Balogun, et. al. (2025)

1. The description of Telehealth in Balogun et al (2025) was within my expectations for the most part. In my work at addiction treatment facilities, I regularly see telehealth used to facilitate family programming and support services. For example, family programming at the facility I work at is conducted entirely through Zoom, allowing family members in different parts of the state and country to participate in the treatment process and find support both from the counselor and the other families. Because of this experience, I was not surprised by the article’s description of services such as virtual support groups, therapy sessions, and community building. However, something that stood out to me was the variety of populations that can benefit from the flexibility of Telehealth including domestic violence survivors, individuals with disabilities, and those who live in rural communities. The author describes how telehealth can provide a discreet way for individuals to access support without drawing attention to themselves. While I was familiar with telehealth’s role of increasing accessibility for people, I never considered the privacy of virtual services could increase the safety for individuals in a domestic violence situation. This example improved my perspective on how telehealth can be beneficial to individuals, beyond convenience and accessibility it can also be the safest option for a client.
2. I agreed with the author’s discussion of the benefits telehealth can bring to vulnerable communities. The article clearly outlines telehealth’s impact on reducing barriers related to accessibility such as transportation, lack of resources, disabilities and stigma, all of these things truly do lead to people not receiving the support or services they need. I also appreciate the writer’s discussion of the digital divide because it is important to acknowledge that some vulnerable populations may face challenges in accessing internet, devices, and digital literacy skills. This disparity highlights the need to address technological barriers if telehealth is truly going to promote in equity. Overall, I believe that telehealth does have the potential to increase access to services for vulnerable populations, however the size of its impact depends on ensuring that the people who need the services most are able to access them.
3. While the author briefly discussed the benefits of telehealth in the substance abuse arena such as recovery support groups, I do think they could have explored the role of telehealth in substance abuse treatment in more depth. In my field experience, telehealth is typically not the most effective option for primary treatment, due to the limitations it has in providing the structure and accountability that inpatient treatment has. However, telehealth can play an important role in “pre” and “post” treatment. It can help individuals engage in services prior to admission and remain connected to support after discharge. This allows patients to receive a continuum of care and reduces barriers related to geographic location, transportation, and schedules. Telehealth also increases family engagement by allowing family members to participate in programming regardless of their geographic location. Family involvement can be an important factor in promoting long-term recovery outcomes so the telehealth option can be critical for clients.
4. In my opinion, the most significant challenge in the use of telehealth is the digital divide. Telehealth can be incredibly helpful in allowing people to access services and support, however it is dependent on individuals having consistent internet access, consistent access to devices, and digital literacy skills needed to engage. The article highlights that low income individuals, individuals who live in rural areas, and older adults have barriers with the necessary tools to access telehealth. These challenges affect access to services at a very basic level, making it a more pressing issue than concerns like privacy or ethics because these issues are irrevelant if the client cannot access telehealth in the first place. If telehealth is intended to promote equity and accessibility to resources, addressing the digital divide should be a priority.

Zhu, et. al. (2021)

1. I was surprised at how quickly the practitioners accepted and embraced telehealth as a new way of practicing or working with clients. Because there was some resistance at first, I assumed that after the pandemic they would be eager to return to regular or “pre-pandemic” procedures, however to my surprise a lot of them planned on continuing using the services after COVID-19 precautions. This suggests that the initial resistance to telehealth was due to fear of the unknown rather than the actual technology.
2. The rate at which telemental health was used is unsurprising to me. During the pandemic, in-person services were extremely limited, if offered at all, to ensure the safety of both practitioners and clients. The mental health profession is reliant on conversation and developing relationships and telemental health was the only way to meet those needs during a time where in-person services were unavailable. Also, the pandemic was a difficult and isolating time for so many people. Increased anxiety and isolation likely led to a higher demand in mental health services so telemental health was an essential tool for creating access to services. Given the circumstances, I would be surprised if the telemental health rates were low.
3. One factor that influenced a practitioner’s use of telemedicine was insurance reimbursement. The research in the article reflects that practitioners were more likely to continue using telemedicine when insurance reimbursement was reliable and consistent. This stood out to me, because regardless of how helpful a service is, if providers are not being compensated it can be hard to sustain. Another factor that influenced a practitioner’s use was their confidence in their digital skills. This makes sense to me because people are generally more willing to utilize a tool if they feel competent using it. This makes me think of the digital divide and how providers in certain age groups might face challenges with digital literacy and therefore impact their engagement with telehealth.
4. Personally, I view telehealth as a valuable tool that I plan to offer in my practice, however I do not see it replacing in-person services. Even though I do work remotely and see the benefits it provides such as accessibility, safety and convenience, I believe I am the most effective when I interact with people face to face. In person work allows me to observe and convey body language, pick up on some non-verbal cues and feel the energy in the room. These are things that are not easily captured through a screen and I feel like my ability to observe these things is one of my best skills. With that said, I appreciate and value the role that telehealth plays in increasing access to services and continuity of care. For me, it would be ideal to to use telehealth as a supplement instead of a replacement.

References

Balogun, A. K., Dada, S. N., Kazeem, O., & Bakare-Adesokan, K. A. (2025). Integrating telehealth services in social work practice for vulnerable groups. World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 25(1), 1984–1991. https://doi.org/10.30574/wjarr.2025.25.1.0248

Zhu, D., Paige, S. R., Slone, H., Gutierrez, A., Lutzky, C., Hedriana, H., Barrera, J. F., Ong, T., & Bunnell, B. E. (2021). 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