A Scoping Review to Guide Social Work Policy-Practice for Pandemic Recovery

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this scoping review is to systematically scope the literature on social work, the COVID-19 pandemic, and health policy. The research question guiding the scoping review is: What are the policy issues emerging during the COVID-19 pandemic that are of importance for social workers working in health and mental health? Method: Scoping review methodology following Arksey and O’Malley's five-stage framework. Results: A final sample of 191 articles were included in the scoping review. The five themes identified are: (a) strengthening social work's capacity to address structural issues in practice, (b) gaps in social work education, (c) need for new and updated standards and guidelines, (d) need for professional clarity and professional supports, and (e) inadequate government response. Conclusions: By strengthening uptake of the policy-practice framework, social work practitioners concurrently address immediate client issues and address upstream factors perpetuating inequities emerging during the pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic has had substantive ongoing impacts on the global society, including the social, economic, and political landscape (Banks et al., 2020). The ongoing effects of the pandemic include a disparaging impact on the health and mental health of citizens, compounded by financial losses, food insecurity, precarious housing, isolation, and reduced access to essential health and social services (Abrams & Szefler, 2020; Berg-Weger & Morley, 2020; Walter-McCabe, 2020a). While mental health conditions and substance use disorders were leading causes of disability and illness related burden prior to the COVID-19 pandemic (Ciobanu et al., 2015; Ratnasingham et al., 2013; Vos et al., 2020), rates of depression and anxiety worsened during the pandemic (Moreno et al., 2020; Talevi et al., 2020; Xiong et al., 2020). For example, in the first year of the pandemic, the global prevalence of anxiety and depression increased by 25% (World Health Organization, 2022). In particular, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic has revealed and magnified existing health inequities for those most vulnerable in society including older adults, children and youth, refugees and immigrants, racialized individuals, individuals living under the poverty line, as well as people with disabilities (Amberber et al., 2021; Armitage & Nellums, 2020; Berg-Weger & Morley, 2020; Walter-McCabe, 2020a). A policy-informed practice approach can help guide social workers respond to health and wellbeing concerns arising during the pandemic in a way that attends to the structural and clinical aspects.

Role of Social Work in COVID-19 Pandemic

Social workers play a key and essential role during pandemics and other large-scale crises (Baid & Matharu, 2021; Craig et al., 2022; Hussain & Ashcroft, 2022; Okafor, 2021). Social workers are broadly positioned across the healthcare system—in hospitals, public health, primary care, various community settings, nonprofit organizations, and elsewhere—to respond to the complex social and psychological impacts emerging during the pandemic (Craig et al., 2022; Ross et al., 2021). Social work interventions permeate all levels of micro, meso, and macro care during large scale natural disasters and infectious diseases (Hussain & Ashcroft, 2022; Payne, 2021). Social work practice is also rooted in recognizing and addressing health inequities (Ashcroft, 2010; Walters et al., 2016). Recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic requires mobilization of strategies and interventions that address the range of structural, social, behavioral, and socioeconomic health crises instigated and exacerbated during the pandemic (Brown et al., 2022; Craig et al., 2022; Hoernke, 2020). For example, the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in a significant increased prevalence of mental health concerns among the general population, healthcare workers, racialized communities, and youth (De Kock, 2021; Sanford et al., 2022; Statistics Canada, 2021; Santomauro et al., 2021). The COVID-19 pandemic created conditions that exacerbated many determinants of poor mental health (Santomauro et al., 2021).

Social workers are integral to assist with the range of these psychosocial and mental health needs emerging during the pandemic (Amadasun, 2020; Holmes et al., 2020; Walter-McCabe, 2020a). Harnessing a range of knowledge and skills, social workers engage in activities to attend to the emerging needs of the COVID-19 pandemic including risk assessments, problem-solving, crisis management, advanced care planning, case management, systems navigation, resource allocation, community mobilization, and policy development (Ashcroft et al., 2021; Bern-Klug & Beaulieu, 2020). Emerging scholarship demonstrates the essential role of social work is responding to the pandemic's social crisis (Ashcroft et al., 2021; Walter-McCabe, 2020a, 2020b). Across all types of practice settings, social workers have been visible in fighting for social justice, particularly against racism and xenophobia that have risen drastically during the COVID-19 pandemic (Ashcroft et al., 2021; Lee & Johnstone, 2021; Walter-McCabe, 2020a). Having greater clarity about their role with policy, strengthens social workers’ capacity to address the broad range of social and structural determinants of health—such as those that have emerged during the pandemic (Massaquoi et al., 2022; Powell et al., 2013).

The Relevance of Policy-Practice for Social Workers in Health and Mental Health Settings

Recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic requires greater attention to social conditions, structural foundations, and policies that influence health and reduce inequities (Lynch, 2020). As Bambra et al. (2005) remind us, “Health … is part of a broader public policy agenda, whose practical aspects are inextricably linked with power and politics” (p. 191). Policy is often understood as a set of inter-related decisions articulated by a group of actors that distinguish particular goals and the means of achieving them within particular situations (Deber & Mah, 2014). Health policy, however, provides “a course of action or inaction chosen by public authorities to address an issue that deals with human health” (Westhues, 2006, p. 8).

Using a particular problem-solving framework that integrates direct social work practice with social policy, policy-practice strives for a balance between macro and micro practice (Pawar, 2019; Pawar & Nixon, 2020; Wyers, 1991). Policy-practice is defined as “efforts to change policies in legislative, agency, and community settings, whether by establishing new policies, improve existing ones or defeating policy initiatives of other people” (Jansson, 2018, pp. 1–2). It seeks to integrate a greater understanding of technical, policy-oriented theory within practice with the aim to influence outcomes (Wyers, 1991). Thus, the purpose of such an approach is to enable social work practitioners to systematically and concurrently address immediate client issues as well as improve the provision of services and resources, and the upstream factors perpetuating inequities (Powell et al., 2013; Wyers, 1991). Furthermore, employing a policy-practice approach strengthens social workers’ capacity to collaborate on a broader spectrum of health issues related to public and population health concerns (Miller et al., 2017). As ‘on the ground’ experts who have a unique understanding of the direct implications of policy (Powell et al., 2013), there has been an increasing demand for social work's involvement in policy-related decisions during the COVID-19 pandemic (Banks et al., 2020; Ruckert et al., 2021; Walter-McCabe, 2020b).

The aim of this scoping review is to systematically scope the literature on social work, the COVID-19 pandemic, and health policy. This scoping review will help prepare social work educators and clinicians to address these challenges by demonstrating a need for incorporating a policy-practice approach in education and practice, and strengthening our understanding of key policy issues of importance to social workers in order to assist in the recovery of the COVID-19 pandemic. As noted by Hoefer (2020), “As a field, social work's emphasis on policy-practice is being renewed” (p. 133). By doing so, this scoping review responds to a recent call to generate research that intersects health and social services with policy related to the COVID-19 pandemic (McMahon et al., 2020), and provides guidance for social workers on key areas of importance for policy-practice approaches.

Method

This study utilized a scoping review methodology. Scoping reviews aim to synthesize large bodies of evidence to explore, assess, and map key concepts on a particular research area and present the scope of research evidence on this topic (Colquhoun et al., 2014). This process of knowledge synthesis is of particular interest when the range of research scholarship on a particular topic is limited (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005; Colquhoun, 2014; Daudt et al., 2013). The scoping review in this study followed Arksey and O’Malley's (2005) five-stage framework. This includes the following stages in the scoping review: (a) identify the research question, (b) identify relevant studies, (c) select studies, (d) chart data, and (e) summarize data and present results (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005). The review protocol is published online (Ashcroft et al., 2021). To support the transparency and rigor of this scoping review, the researchers also adhered to the PRISMA-ScR Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Review guidelines (Tricco et al., 2018). The PRISMA-ScR checklist is available as Appendix A.

Stage 1: Identify the Research Question

The research guiding this scoping review emerged from previous research that the authors conducted on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on social work practice (Ashcroft et al., 2022). This led to discussion about emerging policy issues during the pandemic and how social workers were addressing these issues and the following research question: What are the policy issues emerging during the COVID-19 pandemic that are of importance for social workers working in health and mental health?

Stage 2: Identify Relevant Studies

The second stage of the scoping review process was the development of a search strategy to identify peer reviewed literature discussing policy issues and social work during the COVID-19 pandemic. A social sciences librarian (BW) developed an OVID Medline (1946–present) search strategy in consultation with the research team including those with expertise in social work practice in various areas including health, mental health, health policy, and scoping review methodology. This pilot search sought to locate articles with relevant concepts appearing in title, abstract, and author-supplied keyword fields (when possible). Relevant controlled vocabulary was employed, as was the validated OVID expert search, “Coronavirus (COVID-19) 2019-nCoV on MEDLINE.” The pilot search was reviewed by a second social science librarian using the Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies (PRESS) framework, and the search strategy was validated using a set of 11 preselected articles. The syntax of this Medline search was then translated to be used in five additional databases including CINAHL (1963–present), Social Work Abstracts (1968–Dec 2021), Social Services Abstracts (1979–current), Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts (1987–current), and Scopus (1970–present). While a date limit was not applied to the search, the COVID-19 context of the research question has the effect of limiting relevant results to work published in 2020 and after. A search in each database was conducted between March 24 and March 26, 2021, and results were exported to the literature review management software covidence where deduplication and three stages of screening took place.

Stage 3: Study Selection

There were two steps of screening conducted to appropriately identify relevant literature for this review. The first step involved the title and abstract review, and the second step involved a review of the full text of the article. The first step of screening was conducted by two graduate research assistants and was supervised by the lead investigator and study coordinator (RA/SL). The research assistants independently reviewed the title and abstract of 100 articles, and their screening was reviewed by the first and third authors (RA/SL). The research assistants had to achieve a similar rating for a minimum of 85 of the 100 articles to ensure that there was a high interrater reliability (r = 0.85). After this was achieved the research assistants independently screened the remaining abstracts based on their title and abstracts. The following inclusion criteria guided this process: (1) articles had to be written or translated to English; (2) social work is mentioned in the title or abstract (inclusive of all terms related to social work such as social worker, human service worker, mental health provider, social service worker, counselor, and others) or journal was a social work journal; (3) COVID-19 pandemic (inclusive of search terms) are written in the title or abstract; and (4) there is a focus on policy-related issues identified in the title or abstract. An exhaustive list of examples for policy areas—such as anti-racism, immigration, housing, poverty, as well as other areas—was outlined as a screening guideline for the review process (see Table 1). The two research assistants met with the lead investigator and study coordinator (RA/SL) to discuss disagreements and improve the screening guideline. In this study, empirical research studies, literature or systematic reviews, conceptual or theoretical papers, and Commentary were included as meeting the inclusion criteria. The authors decided to not undergo a gray literature search due to the plentiful amount of data received from the search of the academic literature that could respond to our research question. Books, book chapters, editorials, posters, and letters to the editors were excluded from this study. This stage of screening was an iterative process in which team members met to review articles that were unclear, reviewed the full texts for further information, refined the inclusion terms, and reviewed all the screened material to ensure there was agreement and consistency in the screening process.

Table 1.

Charting Framework.

Author(s) Year Country where study was conducted or country of first author's affiliation Journal title Article type (i.e., empirical, literature review, conceptual, teaching article, etc.) If empirical: methods in article (qual/quant/ or mixed) If empirical—who are the participants in the study (service users, service providers, educators, policy makers, other—who?) What is the primary policy focus? It can be multiple but we may need to determine—advocacy, anti-oppression, anti-racism, community, childcare, discrimination (all forms, anti-Asian, antisemitism, Islamophobia, and homophobia), domestic abuse, equity, ethnicity, economic, environmental social work, federal, food insecurity, funding, government, guidelines, health services (health system/health care delivery/social care/social services), housing, human rights, inequality, inequity, law, leadership, legislation, macro (disparities), multi-sectoral (collab), municipal, organizational, policy, public health/population health, poverty, provincial, racism, reform, society, social assistance, social determinants of health, social justice, social safety net, social movement examples like Black Lives Matter, socioeconomic status, structural, structure, organization of care (delivery of care), transformation, truth and reconciliation, union/unionized, welfare state, and *any specific policy (e.g., MAiD)

The second step of screening involved the full-text review of the selected articles. At this step, articles were only included if social workers were included, and there was some connection between social work and the identified policy issues. For instance, if the article mentioned youth worker, caseworker, healthcare worker, or any other service provider that was not a social worker, the article was excluded. If the term “social work” was included, but not was not the focus of the article or not referenced in a manner that demonstrated a substantive link with the field of social work, the article was excluded at this stage.

Stage 4: Charting the Data

Studies that met inclusion criteria after the two steps of screening were selected and inputted into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet to support the data charting process. A charting framework, comprised of key items that are outlined in Table 1, guided this process. Table 1 presents the charting framework that includes eight charting categories used to guide the data extraction process. This framework was developed to support the data synthesis and interpretation of findings. It includes the following eight charting categories: country where study was conducted or country of first author's affiliation, year, journal title, article type (i.e., empirical, literature review, conceptual, teaching article, and other), methods (if an empirical article), participants in the study (if an empirical article), and the policy focus discussed in the article. The charting was completed by a graduate research assistant (SA), and further reviewed by the second author (AH). The RAs engaged in a descriptive qualitative analysis to identify and highlight themes present among any of the charting categories (Sandelowski, 2000). The RAs met with the lead investigator and study coordinator (RA/SL) to discuss the grouping and naming of the themes. This stage of review was iterative, wherein charted material was reviewed by team members, broadened to ensure inclusivity, and synthesized to support the conciseness of findings. All decisions made at this stage were made in consultation with team members to ensure there was uniformity in the charting process.

Stage 5: Collating, Summarizing, and Reporting the Results

This stage involved reviewing the findings as well as engaging in descriptive and thematic analysis. After engaging in an analysis of the characteristics of the reported findings, these findings were organized and presented through both tables and figures, as well as in this written report. The interpretation of the results highlights the significance and implication of findings for policy competencies for social work practice.

Results

Description of Sample

A total of 1,414 articles were retrieved with initial search terms. After the removal of 619 duplicates, there were 795 articles remaining for the first stage of title and abstract review. A total of 579 articles were accepted at the title and abstract screening stage. After the full text screening, 354 articles were further excluded as the full text did not have any mention of ‘social work’, nor were not deemed to have a direct connection to social work. This led to a final sample of 191 articles that were included in the study and subsequently analyzed (see Appendix A). Figure 1 presents the PRISMA flowchart of the screening and search process.

Figure 1.

PRISMA flowchart.

Descriptive charting information from the studies was extracted and included country, year, journal title, format of paper, methods (when applicable), and policy focus. The country of publication includes the country where the study was conducted (if empirical), and/or country of publication (if non-empirical), and country of first author if neither of these two items was listed. The selected articles represent 46 different countries including United States of America (n = 79, 41%), followed by United Kingdom (n = 14, 7.3%), China (n = 13, 6.8%), Canada (n = 11, 5.8%), Nigeria (n = 8; 4.2%), and Hong Kong (n = 7, 3.7%). It is interesting to note that 69% (n = 131) of the articles included in the scoping review were Commentary, 25% (n = 48) were empirical, and 6% (n = 12) were theoretical. Of the 48 empirical studies, methods used were qualitative (n = 23, 47%) and quantitative (n = 19, 40%), and six were mixed methods research (13%). The six mix methods research studies included the use of quantitative scales and qualitative survey questionnaires.

Policy Topics

A key charting category was on the topic area of the policy issue focus discussed in the article. After conducted a thematic analysis of these policy topic areas, the following themes emerged from the findings of this scoping review. The themes and subthemes pertain to each policy area are presented in Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Explanation of the five themes of the policy topic areas identified in the scoping review.

Strengthening Social Work's Capacity to Address Structural Issues in Practice

A predominant finding in the literature (n = 105) discussed gaps in social work practice that needed to be strengthened in order to improve delivery of care, and address the various structural factors impeding on the wellbeing of individuals and communities.

Addressing Health Inequities

Health disparities caused by ongoing structural inequities present in North America increased COVID-19 related risks among older adults of color, as well as Black and Latinx individuals. Yet, limited attention is often paid to the intersectionality of these vulnerabilities and how they increase the severity of illness and impact one's psychosocial functioning and recovery. It is evident that experiencing racism and discrimination confounds appropriate access to healthcare services during the pandemic (Miller, 2020; Mukhtar, 2021; Rinfrette, 2021). Integrating anti-oppressive frameworks in practice and understanding how the history of colonial ideologies manifest within the healthcare systems aligns with health equity aims. Further, practicing with an anti-racist (Bennett et al., 2021; Gonzales et al., 2021; Mukhtar, 2021) and culturally informed lens when supporting Black, Asian, Indigenous, and Latinx communities also aligns supports health equity (Gao & Liu, 2020).

A particular topic discussed in the wake of the pandemic was the rise of anti-Asian racism, fueled through negative misconceptions and stereotypes from public figures on the origin of the COVID-19 virus (Gao & Liu, 2020; Sunil, 2021). It was recommended that social workers create evidence-informed practices to address anti-Asian racial discrimination in partnerships with agencies and governing bodies that hold expertise in this area. In addition, social workers were encouraged to prioritize knowledge sharing of these practices at local, national, and international levels (Gao & Liu, 2020; Sunil, 2021). The pandemic also had a significant impact on those who are homeless or living in precarious housing (Wu & Karabanow, 2020), and as such social workers must address the needs of these individuals by effectively engaging in cross-sector collaboration with different agencies to enhance access to immediate medical resources, particularly for older adults who are homeless or experiencing food insecurity (Fuss et al., 2021).

Addressing Ageism and Strengthening Practice with Older Adults

Ageism has been widely exposed during the COVID-19 pandemic, evidenced in how those in long-term care homes were disadvantaged due to pre-existing inadequate environments and responses that did not account for nor address the needs of certain populations. Several articles discussed the importance of social work addressing ageism perpetuated in policy, organizational structures, and processes (Putnam & Shen, 2020). For example, Putnam & Shen (2020) put a call out to social workers to counter the ageism and stigma perpetuated by policy and decision-makers—and other professionals—that has suggested the value of older adults within policy is less than other age groups. For example, some policy decisions led to rationing or limiting care for older adults and persons with disabilities. The spread of COVID-19 in older adult care homes worldwide illuminated the inadequate health and safety standards that exist in long-term care facilities and highlighted long-standing concerns about availability and affordability of care services, quality of care for older adults with functional limitations and social care needs, and processes for self-determination, including choice of care location (Putnam & Shen, 2020).

Further, several articles discussed the importance of strengthening social work practice with older adults, by fostering connections and community during a time where older adults have been particularly isolated. In their article, Omorogiuwa (2020) discussed how social workers may operate through a strength-based approach by encouraging storytelling and knowledge sharing by older adults within group settings to empower older adults’ recovery and create a sense of community during the pandemic. Social workers also foster community connections amongst older adults by encouraging individuals to be actively involved in volunteering opportunities during the pandemic (Chan et al., 2021). Chan et al. (2021) found that promoting volunteering from older adults improves mental health by fostering a sense of pro-social behavior and heightened self-esteem during a public health crisis. Thus, social workers and other service providers may opt to incorporate these practices when supporting older adults, as well as provide opportunities within their organizations for older adult volunteers. This includes supportive resources, including skill development, supervision, and equal access to training material for older adults who may have limited previous work or volunteer experience (Chan et al., 2021). These opportunities also support older adults in developing social connections, through interacting with other older adults with different levels of social, cultural, and economic capital.

Strengthening Public Health and Emergency Planning

Another finding pertaining to gaps in social work practice was the need to strengthen the profession's capacity to proactively address and respond to population-based public health crises, including infectious disease management (Dominelli, 2021; Ebor et al., 2020). This includes the need for social workers to effectively collaborate with community resources like local foodbanks, develop resource coordination skills through a strength-based approach, as well as effectively conduct environmental needs assessments (Qiu et al., 2020; Sunil, 2021). Overall, emergency planning includes strategies that social workers engage in when working with individual clients and/or communities in order to provide guidance and sense of agency amidst large-scale environmental disasters (Sunil, 2021). Social work practice in areas related to public health requires social work core competencies to support effective contact tracing that is culturally inclusive, attentive to language, is trauma-informed, and recognizes unique needs of marginalized populations during contact tracing protocols (Ross et al., 2020). Social work knowledge and skills are an asset to public health protocols by informing activities that decrease barriers that marginalized populations have historically faced with population-based public health measures.

Enhancing Capacity for Virtual Care and Mitigating the Digital Divide

The rapid acceleration in the uptake of virtual care and technologies in health and mental health settings created a digital divide amongst the most vulnerable groups, highlighting the need for social workers to identify and advocate for those impacted by this (Sanders & Scanlon, 2021; Wong et al., 2021). Findings from this scoping review identified the need to improve social work's capacity for using virtual care in practice and delivering internet-based interventions in a way that enhances access yet does not perpetuate further inequities in the form of a ‘digital divide’ (Cristofalo, 2021; Pink et al., 2020; Mishna et al., 2020; Wilson, 2020). The use of text-based applications was also discussed as a supportive means of providing virtual care, particularly the use of text-based outreach for supporting isolated queer or transgender youth (Paceley et al., 2021). One option is for social workers to reach out to vulnerable groups by offering online counseling services and developing smartphone applications that are interactive and connect individuals directly to a mental health care provider. In addition, applications that have self-directed approaches to improving mental health, such as how to manage stress and anxiety during the pandemic, how to talk about health anxiety, and how to speak about COVID-19 with children were identified as beneficial outreach approaches during the pandemic (Nam et al., 2020).

A recurring theme in the literature was the importance of social workers supporting digital literacy development (Kawamura, 2020; Nam et al., 2021; Omorogiuwa, 2020; Seifert, 2021; Wang et al., 2021; Wong et al., 2021). Social workers can play a key role in enhancing digital literacy skills—particularly for older adults—to reduce feelings of isolation and loneliness experienced during the pandemic (Wong et al., 2021). Findings also encouraged social workers to enhance digital and media literacy of clients in a way that supports responsible digital media use and builds community. This includes guidance on how to promote healthy coping skills through online connections, the importance of being safe when providing personal or sensitive information online, the importance of searching for credible sources, highlighting suspicious behavior online, and the challenges of receiving and sharing misinformation of invalid sources (Omorogiuwa, 2020; Wang et al., 2021; Wong et al., 2021). Addressing concerns clients have with digital literacy and media use reduces barriers to accessing online services, support healthy online behavior, promote online connections during the pandemic, as well as reduce anxiety around how to navigate social media and online platforms in general (Wong et al., 2021).

Advocacy

The significance of social workers engaging in advocacy work, developing advocacy skills, and joining advocacy coalitions was also a recurring theme presented in the literature (Cleaveland & Waslin, 2021; Ekoh et al., 2020). This includes social workers confronting discrimination through advocating for policies and programs that eliminate or discourage racial discrimination (Gao & Liu, 2020). Social work advocacy occurs through numerous means, such as with local communities, governments, and organizations; highlighting client experiences; building allyship, and connecting racial and ethnic minority groups who have experienced discrimination or prejudice in their community. Advocacy is also needed to increase research that provides guidance on addressing racism, specifically research that is rooted in centering the voices of community members in all stages of the research process (Gao & Liu, 2020).

Social workers were also encouraged to advocate for the provision of essential food, medicine, and relief materials, as well as social interventions for refugees, immigrants (Nisanci et al., 2020), and older adults that are experiencing health challenges, technological barriers, and/or social isolation during the pandemic (Ekoh et al., 2020). Advocacy work also includes identifying and tackling anti-refugee narratives in the public to promote increased funding for social assistance programs for refugees experiencing challenges due to the pandemic (Nisanci et al., 2020).

Gaps in Social Work Education

A total of thirty (n = 30) articles referred to the gaps in social work education that need to be addressed in order for social workers to have capacity to respond to issues such as those arising during the COVID-19 pandemic. This includes the importance of redesigning social work curriculums to include a core focus on disaster management (de Jonge et al., 2020; Raftery et al., 2020; Ross, 2021; Sethi, 2021). The pandemic emphasized the need for disaster preparedness within the social work curricula; for example, by equipping social workers with knowledge on how infectious diseases and environmental disasters impact different dimensions of care for those living in precarious housing, low-income individuals, immigrants and refugees, older adults, those living with disabilities, as well as individuals living in rural communities. Content improvement also involves developing courses within the social work curricula that focus on case management. Geld (2020) states that case management for disaster response is an essential component for curriculum, particularly to prepare social workers for hospital settings. Other gaps in social work education highlighted during the COVID-19 pandemic include the lack of training on: interprofessional education, supporting clients in developing digital literacy (Nam et al., 2021; Pentaris et al., 2020), enhanced need for virtual education and virtual learning opportunities (McCarthy et al., 2021; Mitchell et al., 2021), and improving practicum or field education related to disaster management (Beesley & Devonald, 2020).

A prominent theme in the literature pertaining to gaps in social work education was the need for increased scholarship to provide guidance on dismantling structural racism. This includes the importance of scholars to interrogate assumptions about knowledge production (Liegghio & Caragata, 2020; Walton et al., 2021) and through candid conversations about power, privilege, oppression, and how these intersected to disenfranchise individuals from seeking appropriate mental health care during the pandemic (Bromfield et al., 2021; Walton et al., 2021).

Moreover, social workers are professionally bound to conduct and disseminate research that speaks to the experiences and needs of different communities, such as how clients handled the ongoing challenges of the pandemic, particularly individuals from low-income households, older adults, and those living in remote or rural communities (Amadasun, 2020). Research may be useful for demonstrating and evaluating effectiveness of interventions and community programs that supported disease management. Actively contributing to advancing this knowledge area is imperative to support the profession's ability to deal with pandemics in the future (Amadasun, 2020).

Need for New and Updated Standards and Guidelines

There were twenty-seven (n = 27) articles focused on gaps in standards and guidelines during the pandemic which impacted the ability to deliver appropriate pandemic responses. This theme includes the lack of developing standards and guidelines pertaining to effective crisis response as well as effective social work practice during crises, recommendations for new guidelines for services such as telehealth and virtual care (Baumes et al., 2020), refining existing guidelines to address emerging public health needs during the pandemic, and improving guidelines to inform organizational change for pandemic responses (Baumes et al., 2020; Jones et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2020; Yu et al., 2020).

A prominent finding in the literature was the lack of clear intervention guidelines to support social work practice during large-scale crisis, which includes lack of intervention models for safeguarding those who are vulnerable during the pandemic (Jones et al., 2021). Social workers were expected to adapt to the many challenges emerging during the pandemic, such as enforcing government mandates, providing Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) within hospitals, and cross-sector collaboration to provide immediate relief (Agwu & Okoye, 2021; Jones et al., 2021; Miller et al., 2020). However, Jones et al. (2021) discuss the limited guidance on interdisciplinary collaboration strategies during the pandemic to guide social work approaches during crises. This was an issue recognized globally, as Wang et al. (2020) discuss that the lack of guidelines in China for disaster response and preparedness for those with cognitive disorders. The authors aimed to address these gaps by proposing self-help material as well as clear recommendations for health care practitioners to support those with dementia during the pandemic (Wang et al., 2020). In addition, Yu et al. (2020) developed standards and guidelines for interdisciplinary team working to support team collaboration and social work practice during public health emergencies (Yu et al., 2020). They present a framework that is inclusive of transferable skills for social workers working in different contexts, with a particular focus on interdisciplinary team working during disaster management. The lack of guidelines for telehealth practice, for providing telehealth-based services in schools, and ethically grounded telehealth services was also discussed in the literature (Baumes et al., 2020). This includes a lack of clear guidelines within schools on how to address students and caregivers’ interest in telehealth services, how the presence of caregivers may impact care, and ethically grounded guidelines to support testing and assessments over telehealth platforms (Baumes et al., 2020).

Need for Professional Clarity and Professional Supports

Internationally, social workers played an essential role as frontline clinicians in the disaster response during the pandemic. Social workers’ contribution during the pandemic resulted in an increased recognition of social workers in the public health sphere as essential workers (Crawford, 2021). A total of eighteen (n = 18) articles discussed challenges particularly related to the need for professional clarity as a policy focus emerging during the pandemic. This includes the lack of job specialization outlined by organizations, the impact of role blurring amongst service providers in the team setting, and the challenge of managing competing demands and designated tasks that social workers had to adapt to amidst the pandemic (Agwu & Okoye, 2021; Crawford, 2021; Oltmann et al., 2021; Samboma, 2020). In countries, such as Botswana, the lack of job specialization and the challenges this posed for social workers in children's welfare agencies was heightened during the pandemic (Samboma, 2020). Social work practice in Botswana ranges from assessments, counseling, and community referrals to distributing food in the community. The varied nature and role of social work practice amidst the pandemic impacted social workers ability to provide effective and timely psychosocial support for children at risk of sexual abuse (Samboma, 2020).

In palliative care settings, social work practice varied from coordinating logistics to providing evidenced based grief and bereavement support (Oltmann et al., 2021). The varied role of social workers in these settings highlighted the need for agencies and human resource staff to expand job descriptions and role expectations for social workers to account for the daily practice of these workers during the pandemic (Oltmann et al., 2021). Outlined role distinctions would facilitate role clarity for service providers as well as facilitate boundary setting for social workers who are often roped into many different tasks during the pandemic (Agwu & Okoye, 2021). Articles also discussed the changing roles of social workers working in the shelter system, roles which involved hands on support in distributing safe and reliable material to vulnerable groups, enforcing safety measures and government mandates, and correcting general misinformation shared within shelters and during outreach community work (Crawford, 2021; Wasilewska-Ostrowska, 2020). One concern emerging during the pandemic was the exclusion of social workers in leadership, policy development, and organizational planning despite the expertise that social workers can contribute (Felt et al., 2021).

Articles discussed the implications that role ambiguity had on the dynamics social work experienced within interdisciplinary team settings. For example, in healthcare settings when physicians and other interdisciplinary team members failed to recognize the critical role social workers play, there was a negative impact on team cohesion and collaboration (Chen & Zhuang, 2020). Thus, enhancing awareness of the role of social workers in both organizations as well as in the public sphere was highlighted as an important issue in the literature (Chen & Zhuang, 2020; Paul et al., 2020). Given that large scale public health crises inevitably exacerbate health disparities among those most vulnerable, social workers must be recognized as key stakeholders in disaster protocol and planning to ensure that inclusive, appropriate, and timely care is provided for all (Felt et al., 2021).

Further, Kim et al. (2020) highlighted the need for there to be formal policy recognition—either through a legal registration system, regulation, or formal certification—to legitimizing social work as a profession within Cambodia. Additionally, Kim et al. (2020) noted the need for a national mapping strategy to gather data on the numbers of social work graduates, and to track what types of organizational sectors that social workers are employed in across Cambodia.

Kim et al. (2020) describe the benefits of such strategies as a way to build up and ensure sustainable social work development and to ensure there is a sufficient social service workforce to address the current and future needs of Cambodia.

Lastly, the state of employee wellbeing during the pandemic was a key concern that affected all healthcare professionals, including social workers, presented in the literature (Farr, 2020; McFadden et al., 2021; Peinado & Anderson, 2020; Samboma, 2021). In their UK study, McFadden et al. (2021) found that employee wellbeing was below the national average, which significantly impacted the quality of care provided for clients, impacted client safety, and resulted in increased employee absences. Healthcare organizations were encouraged to solicit feedback from employees, cocreate meaningful solutions to manage employee stress and wellbeing, and offer sessions on coping with the challenges emerging from a public health crisis (McFadden et al., 2021; Samboma, 2021). In addition, the importance of unions in fostering organizational conditions that enabled the role of social work was discussed as an important way to mitigate social workers’ burnout (Farr, 2020). Unions may benefit human resource agencies by sharing information and advancing improvements to conditions for better worker safety, lower employee workloads, and healthier workplace conditions that foster retention and decrease social workers’ stress and burnout (Farr, 2020).

Inadequate Government Response

There were eleven (n = 11) articles that called for an improvement to governments’ responses to address issues emerging during the COVID-19 pandemic. This involved recognition of governments’ responsibility for supplying PPE equipment and the need for adapting disaster responses to promote equitable access to healthcare for all (Burton et al., 2020). Ajibo (2020) described the need for the Nigerian government to prioritize decisions for the health sector in terms of funding, equipping hospitals, and training of medical staff.

Articles highlighted that governments needed to respond to the range of social care needs arsing during the pandemic. For example, Wang et al. (2020) state that governments need to recognize and respond to the social issues arising for more vulnerable populations with less power and fewer resources because the pandemic has illustrated that social needs vary across different economic classes. Burton et al. (2020) also emphasized the need for governments to prioritize the needs of vulnerable populations in the delivery of quality and equitable care. By doing so, government policy may improve the comprehensiveness of coordination with the inclusion of financial resources, rehabilitation services, safe housing, and other social services (Burton et al., 2020). Arthur-Holmes et al. (2020) recommend that governments need to cater social programs for the aging population such as developing local access centers that they refer to as community-based health planning and service compounds for older adults who may be hesitant or anxious to travel to hospitals or clinics that are geographically far. Moreover, providing these spaces with trained health professionals and organized COVID-19 programs would encourage older adults to obtain healthcare access. Other government approaches include responses that recognize the digital divide amongst communities (Wang et al., 2020).

Discussion

The COVID-19 pandemic created new conditions, population health concerns, and community-level concerns inextricably linked to a range of policy-level decisions related to social, economic, housing, and resource allocation (Ruckert et al., 2021). Given the prominence of social workers employed within health and mental healthcare settings, our scoping review strives to provide some guidance on the policy issues emerging during the COVID-19 pandemic that are relevant for social workers. The purpose of this scoping review was to identify the policy issues emerging during the COVID-19 pandemic that are of importance for social workers working in health and mental health. Five key themes were identified in the literature including: the need to strengthen social work's capacity to address structural issues in practice, gaps in social work education, need for new and updated standards and guidelines, need for professional clarity and professional supports, and inadequate government response.

The COVID-19 pandemic created devastating social and economic conditions that both illuminated and widened disparities (Miller & Lee, 2020; Walter-McCabe, 2020b). Addressing health inequities is complex and requires multifaceted approaches that attend to the broad structural and social conditions affecting individual clients and communities (Ashcroft, 2010; Ashcroft & Adamson, 2022). Social workers bring an approach to policy that considers the importance of social environments, social relationships, and value-driven policymaking (Miller et al., 2017). The policy-practice framework is one approach that provides guidance for social workers in health and mental healthcare to address the social and structural disparities exacerbated by the pandemic.

Promoting social change and identifying areas for development are priorities of policy-practice (Pawar, 2019). Our scoping review highlights key policy areas relevant for recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic and are of importance for health social workers in micro and macro practice. Wyers (1991) proposed five policy-practice models that social workers might adopt based on their specific practice aims and goals, and social workers may opt to employ varying strategies to address identified in our scoping review based on their practice and community needs. The five policy-practice models include: social worker as policy expert, social worker as change agent in environments external to their practice setting, social worker as change agent within their direct practice setting, social worker as the policy conduit, and social worker as the embodiment of policy (Wyers, 1991). Using a policy-practice framework, social workers have considerable power to influence policy across these roles and settings (Powell et al., 2013). According to Powell et al. (2013), “Direct practice social workers, whether they are cognizant of their policymaking role or not, influence what actually happens to clients as they inevitably make decisions that mediate or implement top-down policies” (p. 375). Convincing policy and decision-makers of the importance of issues is often a challenge that social workers encounter (Pawar, 2019). Findings from our scoping review strive to provide social workers with a foundation to enhance the advocacy activities that they are engaged in. Grounded by the aims of social justice (Weiss-Gal & Gal, 2008), a policy-practice framework may enable social workers to harness their power in addressing the structural and social inequities of the pandemic.

Our scoping review highlights clear gaps in education that need to be addressed to build capacity for social workers in health and mental healthcare settings, in order to have a greater impact in practice during times of disasters and public health crisis. Social work academia is a key route to policy-practice (Gal & Weiss-Gal, 2015; Pawar, 2019). Social workers have been ill-prepared for disaster management, population health crisis, interprofessional collaboration during crisis, and the use of virtual telecommunications in practice (Hussain & Ashcroft, 2022). Based on findings from our scoping review, accrediting bodies are encouraged to re-evaluate curriculum for social work to ensure that these gaps are filled. In many countries/jurisdictions, accreditation bodies inform and create educational standards and policies that social work programs must adhere to (Kourgiantakis et al., 2023; Mulé et al., 2020). Schools and faculties of social work are accredited based on a set of standards set and operationalized by national accreditation bodies (Mulé et al., 2020). Additionally, accreditation bodies can create guidelines that outline how social justice and addressing health inequities might be embedded in educational curriculum (Mulé et al., 2020), such as those exacerbated during the pandemic. Additionally, our scoping review highlights gaps in research that are needed to be addressed in order to build social work's capacity to respond to emergencies, disaster management, and the structural racism that has been inherent within the COVID-19 pandemic. Similar to McMahon et al.'s (2020) approach to systematically guide research for health services, perhaps social work would benefit from profession-level priorities for informing and guiding a systematic research response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic created conditions that required new organizational and practice-level responses to the range of related challenges. The lack of standards and guidelines created a range of challenges for social workers and other healthcare professionals employed during the pandemic. Going forward, standards related to the use of virtual care and technologies in practice are needed to guide decisions on the appropriate modality of care. Although there were a few articles that focused on grief and bereavement (Bashyam et al., 2021; Jonas et al., 2021), it was surprising that there was not more literature and a greater attention on grief and bereavement as a policy issue given that the pandemic has heightened the need for a national grief strategy (Social Work Hospice & Palliative Care Network, 2022).

Our scoping review demonstrates the need for professional-level clarity and supports to provide stronger foundations to guide social workers and the range of organizations within which social workers practice. The COVID-19 pandemic has been disruptive to a range of providers in healthcare settings, including social workers (Weng, 2022). Recent research suggests that social workers have endured professional hardships during the pandemic, such as economic instability and professional isolation (Ashcroft et al., 2021; Weng, 2022). Despite social work recognized as an essential profession for emergencies, the lack of role clarity during this time has led to role confusion, isolation from interdisciplinary teams, and provider burnout (Hussain & Ashcroft, 2022). Findings from this scoping review encourages an examination of the underlying policy-fabric that guides social work practice—such as regulation, professional associations, ethical guidelines, and unionization—in order to provide clear guidance outlined for disasters, like the COVID-19 pandemic.

Our scoping review illustrates some of the inadequacies of governments’ responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. In particular, the lack of adequate attendance to communities’ social needs was noted in the literature as problematic. Top policymakers are urged to include social workers as key contributors to the decision-making process on issues related to recovery from the pandemic, as well as other decisions related to health and mental. Social workers have experience and expertise related to the situations that policies are meant to address (Powell et al., 2013). In addition, policy makers are encouraged to engage community and other stakeholders in order to align recovery strategies with the needs and preferences of the communities they serve. Meaningful engagement of communities in the planning, designing, governing, and/or delivery of services has multiple benefits including creating policy that responds to community needs, and empowers communities to also contribute to long-term system changes (De Weger et al., 2018; Schiavo, 2021).

It is important to note that one of the inherent limitations of scoping reviews, including this one, is the potential omission of relevant literature, because of methodological decisions that inform study selection. To mitigate this risk, our research team includes a health sciences librarian who developed a broad search strategy. Another limitation of scoping reviews is the focus on mapping the literature and not the appraisal of the quality of the literature. Our search was limited to studies in English and did not include gray literature. We opted to use a broad operating definition of health policy (Westhues, 2006) because it is reflective of social work's generalist practice approach across health settings and social work's view of health (Ashcroft & Van Katwyk, 2017). As a result, literature is included that may not have been included if using a different definition of health policy that specifies policy is in relation to a specific healthcare setting (de Leeuw et al., 2014).

Conclusion

Our scoping review helps build social work's capacity to help with recovery from the pandemic by identifying key the policy issues arising and related to the COVID-19 pandemic of importance to social work. The five themes of policy issues identified in our scoping review are: (a) strengthening social work's capacity to address structural issues in practice, (b) gaps in social work education, (c) need for new and updated standards and guidelines, (d) need for professional clarity and professional supports, and (e) inadequate government response. As noted in our scoping review, there are a range of opportunities for social work to participate and influence these policy issues. Notably, social workers bring a unique lens and understanding of policy issues to interprofessional health and mental health organizations within which they work. By strengthening uptake of the policy-practice framework, social work practitioners concurrently address immediate client issues and address upstream factors perpetuating inequities emerging during the pandemic (Powell et al., 2013; Wyers, 1991). The policy-practice approach strengthens social workers’ capacity to collaborate on public and population health concerns (Miller et al., 2017). Social work researchers and clinicians are encouraged to seek out overt opportunities for integrating interventions to demonstrate outcomes and impacts of employing the policy-practice framework. Lastly, there have been a handful of pandemics and other public health related disasters in the past decade alone. This work strives to build social work's capacity to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as recognize the importance of building social work's capacity to better respond to future pandemics and public health crisis.

Appendix A

Table A1.

Synthesis of Selected Articles (n = 191).

Author	Year	Country	Article Type	Policy Focus Discussed
Aaslund	2021	Norway	Commentary	Leadership
Abrams & Dettlaff	2020	USA	Commentary	Social justice
Adams & Tyson	2020	USA	Commentary	Social justice
Addis & Abate	2021	Ethiopia	Empirical	Social determinants of health
Agwu & Okoye	2021	Nigeria	Empirical	Guidelines
Ajibo	2020	Nigeria	Empirical	Health system and emergency preparedness
Amadasun	2020	Nigeria	Commentary	Public health infrastructure
Amadasun	2020	Nigeria	Commentary	Advocacy
Amadasun	2021	Nigeria	Commentary	Social work education
Archer-Kuhn et al.	2020	Canada	Commentary	Social work education
Arnfjord	2021	Greenland	Commentary	Homelessness
Arthur-Holmes et al.	2020	UK	Commentary	Health systems
Azman et al.	2020	Malaysia	Commentary	Social work education
Badran	2020	Lebanon	Commentary	Social justice
Banks et al.	2020	UK	Empirical	Leadership, collaboration, guidelines
Barkai et al.	2021	Israel	Empirical	Telehealth
Bashyam et al.	2021	Singapore	Commentary	End of life
Baumes et al.	2020	USA	Commentary	Guidelines
Beesley & Devonald	2020	UK	Commentary	Social work education
Bender et al.	2021	USA	Commentary	Guidelines
Bennett et al.	2021	USA	Commentary	Service delivery
Berg-Weger & Schroepfer	2020	USA	Commentary	Social work education
Bernhardt et al.	2020	USA	Commentary	Social work education
Bern-Klug & Beaulieu	2020	USA	Commentary	Guidelines
Bright	2020	USA	Commentary	Discrimination
Bromfield et al.	2021	USA	Commentary	Discrimination
Buchanan & Bailey-Belafonte	2021	Jamaica	Commentary	Social work education
Burton et al.	2020	USA	Commentary	Health inequities
Chan et al.	2021	Hong Kong	Empirical	Ageism
Chen & Zhuang	2020	China	Empirical	Collaborative partnerships, interdisciplinary teams
Cheung	2020	Hong Kong	Commentary	Hospital social work disaster management
Chigangaidze	2021	Zimbabwe	Theoretical	Guidelines
Chinyere et al.	2020	Nigeria	Empirical	Social work education
Chiu & Yu	2020	Taiwan	Commentary	Community
Choi et al.	2020	South Korea	Commentary	Telehealth
Chui & Ko	2020	Hong Kong	Theoretical	Health inequities
Cifuentes-Faura	2020	Spain	Commentary	Guidelines
Clapp et al.	2020	USA	Commentary	Health system
Cleaveland & Waslin	2021	USA	Commentary	Migrant rights
Cox	2020	USA	Commentary	Community
Cox	2021	USA	Commentary	Social work education
Craig et al.	2021	Canada	Commentary	Telehealth
Crawford	2021	USA	Commentary	Social work therapeutic practice, social justice, and public health
Cristofalo	2021	USA	Commentary	Guidelines
Cross & Gonzalez Benson	2021	USA	Commentary	Health system
Currin-McCulloch et al.	2021	USA	Empirical	Social care
Dauti et al.	2020	Albania	Commentary	Advocacy
de Jonge et al.	2020	Netherlands	Commentary	Social work education
Dempsey et al.	2021	USA	Commentary	Social work education
Diaz-Jimenez et al.	2020	Spain	Empirical	Social work education
Dominelli	2021	UK	Commentary	Disaster management
Dorado Barbé et al.	2021	Spain	Empirical	Guidelines
Downing et al.	2020	USA	Commentary	Guidelines
Ebor et al.	2020	USA	Commentary	Community
Ekoh et al.	2020	Nigeria	Empirical	Community
Equatora et al.	2020	Indonesia	Empirical	Disease prevention and emergency policy
Farr	2020	USA	Commentary	Unionization
Felt et al.	2021	USA	Theoretical	Ableism
Firang	2020	Canada	Commentary	Discrimination
Flynn	2020	Ireland	Commentary	Social work education
Franzosa et al.	2021	USA	Empirical	Service delivery
Fronek & Rotabi	2020	Australia	Commentary	Intercountry adoption and international surrogacy
Fuss et al.	2021	USA	Commentary	Food insecurity
Gao & Liu	2021	USA	Commentary	Social justice
Garcia et al.	2021	Brazil	Commentary	Poverty
Geld	2020	USA	Commentary	Health system
Gergerich et al.	2020	USA	Empirical	End of life
Gonzales et al.	2021	USA	Commentary	Social justice
Goswami et al.	2021	India	Commentary	Surrogacy in India
Green & Moran	2021	UK	Commentary	Guidelines
Haleemunnissa et al.	2021	India	Theoretical	Children health/wellbeing
Halvorsen & Yulikova	2020	USA	Commentary	Poverty in older adults
Harris et al.	2021	USA	Commentary	Service delivery
Horbar et al.	2020	USA	Commentary	Social care
Hudson & Mehrotra	2021	USA	Commentary	Social justice
Jara-Labarthé	2021	Chile	Commentary	Migrant social policy
Jolly	2020	UK	Commentary	Child welfare
Jonas et al.	2021	USA	Commentary	End of life
Jones et al.	2021	USA	Commentary	Health inequities
Katz & Cohen	2020	Israel	Empirical	Child welfare
Kawamura	2020	Japan	Theoretical	Service delivery
Kelly et al.	2020	USA	Commentary	Prison reform
Kim et al.	2020	Cambodia	Commentary	Intersectoral collaboration
Komin et al.	2020	Thailand	Empirical	Community and collaboration
Kourgiantakis et al.	2020	Canada	Commentary	Social work education
Kwan et al.	2021	Hong Kong	Commentary	Health inequities
Larmer et al.	2020	Nepal	Commentary	Child labor
Lau et al.	2020	Hong Kong	Empirical	Community and service provision
Lau et al.	2021	Hong Kong	Commentary	Community
Levine et al.	2020	UK	Theoretical	Multi-sectoral collaboration
Li et al.	2020	China	Empirical	Health services
Liegghio & Caragata	2020	Canada	Commentary	Social work education
Lightfoot et al.	2020	USA	Commentary	Service provision
Lightfoot et al.	2021	USA	Empirical	Community
Lima-Silva et al.	2020	Brazil	Empirical	Social care
Lin & Yin	2021	China	Commentary	Service delivery
Liu et al.	2020	China	Commentary	Service delivery
Ma & Lyu	2021	China	Commentary	Guidelines
Marchetti et al.	2020	Italy	Empirical	Social care
McCarthy et al.	2021	USA	Empirical	Social work education
McFadden et al.	2021	UK	Empirical	Employment
Miller	2020	USA	Commentary	Social justice
Miller et al.	2020	USA	Empirical	Child welfare
Miller et al.	2021	USA	Empirical	Guidelines
Mills et al.	2020	USA	Commentary	Disaster preparedness planning
Mishna et al.	2020	Canada	Empirical	Guidelines
Mitchell et al.	2021	USA	Theoretical	Social work education
Møller	2021	Denmark	Empirical	Service delivery
Morley et al.	2020	USA	Commentary	Social care
Morse & Dell	2021	USA	Empirical	Guidelines
Muhammad & Zafar	2020	Pakistan	Commentary	Child rights and safety
Mukhtar	2021	USA	Commentary	Social justice
Munoz-Moreno et al.	2020	Spain	Empirical	Guidelines
Nam et al.	2021	Vietnam	Empirical	Service delivery
Naylor	2020	USA	Commentary	Health system
Nisanci et al.	2020	Turkey	Commentary	Advocacy, telehealth, barriers to resources
Nissen	2020	USA	Theoretical	Social work education
Nyadera et al.	2020	Nairobi	Commentary	Housing/informal settlement
O’Leary & Tsiu	2020	Australia	Commentary	Advocacy
O’Leary & Tsiu	2021	?	Commentary	Social work education
O’Rourke et al.	2020	Northern Ireland	Commentary	Partnership
Ohta & Yata	2021	Japan	Commentary	Social care
Oltmann et al.	2021	USA	Commentary	End of life
Omorogiuwa	2020	Nigeria	Commentary	Service delivery
Ornellas et al.	2020		Commentary	Social justice
Paceley et al.	2021	USA	Empirical	Service delivery
Park & Yang	2020	South Korea	Commentary	Guidelines
Paul et al.	2020	Jamaica	Commentary	Advocacy
Pearce et al.	2021	UK	Empirical	Service delivery
Peinado & Anderson	2020	USA	Commentary	Social care
Pentaris et al.	2020	UK	Commentary	Social work education
Pentaris et al.	2020	UK	Commentary	Social work education
Pentini & Lorenz	2020	Italy	Commentary	Leadership
Pink et al.	2020	Australia	Commentary	Child welfare
Putnam & Shen	2020	USA	Commentary	Advocacy
Qiu et al.	2020	China	Commentary	Social work education
Raeymaeckers & Van Puyvelde	2021	Belgium	Commentary	Intersectoral collaboration
Rafferty	2020	USA	Theoretical	Child welfare
Raftery et al.	2020	Australia	Commentary	Social work education
Ramsay	2020	Australia	Commentary	Leadership
Redondo-Sama et al.	2020	Spain	Empirical	Health inequities
Reed	2021	USA	Theoretical	Social justice
Rinfrette	2021	USA	Commentary	Social justice
Rodriguez	2020	USA	Commentary	Social work education
Ross	2021	Canada	Commentary	Social work education
Ross et al.	2020	USA	Commentary	Social work education
Ross et al.	2021	USA	Commentary	Social determinants of health
Ross et al.	2021	USA	Empirical	Guidelines
Roy & Kaur	2020	India	Theoretical	Leadership
Rubin & Rassman	2021	USA	Empirical	Service provision
Samboma	2020	Botswana	Commentary	Child welfare
Samboma	2021	Botswana	Commentary	Human rights
Sanders & Scanlon	2021	USA	Commentary	Health inequities
Schormans et al.	2021	Canada	Commentary	Ableism
Schwab-Reese et al.	2020	USA	Empirical	Leadership
Seifert	2021	Switzerland	Commentary	Isolation, digital literacy
Sepúlveda et al.	2020	Chile	Commentary	Social work education
Sethi	2021	Canada	Commentary	Social work education
Shillington et al.	2020	USA	Commentary	Social work education
Sims	2020	UK	Empirical	Children and family
Singer & Brodzinsky	2020	USA	Commentary	Child welfare
Singh et al.	2021	USA	Empirical	Service delivery
Sunil	2021	India	Commentary	Social work education
Swinford et al.	2020	USA	Commentary	Ageism
Teater et al.	2021	USA	Empirical	Disaster management and preparedness
Toros & Falch-Eriksen	2020	Estonia	Empirical	Child rights and protection
Truell	2020	Unclear	Commentary	Service provision
Walter-McCabe	2020	USA	Commentary	Advocacy and service provision
Walton et al.	2021	USA	Commentary	Anti-Black racism
Wan	2021	China	Commentary	Disaster management and preparedness
Wang et al.	2020	China	Commentary	Guidelines
Wang et al.	2020	China	Empirical	Poverty
Wang et al.	2021	USA/Canada	Empirical	Community development
Wang et al.	2021	USA/Canada	Empirical	Guidelines
Wang et al.	2021	China	Commentary	Community
Wannamakok et al.	2020	Gambia	Commentary	Gender discrimination
Washburn et al.	2021	USA	Empirical	Social work education
Wasilewska-Ostrowska	2020	Poland	Commentary	Homelessness
Wilkerson et al.	2020	USA	Empirical	Service provision, guidelines
Wilson	2020	UK	Commentary	Guidelines
Wilson et al.	2020	USA	Commentary	Child welfare
Wong et al.	2020	USA	Commentary	Leadership
Wong et al.	2021	Hong Kong	Empirical	Social care
Wu & Karabanow	2020	Canada	Commentary	Advocacy
Xenakis et al.	2021	USA	Commentary	Leadership
Xue et al.	2020	Canada	Empirical	Human rights
Yeong-Tsyr et al.	2020	Taiwan	Commentary	Leadership
Yingling	2020	USA	Commentary	Health care system
Yu et al.	2021	China	Theoretical	Collaborative partnerships, interdisciplinary teams
Yu et al.	2021	China	Commentary	Interdisciplinary team collaboration, guidelines
Yuan et al.	2020	China	Commentary	Social work education