Blog Post 1: Telehealth Health in Social Work Practice
Balogun et al. (2025)
The presence of telehealth aligned with my expectations because it is now widely used in social work and healthcare. What stood out to me was how heavily it is relied upon for vulnerable populations who may have limited access to in-person services (Balogun et al., 2025). While this was not surprising, it highlighted how telehealth has become an important tool for expanding access to care.
Vulnerable populations may include individuals who lack reliable access to internet service, digital devices, or mobile technology. In addition, social workers must consider whether clients have access to a private and safe environment where they can discuss confidential information. These factors are important because even when telehealth is available, it may not be fully accessible or appropriate for every client situation.
I agree that telehealth can improve access to care, especially for individuals in rural areas or those facing transportation barriers (Balogun et al., 2025). It also allows some clients to receive services in a more comfortable environment. However, the article also makes it clear that these benefits are not experienced equally. Limited access to technology, unstable internet connections, and lack of privacy can still prevent clients from fully benefiting from telehealth services.
One area that could have been emphasized more is digital inequality, including differences in access to technology and digital literacy skills. Another important concern is the use of telehealth in crisis intervention situations, where in-person assessment and immediate response may be more effective.
From my experience working in a medical setting, I have seen similar challenges. Many patients struggled with accessing emailed documents or navigating digital systems. While some were able to adapt with support over time, others required additional assistance due to language barriers, disabilities, or limited familiarity with technology. This reinforces that while telehealth improves access, it can also create new barriers without proper support systems.
Zhu et al. (2024)
The practitioners’ responses in Zhu et al. (2024) were mixed and appeared to reflect differences in how they approach client care. Practitioners who viewed telehealth positively emphasized convenience, accessibility, and the ability to continue services despite barriers such as transportation and scheduling challenges (Zhu et al., 2024). In contrast, practitioners with more concerns emphasized limitations in virtual communication, particularly the difficulty of fully assessing clients without in-person observation of tone, body language, and other nonverbal cues.
These differences suggest that practitioners may prioritize different aspects of care. Some emphasize access and efficiency, while others place greater importance on emotional connection, rapport-building, and in-person clinical observation. However, both perspectives are still focused on supporting client well-being, even if the methods differ.
The level of telehealth use described in the article was not surprising. Following the COVID-19 pandemic, many services shifted rapidly to virtual platforms, making telehealth a more established part of practice (Zhu et al., 2024). Because of this shift, it is expected that many practitioners continued using telehealth even after returning to in-person services.
Two main factors influenced whether practitioners intended to continue using telehealth. The first was client population and clinical need, since some clients benefit more from in-person interaction, particularly those with more complex mental health conditions. The second was the practitioner’s comfort level and experience with telehealth, including whether they felt it supported effective communication and therapeutic engagement.
Overall, my perspective is that telehealth is a useful tool in social work practice, but it should not completely replace in-person services. It works best as a supplement that increases access and flexibility, while in-person care remains important for building therapeutic relationships, ensuring privacy, and responding effectively in crisis situations.
References
Zhu, D., Paige, S. R., Slone, H., Gutierrez, A., Lutzky, C., Hedriana, H., Barrera, J. F., Ong, T., & Bunnell, B. E. (2024). Exploring telemental health practice before, during, and after the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare, 30(1), 72–78. https://doi.org/10.1177/1357633X211025943
Balogun, A. A., et al. (2025). Telehealth and vulnerable populations in social work practice.
Seqouyah,
Your point about digital literacy is well taken. I think during this literature review the articles were over such a complicated period of time (pre-pandemic, pandemic, pos-pandemic) that digital literacy just got lost in the shuffle. They tended to equate those problems with regular access, but in my experience working with older adults, access didn’t mean literacy.
I would have liked to hear more about what you thought about the conclusions in Zhu et. al. You are totally correct in your summation of the article, but what do you think about their conclusions? I think the issue of insurance is a significant one, and it has been changing even since this article was written.
Dr P