JMIR Publications

ABSTRACT

Background:

Digital interventions for addiction have demonstrated effectiveness and scalability, yet their implementation remains uneven, particularly within social services, where responsibility for non-emergency addiction care often resides. In addition, limited research has examined how social workers interpret and engage with these technologies in practice.

Objective:

This study aimed to examine how social workers’ technological frames shape their evaluations of digital interventions, with particular attention to domain-level incongruence and contextual inconsistency across practice situations.

Methods:

An embedded mixed-methods design was used, combining survey data (N=169) with qualitative open-ended responses and 10 semi-structured interviews. Participants completed a validated questionnaire assessing attitudes toward digital interventions and evaluated internet-based interventions across three case vignettes and intervention scenarios. Quantitative analyses included typology construction, repeated-measures ANOVA, and gap analysis (value–use discrepancy). Qualitative data were analyzed using deductive thematic analysis. The study was guided by Technological Frames theory.

Results:

Practitioners reported moderately positive attitudes (mean 3.81/5) and rated both value (mean 6.18/10) and appropriateness (mean 6.07/10) above the scale midpoints. Four practitioner typologies emerged: Holistic Adopters (37.9%), System Skeptics (31.4%), Client-Centric Advocates (16.6%), and Efficiency Supporters (14.2%). A consistent value–use gap indicated that digital interventions were perceived as more valuable in principle than appropriate in practice (mean difference 0.12, P<.001), with no significant variation across typologies. Appropriateness ratings varied significantly across intervention scenarios, indicating frame inconsistency, with greater acceptance in later-stage scenarios. Qualitative findings suggested that digital interventions were viewed as valuable in principle but context-dependent in practice and were therefore typically positioned as complements rather than substitutes for face-to-face care.

Conclusions:

Social workers’ evaluations of digital interventions are shaped by both structural misalignment across technological frame domains and situational variation across contexts. The consistent gap between perceived strategic value and practical appropriateness highlights the importance of implementation conditions and contextual fit, rather than attitudinal resistance. These findings suggest that successful integration of digital interventions in social services requires alignment with professional practices, relational care values, and context-sensitive implementation.