The presence of telehealth in this article was what I expected. Balogun had a great explanation of what telehealth can do for our community. I thought that the use of telehealth in Disability and chronic support was an interesting perspective. This surprised me because I didn’t know about the remote patient monitoring tools; we now have the healthcare system. I think the is a great way to help healthcare providers see a medical issue occurring early on and help prevent severe illness. Yes, I agree with the discussion of benefits for the vulnerable population, I believe that a lot of our communities have issues with time and transportation. Telehealth helps remove these issues and still provides quality care. Another part of the benefits that stood out to me is that in a lot of communities they have language barriers that causes issue with providing car of their clients, but with telehealth we are able to have multilingual workers and platforms to help our non-English speaking clients. In the article they did not mention how telehealth is used in the child welfare and family preservation side of social work. Telehealth is used in many ways in child welfare; telehealth gives them access to virtual home visits, where caseworkers check safety and progress remotely. Supervised virtual visitation, this allows parents and siblings to stay connected and real time parenting coaching to support reunification. Telehealth also expands access to therapy and crisis services for youth in foster care, helping families stay engaged despite transportation, scheduling, and geographic barriers. The most significant challenge in telehealth is the lack of access to reliable technology and internet services, especially in low-income households and rural communities. Families in these areas often face barriers such as unstable connections, outdated devices, and the inability to afford data plans or equipment.
What surprised me most was how quickly and confident practitioners adapted to telehealth, even those who were initially uncomfortable with it. Before the pandemic, 23.4% of providers said they were uncomfortable using telemedicine. (Zhu et al.,2021) Yet during the pandemic many of those same providers reported becoming comfortable with it. Yes, the rate of telemental health use during the pandemic was about what I expected, mainly because the data shows a dramatic and necessary shift toward remote care once in-person services became limited. Two major factors influenced whether practitioners expected to continue using telemedicine. First, provider specialty played a significant role; mental health counselors were more likely than psychologist and social workers to anticipate ongoing telehealth use; counselors found that telemedicine was more compatible with their practice models. Second, the geographic region mattered. Providers serving rural communities reported a stronger expectation to keep using telemedicine than those in urban and suburban areas, likely because telehealth helps the issue of distance in rural areas. Personally, I feel very positive about using telehealth in this practice, mainly because it expands access to care in ways that in-person services can’t provide. This article shows that providers became significantly more comfortable with telehealth during the pandemic, even those who were once unsure about it. That positive shift is positive that you can truly benefit from telehealth. Seeing how telehealth removes barriers like transportation, scheduling conflicts, and stigma, it becomes clear why it is a valuable tool.
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
Nyla,
The utilization of telehealth tools that monitor conditions are really important breakthroughs and the developments in creating options for people living with disabilities is also having a positive impact. Remember, when you read a literature review, which this is, they aren’t necessarily promoting or advancing an opinion. they are trying to give the reader a picture of what was true within the profession at a particular moment in time.
I don’t believe there was much use of technology in the child welfare field when these authors did this review. It was right at the cusp of COVID, and many of us were still trying to figure out our responses. THey submitted this article for publication at the end of 2025, but if you look at the articles they reviewed, many were earlier. Yes the pamdemic had an impact, but public welfare probably wasn’t in many of those articles. It is also true that many professionals were concerned about virtual safety checks, as it was difficult to assure that the reality being seen on the computer screen was real. No worries, though, because when we begin the module on AI, we have several articles from the University of Minnesota Center for the Advanced Studies in Child Welfare. I think you will find them interesting.
These practitioners in Zhu seem to demonstrate what we are seeing around us. They use of telementalhealth services have expanded tremendously. But the issues of access, cost, availability in rural areas, and coverage by insurance are all the same issues no matter what the location.
Good discussion.
Dr P