After reading Balogun (2025), I came away with a deeper understanding of both the opportunities and challenges that telehealth presents in social work practice. While I expected telehealth to improve access to services, I was surprised by the wide range of ways it is being used to support vulnerable populations. My overall conclusion is that telehealth has tremendous potential to reduce barriers to care, but its effectiveness depends on addressing issues related to technology, training, privacy, and systemic inequities. The article reinforced for me that increased access does not always mean equitable access, which is an important consideration for social workers committed to social justice and inclusion.

For the most part, the presence of telehealth described in the article was what I expected because telehealth has become increasingly common since the COVID-19 pandemic. I anticipated reading about its use in mental health counseling, case management, and connecting clients with services remotely. However, I was surprised by the breadth of telehealth applications discussed. One example that stood out was its use in supporting survivors of domestic violence and individuals experiencing housing insecurity. The article explained how telehealth can provide discreet and safe ways for people to access counseling, safety planning, and resources without needing to physically attend appointments. I had primarily thought of telehealth as a tool for therapy and healthcare visits, so learning about its role in crisis intervention and support services expanded my understanding of how social workers can use technology to reach vulnerable populations. 

I agree with many of the benefits of telehealth discussed in the article because it removes barriers that often prevent vulnerable populations from receiving support. Individuals living in rural communities, people with disabilities, and low-income families may struggle with transportation, childcare responsibilities, mobility limitations, or a lack of nearby providers. Telehealth allows many of these individuals to access services from their homes, reducing both time and financial burdens. The article also highlights how telehealth can improve access to mental health services, crisis intervention, and support networks while creating more flexible and convenient options for clients. 

At the same time, I think it is important to recognize the duality of telehealth. While it increases access for many people, it does not automatically create equity. Access to technology, reliable internet, and digital literacy varies greatly across communities. The article discusses the digital divide and notes that many low-income households still lack broadband internet or the devices necessary to participate in telehealth services. Older adults may also struggle to navigate digital platforms because of limited familiarity with technology.    These challenges remind us that telehealth can only be effective when people have the resources and skills needed to use it.

Although the article provided a comprehensive overview of telehealth, I think it could have included more discussion about the use of telehealth for prevention and community-based education. For example, telehealth could be used to facilitate parenting workshops, financial literacy programs, wellness education, and community outreach efforts before individuals reach a point of crisis. Social work is not only about responding to problems but also about preventing them, and telehealth has the potential to make preventative services more accessible to larger populations. I also believe the article could have explored the impact of telehealth on relationship-building between social workers and clients. Building trust and rapport is a core part of effective social work practice, and some clients may find it more difficult to establish meaningful connections through a screen. While the article briefly discusses the lack of nonverbal cues in virtual settings, I would have liked to see a deeper exploration of how telehealth influences engagement and therapeutic relationships. 

Of all the challenges discussed, I believe the digital divide is the most significant. Telehealth is designed to expand access to care, but it cannot accomplish that goal if people do not have reliable internet access, appropriate devices, or the digital literacy necessary to participate. The article notes that approximately 21% of low-income households in the United States lack reliable broadband internet, creating a significant barrier to accessing telehealth services.  In addition, rural communities often experience poor internet connectivity, and older adults may struggle to navigate virtual platforms. Beyond technological barriers, telehealth also raises concerns related to confidentiality, privacy, and whether social workers have received sufficient training to effectively provide services in virtual environments. 

Overall, I view telehealth as a valuable and innovative tool that has the potential to transform social work practice for vulnerable populations. It offers meaningful opportunities to increase accessibility, flexibility, and continuity of care. However, I also believe that social workers must remain aware of the inequalities that can limit who truly benefits from these services. Telehealth should be viewed not as a replacement for traditional services but as one tool among many that can help advance equity when implemented thoughtfully and inclusively. By addressing barriers such as internet access, digital literacy, privacy concerns, and professional training, telehealth can better fulfill its promise of expanding support to those who need it most.

Reflections on Telehealth and Telemental Health Practice

After reading Zhu (2024), I was left thinking about how much telehealth has changed the daily realities of social work practice. My overall conclusion is that many practitioners have come to recognize telehealth as a valuable and effective tool, but their willingness to continue using it depends on whether it supports meaningful client engagement and whether both clients and providers have the resources needed to use it effectively. The article highlighted that telehealth is no longer viewed as simply a temporary response to COVID-19; instead, it has become an important part of service delivery that will likely remain in some capacity moving forward.

One aspect that stood out to me was the response of practitioners regarding telehealth and telemental health services. I was not surprised that many social workers and clinicians acknowledged the benefits of telehealth because it allows them to maintain continuity of care, increase flexibility, and reach clients who may otherwise face barriers to accessing services. What did surprise me was how many practitioners appeared willing to continue using telehealth even after the immediate need created by the pandemic had passed. Prior to reading the article, I assumed most professionals would strongly prefer to return to entirely in-person services. Instead, many recognized that telehealth offered advantages for both clients and providers, especially for individuals facing transportation challenges, mobility limitations, scheduling conflicts, or geographic barriers.

The rate of telemental health use described in the article was generally what I expected because mental health services seem particularly well-suited to virtual formats. Counseling and therapy often rely on conversation, reflection, and emotional support, which can be delivered effectively through video platforms. Since the pandemic accelerated the adoption of virtual services, it makes sense that many practitioners would continue using telemental health at relatively high rates. At the same time, I understand why some providers may still prefer in-person interactions, especially when working with clients experiencing severe mental health concerns, crisis situations, or challenges that require stronger observational assessment and relationship building.

What I found most interesting was the variation in whether practitioners planned to continue using telemedicine in the future. One factor influencing their decision was client accessibility and convenience. When telehealth helped clients attend appointments more consistently, reduced transportation barriers, and improved overall access to care, practitioners were more likely to view it positively and continue using it. A second factor was the quality of engagement and connection that practitioners felt they could establish with clients. Some professionals believed telehealth allowed them to maintain strong therapeutic relationships, while others felt virtual interactions made it more difficult to read body language, observe nonverbal communication, and build trust. These differences shaped whether practitioners viewed telehealth as a long-term solution or simply a supplemental service option.

Personally, I believe telehealth should remain a part of social work practice, but I do not think it should completely replace in-person services. As a future social worker, I appreciate how telehealth can increase access for vulnerable populations, including rural residents, individuals with disabilities, and people who may struggle with transportation or childcare responsibilities. However, I also recognize that telehealth is not equally accessible to everyone. Many individuals still lack reliable internet access, appropriate devices, or the digital literacy necessary to participate effectively. In addition, some clients may feel more comfortable building trust and discussing sensitive issues in person. For these reasons, I think a hybrid approach is the most effective model. Offering both virtual and in-person options allows social workers to meet clients where they are while promoting flexibility, accessibility, and client-centered care. Ultimately, telehealth is a valuable tool, but it is most effective when used thoughtfully and in combination with other methods of service delivery that address the diverse needs of clients.