present with severe psychotic symptoms or with active suicidal ideation. Explaining this, Manhal-Baugus (Citation2001) noted that such crisis situations require quick responses and accurate assessment, which may not be addressed as appropriately via remote means due to possible lag time and absence of non-verbal cues. Despite these concerns, some studies have demonstrated ways in which practitioners have overcome challenges in risk assessments during remote social work practice. For instance, practitioners in Banks et al. (Citation2020) study shared how engaging in regular dialogs with their colleagues and managers allowed them to consolidate best practices and formulate workable guidelines for remote assessment. These findings indicate that with proper training and tools, social workers can overcome some of the challenges associated with risk assessment in remote practice.
Relatedly, the findings revealed various ways in which practitioners have injected creativity and versatility to enhance and adapt to the constraints of remote practice during the pandemic. These practices include the creative and successful use of social media platforms, online games, and screen-sharing activities, which have provided unprecedented opportunities to promote help-seeking behaviors and increase accessibility for groups that are rejecting conventional approaches such as the youth clients. Similarly, researchers found that the incorporation of expressive arts activities in remote therapy sessions with children and adolescents helped to facilitate engagement and improve treatment outcomes (Datlen & Pandolfi, Citation2020; Shaw, Citation2020). Gilat et al. (Citation2011) explained that certain groups who are already well versed in the digital realm may be more open and likely to form therapeutic relationships as it brings about feelings of ease and comfort for them. Practitioners have also incorporated other creative practices to overcome challenges in remote practice. One example would be the use of virtual reality technology simulation in preparing students and practitioners to conduct child welfare investigations (Barnes, Citation2023). The simulation allows participants to initiate virtual home visits, assess risks and symptoms of child maltreatment, and conduct interactive interviews, which helps to prepare and build their competency in navigating diverse arrays of interactions via the remote space (Barnes, Citation2023). While there remain limitations and concerns surrounding remote practice, these innovative strategies demonstrate the adaptability and versatility of practitioners in responding to the challenges of remote practice.
Implications
Findings from this paper highlighted the need for innovative solutions and practical considerations for ongoing remote service delivery.
Suitability for remote service delivery
The findings shed light on the importance of assessing and screening the suitability of practitioners and clients for remote service delivery. Based on the findings, practitioners’ preferences, as well as level of comfort toward technological proficiency and skills in remote practice stood out as important considerations in determining practitioners’ suitability for remote practice.
As the first step toward assessing practitioners’ suitability, practitioners can engage in self-reflection to evaluate their own comfort level, preferences, and skills in remote practice (American Psychological Association [APA], Citation2013). By reflecting on their own experiences with remote service delivery and assessing their technological proficiency, communication skills, and emotional skills, practitioners can identify areas for improvement and determine whether remote service delivery is a viable option for them. Moreover, professional organizations such as the American Psychological Association, National Association of Social Workers (NASW) and Association of Social Work Boards (ASWB) have developed guidelines and standards that can help practitioners assess their suitability for remote service delivery (APA, Citation2013; National Association of Social Workers & Association of Social Work Boards, Citation2005). These guidelines highlight the importance of evaluating practitioners’ competencies, training, and experience in remote service delivery. Organizations can also use these guidelines as a framework for evaluating practitioners’ suitability for remote service delivery and ensure that their practitioners are equipped to meet the needs of their clients in a remote setting.
Similarly, the current findings support several best practices for assessing clients’ suitability for remote service delivery. First, practitioners need to conduct a screening interview with clients to evaluate their level of comfort and proficiency with remote service delivery, as well as their access to the necessary technology and resources (S. A. King et al., Citation1998). Suler (Citation2001) proposed that a trial stage may be useful during the initial assessment process, allowing the practitioner and client to test out a particular modality together to determine its suitability. Adopting a client-centered approach, it is also important for practitioners to remain sensitive to clients’ needs and preferences, as well as any potential barriers or challenges that may arise during remote service delivery. By taking these factors into consideration, practitioners and clients can make informed decisions about whether remote service delivery is appropriate for them.
Essentially, in keeping with the scholarship of relevant studies, suitability of practitioners for remote practice involves their understanding of ethical considerations specific to remote practice (Pascoe, Citation2023; Reamer, Citation2013, Citation2018, Citation2020). Evident in the findings and related literature, it is important for practitioners to have clear and transparent policies in place regarding the use of technology, data security, and confidentiality to ensure that clients feel comfortable and safe participating in therapy remotely (APA, Citation2013; NASW & ASWB, Citation2005). In terms of obtaining informed consent, practitioners should also inform clients about the potential limitations of remote service delivery, including the potential impact on the therapeutic relationship and the possibility of technical difficulties or interruptions during sessions (Reamer, Citation2013; Rummell & Joyce, Citation2010). Practitioners should also stay relevant with evolving technologies and ethical guidelines for remote practice, and seek consultation or supervision when necessary to ensure that they are providing the highest quality of care to their clients (Pascoe, Citation2023; Reamer, Citation2013, Citation2020). By considering these ethical considerations and taking appropriate steps to address them, practitioners can ensure that remote service delivery is a safe and effective option for their clients.
Equity and access
The transition to remote spaces presents an opportunity to improve access to support and engagement for vulnerable populations, such as the homeless populations, elderly, children, PWD, clients from minority, and lower socio-economic groups. However, practitioners must be mindful of the “digital divide” that can arise due to social inequity (Lazarus & Mora, Citation2000).
To bridge the “digital divide,” practitioners must take a proactive and inclusive approach. This may involve providing devices, such as laptops or tablets, to clients who lack access to suitable devices (Berzin et al., Citation2015; Feijt et al., Citation2020). Practitioners can also consider a range of options for remote engagement, such as alternative remote platforms that work with lower bandwidths, such as e-mail or text messaging, to ensure that clients with limited Internet access can still access services (Berzin et al., Citation2015). Addressing affordability barriers to technology access constitutes another important area of intervention. Practitioners can identify affordable Internet and device options for low-income clients or connect them with government programs that offer subsidies or free devices and Internet access (Berzin et al., Citation2015). Additionally, practitioners can collaborate with community organizations, like local libraries, community centers, and schools, to provide technology resources and technical training to clients who lack technological skills and confidence (Berzin et al., Citation2015; Feijt et al., Citation2020; Gibson et al., Citation2020).
Furthermore, practitioners should adopt technology solutions that are accessible and inclusive for PWD. This is crucial as PWD faces a higher risk of being left behind in the transition to remote spaces (Manzoor & Vimarlund, Citation2018; Raja, Citation2016). Research has shown that PWD may require different technological solutions, such as text messaging, telephones, or e-mails, to suit their functionality (Manzoor & Vimarlund, Citation2018; Raja, Citation2016). To ensure accessibility for PWD, practitioners should consider the use of assistive technologies and accessibility settings. For example, accessibility settings like text-to-speech and voice-overs can improve communication for people with hearing disabilities (Bhowmick & Hazarika, Citation2017). Also, in ensuring that practitioners’ technological solutions remain accessible and inclusive for PWD, it is crucial that practitioners seek regular feedback from PWD as well as stay relevant with assistive technology advancements (Manzoor & Vimarlund, Citation2018).
Advocacy is another crucial aspect in bridging the gaps in social equity. Practitioners can work to raise awareness of the “digital divide” and the barriers that vulnerable populations face in accessing technology and remote services (Lazarus & Mora, Citation2000). This can include advocating for Internet access in underserved communities and policies that promote digital inclusion. Noting the disability digital divide, practitioners can also engage in advocacy efforts to ensure that technology solutions are inclusive and accessible for PWD, such as advocating for the development of accessibility standards for remote platforms, and for the inclusion of accessibility features in new technology developments (Raja, Citation2016). Additionally, practitioners can advocate for the use of inclusive language and imagery in remote communication materials, to ensure that everyone feels welcome and included in the remote space (Raja, Citation2016).
Creating supports for practitioners’ well-being
Although remote modalities have allowed practitioners to continue rendering therapeutic services to their clients, the associated job demands also place practitioners at risk of burnout. It, therefore, becomes of paramount importance to raise awareness of and bolster support to enhance practitioners’ well-being amid the remote transitions. Researchers suggested the need to explore how the ergonomic strain and experienced workload of conducting frequent and prolonged remote sessions can be alleviated through improved interface design, workflow integration, and organizational support (Feijt et al., Citation2020). Aligned with the findings from Cook and Zschomler (Citation2020) study, Davidson and Harrison (Citation2020) identified informal supports by colleagues as a key factor in promoting social workers’ well-being during COVID-19 and in mediating the sense of isolation and loneliness associated with the nature of remote work arrangement. Therefore, organizations can look into creating opportunities to bridge the physical distance and strengthen connections among practitioners, such as through virtual check-ins. The provision of accessible supervision presents another pertinent source of organizational support. The current climate of remote and even hybrid work arrangement outlines the importance of flexibility in co-creating spaces for timely and accessible supervisory support (Cheatham & Smith, Citation2021). This includes agreeing to a framework to manage informal check-ins, online office hours, and ways to contact supervisors for emergency case discussions, while working remotely (Collins et al., Citation2016).
Enhancements to remote practices
Findings emphasize the need to troubleshoot practitioners’ access to technology, technological resources, and greater training to improve practitioners’ skills and capacity in remote engagement, assessment, and intervention. To begin with, Ashcroft et al. (Citation2022) aptly asserted that the commitment by policymakers and organizations is essential in aligning practice innovation through technology. Supporting this notion, researchers contended that these major stakeholders need to be cognizant of their role in ensuring practitioners’ access to fundamental infrastructure and digital resources such as stable Internet access and gadgets to support transitions to the remote spaces (Baykal, Citation2020; Lints-Martindale et al., Citation2018).
In addition to the provision of the necessary resources, technical training for practitioners is essential to ensure their ability to navigate the remote space effectively (Gilkey et al., Citation2009; Proudfoot, Citation2004; Rochlen, Beretvas, et al., Citation2004; Santhiveeran, Citation2009; Ybarra & Eaton, Citation2005). According to Cwikel and Friedmann (Citation2019), key competencies in the context of technical training include the accessibility and knowledge of hardware and software platforms, administrative use of online documents, ability to troubleshoot technical issues related to Internet connectivity, hardware malfunctions, and awareness of assistive technology and accessibility features. Importantly, in bridging the “intraprofessional digital divide,” practitioners can engage in collaborative learning and knowledge sharing to improve their digital literacy and technology skills. One approach is to establish peer networks or communities of practice, where practitioners can share best practices, strategies, and resources related to digital engagement and intervention (Banks & Rutter, Citation2022; Kong et al., Citation2021). These networks can provide opportunities for practitioners to learn from each other and develop a shared understanding of digital practice. As an ongoing effort, practitioners should also engage in self-directed learning by exploring digital resources and tools on their own and seeking out opportunities to experiment with new technologies in their work. This can involve learning from online tutorials, testing out new tools and platforms, and reflecting on their experiences to identify areas for growth and improvement (Anthony, Citation2015).
To support effective clinical engagement, training in risk assessment is an essential component of remote practice, as practitioners must be able to identify potential risks and take appropriate action to ensure client safety. Practitioners need to develop a comprehensive understanding of the risk factors associated with remote practice, such as the potential for miscommunication or the lack of physical proximity and take active steps to mitigate these risks through clear communication, frequent check-ins, and appropriate referrals when necessary (Merrill et al., Citation2022). Practitioners should also be prepared to adapt their assessment and intervention strategies to address the unique challenges and opportunities of the remote context, such as tapping on virtual tools and platforms to conduct assessments and deliver interventions (Merrill et al., Citation2022). One example of best practices in remote risk assessment is the use of standardized assessment tools that have been adapted for remote use. For example, the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) and the Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item (GAD-7) scale can both be administered remotely through video conferencing platforms or secure online portals (Petri et al., Citation2023). To further improve risk assessment and response protocols in remote practice, practitioners should engage in regular supervision and case consultation to receive feedback and guidance on their assessment and intervention plans (Buzzi et al., Citation2020). This can involve seeking consultation from colleagues or supervisors who have experience in remote practice, as well as participating in peer supervision or group consultation sessions (Banks et al., Citation2020; Reamer, Citation2013). Additionally, practitioners should ensure that they keep abreast of research and best practices related to remote practice and risk assessment by attending relevant training or continuing education opportunities (Anthony, Citation2015).
Ethics training is another important component of remote practice, as it helps practitioners to navigate the unique ethical challenges that can arise in the remote context. As reflected in the findings, this can include issues related to confidentiality, informed consent, and privacy, as well as concerns about the use of technology and the potential for miscommunication or misunderstanding. Ethics training can provide practitioners with a framework for addressing these issues and can help them to develop the skills and knowledge necessary to maintain ethical standards in their remote practice (Hilty et al., Citation2018). Additionally, ongoing ethics training can help practitioners keep up with changes in legal and regulatory requirements related to remote practice, as well as evolving best practices for ethical conduct in the field (Hilty et al., Citation2018).
From an educational point of view, advocates further urged for the training in the delivery of remote services to be included as part of core training for post-graduates, and possibly even undergraduates (Richards & Viganó, Citation2013). According to Anthony (Citation2015), the huge rise in remote support, therapy, and coaching – whether via telephone, e-mail, videoconferencing, or any combination of those and more – demonstrates what a huge responsibility the social work profession has in ensuring our profession has kept pace with the client. Social work education thus plays a critical role in preparing practitioners to effectively deliver remote services and respond to the unique challenges and opportunities of the remote context (Anthony, Citation2015). By incorporating training on the use of technology, ethical considerations, and risk assessment and management in remote practice, practitioners can be better equipped with the knowledge and skills they need to provide high-quality services to clients via remote platforms (Richards & Viganó, Citation2013).
Importantly, remote service delivery remains a possible mainstay for the foreseeable future. As practitioners’ digital skill sets improve and their remote experiences diversify, the acceptability and use of remote practice may evolve toward more blended forms (Anthony, Citation2015; Situmorang, Citation2020). In fact, practitioners argued that promoting a hybrid approach is crucial and relevant in all fields of social work practice, and that remote service delivery cannot fully replace face-to-face interactions in promoting effective and efficient practices (Pink et al., Citation2022). Instead of creating alternative solutions to face-to-face delivery, one should utilize remote service delivery to supplement and increase existing possibilities with the service users (Hennigan, Citation2018; Pink et al., Citation2022; Ritterband et al., Citation2003). Studies proposed that practitioners can employ remote practice with a hybrid approach for increased flexibility (Erbe et al., Citation2017; Pink et al., Citation2022). For instance, a client can receive both in-person and remote services throughout the therapeutic process, depending on their needs and preferences. In some cases, it was noted that hybrid practices have dissipated practitioners’ anxieties over the lack of access to certain clients as certain elements of the cases were strategically addressed by remote means while the others via face-to-face means (Pink et al., Citation2022). Nevertheless, further research is necessary to generate guidance on how and when to best integrate different technologies and modalities.
Limitations
This paper has several limitations. Firstly, the selected studies that contributed to the systematic review are sourced primarily from two databases, Google Scholar and EBSCO database. As such, the authors are mindful that there might be other relevant studies that exist outside of the scope of this search. Nonetheless, by utilizing a wide variation of possible key words in the remote service delivery terminology, it is hoped that the possibilities for inclusion of the relevant studies were expanded in the process.
Next, this systematic review included only published articles and articles in English language during the search process. Such methods run the risk of overlooking possible insights from unpublished manuscripts, dissertations, or other relevant studies. Additionally, the search process might have neglected a handful of relevant studies that might have included “social worker” but was not explicitly illustrated in the published manuscripts. Regardless, the authors believed that the search process has attempted to balance the capacity to maximize the relevant articles in view of the limited resources and time.
Third, most of the selected studies are observed to detail remote practices in non-Asian countries. It is noted that remote service delivery can vary greatly across different regions and countries, and that cultural, geographical, and socio-economic factors can all play a role in shaping service delivery (Simpson & Reid, Citation2014). For instance, cultural norms, beliefs, and values can shape how individuals and communities perceive and engage with remote services (Simpson & Reid, Citation2014). As such, while the selected studies may provide valuable insights into remote practices, it is crucial to consider the context in which these practices are being implemented and adapt them accordingly to meet the specific needs and challenges of different communities and regions.
In addition, it is important to acknowledge that the studies included in this review covered a diverse range of social work practices, including areas such as marital work, domestic violence, school interventions, and mental health. The review also examined various modes and types of remote services, while identifying the potential use of hybrid modes that combine both remote and face-to-face interactions. However, the highly disparate settings, populations, and remote modalities reported on in this review make it challenging to draw generalizable conclusions about the effectiveness of remote service delivery, especially given the context of cultural/geopolitical differences within the sample and the importance of considering population characteristics for intervention suitability. Further research is thus needed to better understand which types of remote interventions work best for which populations, and under what circumstances. Nevertheless, the wide range of benefits reported across studies demonstrates the potentially dynamic role that technology can play as the primary mode of delivery or as a feature supporting a larger intervention.
Finally, while the authors attempted to incorporate the perspectives of both clients and practitioners in this review, the majority (n = 13) of the selected studies primarily focused on the perspectives of the practitioners. The limited inclusion of clients’ perspectives, particularly those who face barriers to accessing remote social services, may have been an unavoidable limitation due to the challenges of conducting research during the COVID-19 pandemic. Researchers may have also faced difficulties in reaching out to prospective clients who are harder to reach, thus resulting in a more practitioner-focused perspective in the selected studies. However, this practitioner-focused perspective potentially limits our understanding of the effectiveness and appropriateness of remote service delivery from the clients’ point of view. As social work practice places a strong emphasis on client-centered approaches that value clients’ dignity, diversity, and social justice (Singapore Association of Social Workers, Citation2016), it is essential to include clients’ perspectives in evaluating the effectiveness and ethical considerations surrounding remote service delivery. The differences in how practitioners and clients perceive the effectiveness of remote service delivery (Ricciardelli et al., Citation2022) further reinforce the importance of incorporating clients’ perspectives and voices. Therefore, prioritizing the inclusion of clients’ perspectives in research is crucial to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the effectiveness, ethical considerations, and potential barriers of remote service delivery.
Recommendations for future research
Prior to COVID-19, there have been a lack of evidence-based practice and a general lack of emphasis on remote service delivery in the social service sector (Mishna et al., Citation2014, Citation2022). The findings indicated that the pandemic has brought upon a paradigm shift in the ways services are delivered. Research is needed to explore the prevalence and effectiveness of not only remote modes, but hybrid modes of service delivery.
Relatedly, it will be critical to examine the suitability of clients for different modes of service delivery, considering how the use of remote modes has differential impacts on different clients. It is incumbent on social service to evaluate best practices for different demographic groups (e.g., age, race/ethnicity, religion, gender, socioeconomic status) and different presenting needs (e.g., financial insecurity, financial anxiety) (Wallin et al., Citation2018).
Based on the findings of our review, it is also noteworthy to consider how people with different disabilities might present with diverse considerations when evaluating the effectiveness of remote service delivery. As such, future research should consider the suitability and accessibility of remote service delivery for clients from diverse backgrounds and with varying needs.
On an ongoing basis, there is a need for future research to consider the evolving needs of social work practice in recognition of the significant transitions experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic. Taking a broader lens, it is important to evaluate the past and current efforts of institutional policies and practices, and their impact on social work practice. This line of research is instrumental in ensuring that social work practice remains responsive to current and new trends, thereby promoting the goodness-of-fit between the delivery of social work services and wider societal environment. Informing institutional changes to advance social work practice is a necessary endeavor, since the profession contributes tremendously to the fabric of societal functioning and ensures continuity of care across community and generations.
Conclusion
The unprecedented shift to remote service delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic has brought about varying changes to the work arrangement and work-life balance amongst practitioners, alongside implications for the therapeutic interaction between practitioners and clients. Our review provides evidence that remote service delivery holds the potential to increase access to services among selected client populations, as well as promote a sense of empowerment for clients and opportunities for practice enhancement for practitioners. Nevertheless, the findings from our study also outline various key considerations relating to remote practice, including the careful considerations of both social work clients’ and practitioners’ suitability, the need for provision of training and ongoing support to optimize practitioners’ well-being. As services transition to face-to-face or remain remote, further study is needed to assess the promise of remote service delivery in optimizing overall service delivery, while maintaining client-reported satisfaction.
Author contributions
Aw Chin Bee and Chuah Xing Jun equally contributed to the study conception and design, data analysis, and the writing of the manuscript. Professor Satvinder Singh Dhaliwal, Khalisah Binte Samsuri, and Ong Pei Ni reviewed, edited and provided constructive feedback for improving the manuscript.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the authors’ agency, AMKFSC Community Services Ltd. We would also like to thank Sean Loh Ren Zuo and Carlene Tan for their assistance in screening the literature and organizing the extracted data.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Correction Statement
This article has been corrected with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.
Additional information
Funding
References
- AlAteeq, D. A., Aljhani, S., & Althumiri, N. (2020). The effectiveness of remote communication technologies in supporting mental health services during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Taibah University Medical Sciences, 15(4), 305–311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtumed.2020.07.004
- Al-Habaibeh, A., Watkins, M., Waried, K., & Javareshk, M. B. (2021). Challenges and opportunities of remotely working from home during COVID-19 pandemic. Global Transitions, 3, 99–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.glt.2021.11.001
- Alston, M., Irons, K., Adamson, C., Boddy, J., Fronek, P., Briggs, L., Hay, K., Howard, A., Rowlands, A., Hazeleger, T., & Foote, W. (2021). Australian and New Zealand social workers adjusting to the COVID-19 pandemic. British Journal of Social Work, 52(4), 1859–1877. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcab163
- American Psychological Association. (2013). Guidelines for the practice of telepsychology. American Psychologist, 68(9), 791–800. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035001
- Anthony, K. (2015). Training therapists to work effectively online and offline within digital culture. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 43(1), 36–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/03069885.2014.924617
- Apolinário-Hagen, J., Harrer, M., Kählke, F., Fritsche, L., Salewski, C., & Ebert, D. D. (2018). Public attitudes toward guided internet-based therapies: Web-based survey study. JMIR Mental Health, 5(2), e10735. https://doi.org/10.2196/10735
- Ashcroft, R., Sur, D., Greenblatt, A., & Donahue, P. (2022). The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on social workers at the frontline: A survey of Canadian social workers. The British Journal of Social Work, 52(3), 1724–1746. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcab158
- Awang, N. (2020, August 20). Singaporean working from home more stressed out than frontliners: Survey. Today. https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/singaporeans-working-home-more-stressed-out-frontliners-survey
- Banks, S., Cai, T., de Jonge, E., Shears, J., Shum, M., Sobocan, A., Strom, K., Truell, R., Uriz, M., & Weinberg, M. (2020). Practicing ethically during COVID-19: Social work challenges and responses. International Social Work, 63(5), 569–583. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020872820949614
- Banks, S., & Rutter, N. (2022). Pandemic ethics: Rethinking rights, responsibilities and roles in social work. The British Journal of Social Work, 52(6), 3460–3479. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcab253
- Barak, A. (1999). Psychological applications on the internet: A discipline on the threshold of a new millennium. Applied and Preventive Psychology, 8(4), 231–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0962-1849(05)80038-1
- Barak, A., & Grohol, J. M. (2011). Current and future trends in internet-supported mental health interventions. Journal of Technology in Human Services, 29(3), 155–196. https://doi.org/10.1080/15228835.2011.616939
- Barker, G. G., & Barker, E. E. (2022). Online therapy: Lessons learned from the COVID-19 health crisis. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 50(1), 66–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/03069885.2021.1889462
- Barnes, C. C. (2023, February 15). UK social work launches virtual reality child welfare investigation simulation. UKNow. http://uknow.uky.edu/research/uk-social-work-launches-virtual-reality-child-welfare-investigation-simulation
- Barney, A., Buckelew, S., Mesheriakova, V., & Raymond-Flesch, M. (2020). The COVID-19 pandemic and rapid implementation of adolescent and young adult telemedicine: Challenges and opportunities for innovation. Journal of Adolescent Health, 67(2), 164–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2020.05.006
- Bastemur, S., & Bastemur, E. (2015). Technology based counseling: Perspectives of Turkish counselors. Procedia-Social & Behavioral Sciences, 176, 431–438. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.493
- Batterham, P., & Calear, A. (2017). Preferences for internet-based mental health interventions in an adult online sample: Findings from an online community survey. JMIR Mental Health, 4(2), e26. https://doi.org/10.2196/mental.7722
- Baykal, E. (2020). Effects of resilience on life satisfaction among employees during COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Cyprus Studies, 21(46), 1–14.
- Berzin, S. C., Singer, J., & Chan, C. (2015). Practice innovation through technology in the digital age: A grand challenge for social work.
- Bhowmick, A., & Hazarika, S. M. (2017). An insight into assistive technology for visually-impaired and blind people: State of the art and future trends. Journal of Multimodel User Interface, 11(2), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12193-016-0235-6
- Boahen, G. (2020). COVID-19: Using digital technology in relationship-based practice to bridge the gap in social distancing. Social Care Institute for Excellence. https://www.scie.org.uk/care-providers/coronavirus-covid-19/blogs/covid-digital-technology
- Bornheimer, L. A., Li Verdugo, J., Holzworth, J., Smith, F. N., & Himle, J. A. (2022). Mental health provider perspectives of the COVID-19 pandemic impact on service delivery: A focus on challenges in remote engagement, suicide risk assessment, and treatment of psychosis. BMC Health Services Research, 22(1), 718. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-022-08106-y
- Bradbury-Jones, C., Isham, L., & Rabiee, F. (2020). The pandemic paradox: The consequences of COVID-19 on domestic violence. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 29(13–14), 2047–2049. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.15296
- Bryant, L., Garnham, B., Tedmanson, D., & Diamandi, S. (2018). Tele-social work and mental health in rural and remote communities in Australia. International Social Work, 61(1), 143–155. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020872815606794
- Bunyi, G. M., Okaka, O., & Oluka, O. N. (2021). Towards inclusive online education: Exploring challenges and opportunities for learners with disabilities in Kenya. Education and Information Technologies, 26(3), 3013–3033.
- Burgoyne, N., & Cohn, A. S. (2020). Lessons from the transition to relational teletherapy during COVID‐19. Family Process, 59(3), 974–988. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12589
- Buzzi, P., Megele, C., Blackmore, S., Coxon, E., Timms, L., McGee, P., Tyrell, R., & Nichols, S. (2020). The psfsw & social work England best practice guide for risk assessment and prioritizing children and families’ needs during pandemic. https://whatworks-csc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/PSW-and-SWE-Best-Practice-Guide-for-Prioritizing-Children-and-Families-Needs-and-Risks-20200505-2.pdf
- Carlbring, P., & Andersson, G. (2006). Internet and psychological treatment. How well can they be combined? Computers in Human Behavior, 22(3), 545–553. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2004.10.009
- Carrington, K., Morley, C., Warren, S., Ryan, V., Ball, M., Clarke, J., & Vitis, L. (2021). The impact of COVID‐19 pandemic on Australian domestic and family violence services and their clients. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 56(4), 539–558. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajs4.183
- Cavanagh, K., & Shapiro, D. (2004). Computer treatment for common mental health problems. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 60(3), 239–251. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.10261
- Cheatham, L. P., & Smith, S. (2021). Digital supervision during the COVID-19 pandemic: Tips, tools, and techniques for social work field education. Journal of Social Work Education, 57(3), 525–534. https://doi.org/10.1080/10437797.2021.1876048
- Collins, A. M., Hislop, D., & Cartwright, S. (2016). Social support in the workplace between teleworkers, office-based colleagues and supervisors. New Technology, Work and Employment, 31(2), 161–175. https://doi.org/10.1111/ntwe.12065
- Conley Tyler, M. H., & McPherson, M. W. (2006). Online dispute resolution and family disputes. Journal of Family Studies, 12(2), 165–183. https://doi.org/10.5172/jfs.327.12.2.165
- Connolly, S. L., Miller, C. J., Gifford, A. L., & Charness, M. E. (2022). Perceptions and use of telehealth among mental health, primary, and specialty care clinicians during the COVID-19 pandemic. JAMA Network Open, 5(6), e2216401–e2216401. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.16401
- Connolly, S. L., Miller, C. J., Lindsay, J. A., & Bauer, M. S. (2020). A systematic review of providers’ attitudes toward telemental health via videoconferencing. Clinical Psychology: A Publication of the Division of Clinical Psychology of the American Psychological Association, 27(2), 27(2). https://doi.org/10.1111/cpsp.12311.10.1111/cpsp.12311
- Cook, L. L., & Zschomler, D. (2020). Virtual home visits during the COVID-19 pandemic: Social workers’ perspectives. Practice, 32(5), 401–408. https://doi.org/10.1080/09503153.2020.1836142
- Cortis, N., Smyth, C., Valentine, K., Breckenridge, J., & Cullen, P. (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
- Crisp, D. A., & Griffiths, K. M. (2014). Participating in online mental health interventions: Who is most likely to sign up and why? Depression Research and Treatment, 2014(790457), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/790457
- Cudjoe, E., & Abdullah, A. (2020). Drawing on kinship care support for older people during a pandemic (COVID-19): Practice considerations for social workers in Ghana. Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 63(4), 254–256. https://doi.org/10.1080/01634372.2020.1758271
- Cwikel, J., & Friedmann, E. (2019). E-therapy and social work practice: Benefits, barriers, and training. International Social Work, 63(6), 730–745. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020872819847747
- Datlen, G. W., & Pandolfi, C. (2020). Developing an online art therapy group for learning disabled young adults using WhatsApp. International Journal of Art Therapy, 25(4), 192–201. https://doi.org/10.1080/17454832.2020.1845758
- Davidson, D., & Harrison, G. (2020). Heard but not seen – exploring youth. Aotearoa New Zealand Social Work, 31(1), 73–85. https://doi.org/10.11157/anzswj-vol32iss1id708
- Dobransky, K., & Hargittai, E. (2016). Inequality in digital skills and the emergence of new forms of digital inequality. Sociology Compass, 10(4), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12371
- Endale, T., St Jean, N., & Birman, D. (2020). COVID-19 and refugee and immigrant youth: A community-based mental health perspective. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, & Policy, 12(S1), S225. https://doi.org/10.1037/tra0000875
- Erbe, D., Eichert, H., Riper, H., & Ebert, D. D. (2017). Blending face-to-face and internet-based interventions for the treatment of mental disorders in adults: Systematic review. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 19(9), e306. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.6588
- Ersahin, Z., & Hanley, T. (2017). Using text-based synchronous chat to offer therapeutic support to students: A systematic review of the research literature. Health Education Journal, 76(5), 531–543. https://doi.org/10.1177/0017896917704675
- Farkas, K. J., & Romaniuk, J. R. (2020). Social work, ethics and vulnerable groups in the time of coronavirus and COVID-19. Society Register, 4(2), 67–82. https://doi.org/10.14746/sr.2020.4.2.05
- Feijt, M., de Kort, Y., Bongers, I., Bierbooms, J., Westerink, J., & IJsselsteijn, W. (2020). Mental health care goes online: Practitioners’ experiences of providing mental health care during the COVID-19 pandemic. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 23(12), 860–864. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2020.0370
- Fuller, V. (2022). The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on social workers’ ability to provide services. [ Graduate Dissertation, California State University].
- Galea, S., Merchant, R. M., & Lurie, N. (2020). The mental health consequences of COVID-19 and physical distancing: The need for prevention and early intervention. JAMA Internal Medicine, 180(6), 817–818. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.1562
- Garcia, R., Henderson, C., Randell, K., Villaveces, A., Katz, A., Abioye, F., DeGue, S., Premo, K., Miller-Wallfish, S., Chang, J. C., Miller, E., & Ragavan, M. I. (2022). The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on intimate partner violence advocates and agencies. Journal of Family Violence, 37(6), 893–906. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-021-00337-7
- Gibson, A., Bardach, S. H., & Pope, N. D. (2020). COVID-19 and the digital divide: Will social workers help bridge the gap? Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 63(6–7), 671–673. https://doi.org/10.1080/01634372.2020.1772438
- Gilat, I., Tobin, Y., & Shahar, G. (2011). Offering support to suicidal individuals in an online support group. Archives of Suicide Research, 15(3), 195–206. https://doi.org/10.1080/13811118.2011.589675
- Gilkey, S. N. L., Carey, J., & Wade, S. L. (2009). Families in crisis: Considerations for the use of web-based treatment models in family therapy. Families in Society, 90(1), 37–45. https://doi.org/10.1606/1044-3894.3843
- Gillen, P., Neill, R. D., Manthorpe, J., Mallett, J., Schroder, H., Nicholl, P., Currie, D., Moriarty, J., Ravalier, J., McGrory, S., & McFadden, P. (2022). Decreasing wellbeing and increasing use of negative coping strategies: The effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on the UK health and social care workforce. Epidemiologia, 3(1), 26–39. https://doi.org/10.3390/epidemiologia3010003
- Glauser, W. (2020). Virtual care is here to stay, but major challenges remain. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 192(30), E868–9. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.1095884
- Greenbaum, Z. (2020). How well is telepsychology working. Monitor on Psychology, 51(5), 46–51.
- Greenberg, N., Docherty, M., Gnanapragasam, S., & Wessely, S. (2020). Managing mental health challenges faced by healthcare workers during COVID-19 pandemic. BMJ, 368(m1211), m1211. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m1211
- Harris, B. (2014). Digital divides and social inclusion for people with disabilities: Technology push, policy pull, and disabling practices. The Information Society, 30(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/01972243.2013.856721
- Hennigan, J. (2018). Online counselling in schools as an additional option to face-to-face provision: Exploration of pupils’ experiences and comparison of effectiveness of working in different mediums. [ Doctoral thesis], Middlesex University – Metanoia Institute. Middlesex University Research Repository. https://eprints.mdx.ac.uk/26356/
- Hilty, D. M., Turvey, C., & Hwang, T. (2018). Lifelong learning for clinical telehealth: A review. Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 38(3), 197–204. https://doi.org/10.1097/CEH.0000000000000217
- Hopkins, L., & Pedwell, G. (2021). The COVID pivot – re-orienting child and youth mental health care in the light of pandemic restrictions. Psychiatric Quarterly, 92(3), 1259–1270. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11126-021-09909-8
- Johansson, S., Gulliksen, J., & Gustavsson, C. (2021). Disability digital divide: The use of the internet, smartphones, computers and tablets among people with disabilities in Sweden. Universal Access in the Information Society, 20(1), 105–120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-020-00714-x
- King, R., Bambling, M., Lloyd, C., Gomurra, R., Smith, S., & Reid, W. (2006). Online counselling: An examination of synchronous and asynchronous counselling methods. Counselling & Psychotherapy Research, 6(2), 68–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/14733140600848179
- King, S. A., Engi, S., & Poulos, S. T. (1998). Using the internet to assist family therapy. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 26(1), 43–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/03069889808253837
- King, S. A., & Moreggi, D. (1998). Internet therapy and self-help groups—the pros and cons. In J. Gackenbach (Ed.), Psychology and the internet: Intrapersonal, interpersonal, and transpersonal implications (pp. 77–109). Academic Press.
- Kong, S. T., Noone, C., Quintana, A., Pharoah, C., Wills, D., Shears, J., Sildatke, K., Roberts, W., Thanki, V., Stepanova, E., Charnley, H., Smith, R., Banks, S., & Hawkes, S. (2021). Social work during COVID-19: Learning for the future challenges, best practice and professional transformation. British Association of Social Workers.
- Krist, A. H., DeVoe, J. E., Cheng, A., Ehrlich, T., & Jones, S. M. (2020). Redesigning primary care to address the COVID-19 pandemic in the midst of the pandemic. The Annals of Family Medicine, 18(4), 349–354. https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.2557
- Kysely, A., Bishop, B. J., Kane, R., Cheng, M., De Palma, M., & Rooney, R. M. (2020). Expectations and experiences of couples receiving therapy through videoconferencing: A qualitative study. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2992. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02992
- Langarizadeh, M., Tabatabaei, M. S., Tavakol, K., Naghipour, M., Rostami, A., & Moghbeli, F. (2017). Telemental health care, an effective alternative to conventional mental care: A systematic review. Acta Informatica Medica: AIM: Journal of the Society for Medical Informatics of Bosnia & Herzegovina: Casopis Drustva Za Medicinsku Informatiku Bih, 25(4), 240–246. https://doi.org/10.5455/aim.2017.25.240-246
- Lazarus, I. R., & Mora, M. T. (2000). Technological considerations in social work ethics. Social Work, 45(1), 63–71. https://doi.org/10.1093/sw/45.1.63
- Lints-Martindale, A., Carlson, A. A., Goodwin, S. L., & Thompson, S. (2018). Putting recommendations into practice: Improving psychological services in rural and northern Canada. Canadian Psychology / Psychologie Canadienne, 59(4), 323–331. https://doi.org/10.1037/cap0000158
- Lombardi, B. M., Zerden, L. D. S., & Thyberg, C. (2022). Social work answers the (video) call: Tele-behavioral health use during COVID-19. Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research, 13(1), 67–87. https://doi.org/10.1086/715621
- Looi, J. C. L., & Pring, W. (2020). Private metropolitan telepsychiatry in Australia during COVID-19: Current practice and future developments. Australasian Psychiatry, 28(5), 508–510. https://doi.org/10.1177/1039856220930675
- Maier, C. A., Riger, D., & Morgan-Sowada, H. (2021). “It’s splendid once you grow into it:” Client experiences of relational teletherapy in the era of COVID‐19. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 47(2), 304–319. https://doi.org/10.1111/jmft.12508
- Mallen, M. J., Jenkins, I. M., Vogel, D. L., & Day, S. X. (2011). Online counselling: An initial examination of the process in a synchronous chat environment. Counselling & Psychotherapy Research, 11(3), 220–227. https://doi.org/10.1080/14733145.2010.486865
- Mallen, M. J., Vogel, D. L., & Rochlen, A. B. (2005). The practical aspects of online counseling: Ethics, training, technology, and competency. The Counseling Psychologist, 33(6), 776–818. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000005278625
- Manhal-Baugus, M. (2001). E-therapy: Practical, ethical, and legal issues. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 4(5), 551–563. https://doi.org/10.1089/109493101753235142
- Manzoor, M., & Vimarlund, V. (2018). Digital technologies for social inclusion of individuals with disabilities. Health and Technology, 8(5), 377–390. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12553-018-0239-1
- Maples, M. F., & Han, S. (2008). Cybercounseling in the United States and South Korea: Implications for counseling college students of the millennial generation and the networked generation. Journal of Counseling & Development, 86(2), 178–183. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6678.2008.tb00495.x
- Marcelin, L., Cela, T., Dembo, R., Jean‐Gilles, M., Page, B., Demezier, D., Clement, R., & Waldman, R. (2021). Remote delivery of a therapeutic intervention to court‐mandated youths of Haitian descent during COVID ‐19. Journal of Community Psychology, 49(7), 2938–2958. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.22559
- Mar, M. Y., Neilson, E. K., Torchalla, I., Werker, G. R., Laing, A., & Krausz, M. (2014). Exploring e-mental health preferences of generation y. Journal of Technology in Human Services, 32(4), 312–327. https://doi.org/10.1080/15228835.2014.943457
- Maurya, R. K., Bruce, M. A., & Therthani, S. (2020). Counselers’ perceptions of distance counseling: A national survey. Journal of Asia Pacific Counseling, 10(2), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.18401/2020.10.2.3
- McBeath, A. G., du Plock, S., & Bager-Charleson, S. (2020). The challenges and experiences of psychotherapists working remotely during the coronavirus pandemic. Counselling & Psychotherapy Research, 20(3), 394–405. https://doi.org/10.1002/capr.12326
- McCulloch, T., Clarke, D., Ferrier, C., Daly, M., Grant, S., & Sen, R. (2022). Newly qualified social workers in Scotland: Experiences of practice during COVID-19. file:///Users/Chloe/Downloads/NQSWs%20in%20Scotland%20Experiences%20of%20practice%20during%20COVID19.pdf
- McGregor, L. M., Mercer, S. L., & Harris, D. A. (2016). Health benefits of primary care social work for adults with complex health and social needs: A systematic review. Health & Social Care in the Community, 26(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1111/hsc.12337
- McKenny, R., Galloghly, E., Porter, C. M., & Burbach, F. R. (2021). ‘Living in a zoom world’: Survey mapping how COVID-19 is changing family therapy practice in the UK. Journal of Family Therapy, 43(2), 272–294. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6427.12332
- Merrill, C. A., Maheu, M. M., Drude, K. P., Groshong, L. W., Coleman, M., & Hilty, D. M. (2022). CTiBS and clinical social work: Telebehavioral health competencies for LCSWs in the age of COVID-19. Clinical Social Work Journal, 50(2), 115–123. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10615-021-00827-7
- Mishna, F., Bogo, M., Root, J., & Fantus, S. (2014). Here to stay: Cyber communication as a complement in social work practice. Families in Society, 95(3), 179–186. https://doi.org/10.1606/1044-3894.2014.95.23
- Mishna, F., Fantus, S., & McInroy, L. (2015). 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
- Mishna, F., Milne, E., Bogo, M., & 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
- Mishna, F., Milne, B., Sanders, J., & Greenblatt, A. (2022). Social work practice during COVID-19: Client needs and boundary challenges. Global Social Welfare, 9(2), 113–120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40609-021-00219-2
- Mohr, D. C., Burns, M., Schueller, S. M., Clarke, G., & Klinkman, M. (2013). Behavioral intervention technologies: Evidence review and recommendations for future research in mental health. General Hospital Psychiatry, 35(4), 332–338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2013.03.008
- Murphy, L. J., & Mitchell, D. L. (1998). When writing helps to heal: E-mail as therapy. British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 26(1), 21–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/03069889800760031
- National Association of Social Workers & Association of Social Work Boards. (2005). National association of social workers & association of social work boards standards for technology and social work practice. https://www.socialworkers.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=rOfM%2fw9dWto%3d&portalid=0
- Ogueji, I. A., Amusa, A. O., Olofe, O. J., & Omotoso, E. B. (2021). Willingness and barriers to utilizing e-therapy services: A Nigerian general population qualitative study. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 32(2), 214–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/10911359.2021.1894300
- Ouzzani, M., Hammady, H., Fedorowicz, Z., & Elmagarmid, A. (2016). Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews, 5(1), 210. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4
- Pang, J. S., Wu, A. M., & Cheung, V. Y. (2021). Exploring clients’ perceptions of mobile text-messaging interventions in social work. Journal of Social Work Practice, 35(2), 167–182. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650533.2020.1813656
- Pascoe, K. M. (2021). Remote service delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic: Questioning the impact of technology on relationship-based social work practice. British Journal of Social Work, 52(6), 3268–3287. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcab242
- Pascoe, K. M. (2023). Considerations for integrating technology into social work practice: A content analysis of nine professional social work associations’ codes of ethics. International Social Work, 66(2), 298–312. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020872820980833
- Pedroso, J. E. P., Tangco-Siason, A., Ortizo-Roces, C., & Magramo-Basbas, J. I. F. (2022). Implementation of guidance and counseling services during the COVID-19 pandemic. ISSRA Journal of Education, Linguistics and Literature, 2(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.32996/bjahs.2022.2.1.6
- Petri, E., Nardoni, C., Fui, E., Gulino, E., Abdelghani, L., Barone, R., Miragoli, P. A. F., Cardamone, & Ciberti, A. (2023). First access to mental health services during COVID-19 pandemic: A multicenter study. Journal of Affective Disorders Reports, 11, 100460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadr.2022.100460
- Pettersson, L., Johansson, S., Demmelmaier, I., Söderlund, A., & Lindén, M. (2023). Disability digital divide: Survey of accessibility of eHealth services as perceived by people with and without impairment. BMC Public Health, 23(181). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-023-15094-z
- Pfitzner, N., Fitz‐Gibbon, K., & Meyer, S. (2022). Responding to women experiencing domestic and family violence during the COVID ‐19 pandemic: Exploring experiences and impacts of remote service delivery in Australia. Child & Family Social Work, 27(1), 30–40. https://doi.org/10.1111/cfs.12870
- Pink, S., Ferguson, H., & Kelly, L. (2022). Digital social work: Conceptualising a hybrid anticipatory practice. Qualitative Social Work, 21(2), 413–430. https://doi.org/10.1177/14733250211003647
- Popay, J., Roberts, H., Sowden, A., Petticrew, M., Arai, L., Rodgers, M., Britten, N., Roen, K., & Duffy, S. (2006). Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews: A product from the ESRC methods programme. Lancaster University. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236866242_Guidance_on_the_conduct_of_narrative_synthesis_in_systematic_reviews_A_product_from_the_ESRC_Methods_Programme
- Pope, C., Mays, N., & Popay, J. (2007). Synthesizing qualitative and quantitative health evidence: A guide to methods. McGraw-Hill Education (UK).
- Proudfoot, J. G. (2004). Computer-based treatment for anxiety and depression: Is it feasible? Is it effective? Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 28(3), 353–363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2004.03.008
- Pulat, M., & Barutçu-Yıldırım, F. (2021). Online counseling and ethics: A systematic review of empirical research. The Journal of Clinical and Mental Health Counseling, 1(2), 1–12.
- Raja, D. S. (2016). Bridging the disability divide through digital technologies. Background paper for the world development report. World Bank Group.
- 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
- Reamer, F. G. (2018). Ethical standards for social workers’ use of technology: Emerging consensus. Journal of Social Work Values and Ethics, 15(2), 71–80.
- Reamer, F. G. (2020). Social work in a digital age: Ethical and risk management challenges. Social Work Today, 20(5), 14.
- Ricciardelli, L. A., King, E. A., & Broadley, M. (2022). COVID-19, mental illness, and incarceration in the United States: A systematic review, 2019–2021. Social Sciences, 11(11), 521. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci11110521
- Richards, D., & Viganó, N. (2013). Online counseling: A narrative and critical review of the literature. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 69(9), 994–1011. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.21974
- Ritterband, L. M., Gonder-Frederick, L. A., Cox, D. J., Clifton, A. D., West, R. W., & Borowitz, S. M. (2003). Internet interventions: In review, in use, and into the future. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 34(5), 527–534. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.34.5.527
- Rochlen, A. B., Beretvas, S. N., & Zack, J. S. (2004). The online and face-to-face counseling attitudes scales: A validation study. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 37(2), 95–111. https://doi.org/10.1080/07481756.2004.11909753
- Rochlen, A. B., Zack, J. S., & Speyer, C. (2004). Online therapy: Review of relevant definitions, debates, and current empirical support. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 60(3), 269–283. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.10263
- Rodgers, M., Sowden, A., Petticrew, M., Arai, L., Roberts, H., Britten, N., & Popay, J. (2009). Testing methodological guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews: Effectiveness of interventions to promote smoke alarm ownership and function. Evaluation, 15(1), 49–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356389008097871
- Rosenberg, H., Ophir, Y., & Billig, M. (2021). Omg, r u ok?: Using social media to form therapeutic relationships with youth at risk. Children and Youth Services Review, 120, 105365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105365
- Rummell, C., & Joyce, N. (2010). So wat do u want to wrk on 2day? The ethical implications of online counselling. Ethics & Behavior, 20(6), 482–496. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2010.521450
- Santhiveeran, J. (2009). Compliance of social work e-therapy websites to the NASW code of ethics. Social Work in Health Care, 48(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/00981380802231216
- Seng, B. K., Subramaniam, M., Chung, Y. J., Syed Ahmad, S. A. M., & Chong, S. A. (2021). Resilience and stress in frontline social workers during the COVID‐19 pandemic in Singapore. Asian Social Work & Policy Review, 15(3), 234–243. https://doi.org/10.1111/aswp.12237
- Shaw, L. (2020). ‘Don’t look!’ an online art therapy group for adolescents with anorexia nervosa. International Journal of Art Therapy, 25(4), 211–217. https://doi.org/10.1080/17454832.2020.1845757
- Simpson, S. G., & Reid, C. L. (2014). Therapeutic alliance in videoconferencing psychotherapy: A review. Australian Journal of Rural Health, 22(6), 280–299. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajr.12149
- Singapore Association of Social Workers. (2016). Singapore Association of Social Workers Code of Professional Ethics. https://sasw.org.sg/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/SASW-Code-of-Professional-Ethics-3rd-Revision-online.pdf
- Situmorang, D. D. B. (2020). Online/Cyber counseling services in the COVID-19 outbreak: Are they really new? Journal of Pastoral Care & Counseling, 74(3), 166–174. https://doi.org/10.1177/1542305020948170
- Skinner, A. E. G., & Latchford, G. (2006). Attitudes to counselling via the internet: A comparison between in-person counselling clients and Internet support group users. Counselling & Psychotherapy Research, 6(3), 158–163. https://doi.org/10.1080/14733140600853641
- Smith, J., & Gillon, E. (2021). Therapists’ experiences of providing online counselling: A qualitative study. Counselling & Psychotherapy Research, 21(3), 545–554. https://doi.org/10.1002/capr.12408
- Srinuan, C., & Bohlin, E. (2011, September 18-21). Understanding the digital divide: A literature survey and ways forward [ Conference presentation]. 22nd European Regional Conference of the International Telecommunications Society (ITS): “Innovative ICT Applications - Emerging Regulatory, Economic and Policy Issues, Budapest, Hungary.
- Suler, J. (2001). Assessing a person’s suitability for online therapy: The ismho clinical case study group. Cyberpsychology & Behavior: The Impact of the Internet, Multimedia and Virtual Reality on Behavior and Society, 4, 675–679. https://doi.org/10.1089/109493101753376614
- Sull, A., Harland, N., & Moore, A. (2015). Resilience of healthcare workers in the UK: A cross-sectional survey. Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology, 10(1), 20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12995-015-006-x
- Syme, D. (2004). New worlds of dispute resolution: Information technology, conflict and its resolution. Law in Context, 22(1), 130–153. https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/agispt.20050612
- Thompson, D. (2021). Embracing digital: Is COVID-19 the catalyst for lasting change? (Report No. EYG 008966-20Gbl). EY Global. https://assets.ey.com/content/dam/ey-sites/ey-com/en_gl/topics/government-and-public-sector/ey-embracing-digital-is-covid-19-the-catalyst-for-lasting-change.pdf
- Tong, A., Flemming, K., McInnes, E., Oliver, S., & Craig, J. (2012). Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research: ENTREQ. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 12(1), 181. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-12-181
- Wallin, E., Maathz, P., Parling, T., & Hursti, T. (2018). Self-stigma and the intention to seek psychological help online compared to face-to-face. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 74(7), 1207–1218. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.22583
- Wang, J., Katz, I., Li, J., Wu, Q., & Dai, C. (2021). Mobile digital divide and older people’s access to ‘internet plus social work’: Implications from the COVID-19 help-seeking cases. Asia Pacific Journal of Social Work and Development, 31(1–2), 52–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/02185385.2020.1850332
- Wilson, R., Baines, S., Martin, M., Richter, P., McLoughlin, I., & Maniatopoulos, G. (2017). Who is telecaring whom? Exploring the total social organization of care work in an Italian municipality. New Technology, Work and Employment, 32(3), 268–282. https://doi.org/10.1111/ntwe.12101
- Wolf, L., & Goldkind, L. (2016). Digital native meet friendly visitor: A Flexner-inspired call to digital action. Journal of Social Work Education, 52(sup1), S99–S109. https://doi.org/10.1080/10437797.2016.1174643
- Ybarra, M. L., & Eaton, W. W. (2005). Internet-based mental health interventions. Mental Health Services Research, 7(2), 75–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11020-005-3779-8
- Zainudin, Z. N., Asri, A. S., Abu Talib, M., Hassan, S. A., Ahmad, N. A., & Yusop, Y. M. (2020). The prevalence of cyber-counselling: A systematic literature review on effectiveness and preferences. The International Journal of Academic Research in Business & Social Sciences, 10(10), 731–751. https://doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v10-i10/7897