References

• Blomberg, H., Östlund, G., Lindstedt, P. R., & Cürüklü, B. (2022). Children helping to co-construct a digital tool that is designed to increase children’s participation in child welfare investigations in Sweden. Qualitative Social Work, 21(2), 367–392. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325021990864
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blomberg, H., & Stier, J. (2016). Att vara kommunikativt låst – Professionellas berättande om (vanskliga) vårdrelationer [Trapped in communication – Professionals’ testimonies about communicative break­downs in healthcare worker–patient interactions]. Socialvetenskaplig tidskrift, 23(1), s. 59–76. https://doi.org/10.3384/SVT.2016.23.1.2335
   Google Scholar
• Bolin, A., & Sorbring, E. (2017). The self-referral affordances of school-based social work support: A case study. European Journal of Social Work, 20(6), 869–881. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691457.2016.1278521
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
   Google Scholar
• Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Experiments by nature and design. Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Collins-Camargo, C., Strolin, J., & Akin, B. (2019). Use of technology to facilitate practice improvement in trauma-informed child welfare systems. Child Welfare, 97(3), 85–108. https://www.proquest.com/scholarlyjournals/use-technology-facilitate-practiceimprovement/docview/2308151657/se-2?accountid = 12249.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Devlieghere, J., & Roose, R. (2019). Documenting practices in human service organisations through information systems: When the quest for visibility ends in darkness. Social Inclusion, 7(1), 207. https://doi.org/10.17645/si.v7i1.1833
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drew, P., & Heritage, J. (1992). Talk at work. Interaction in institutional settings. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dubé, A. K., & McEwans, R. N. (2017). Abilities and affordances: Factors influencing successful child-tablet communication. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65(4), 889–908. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9493-y
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gibbson, J. J. (1977). The theory of affordances. Hilldale.
   Google Scholar
• Gillingham, P. (2018). Decision-making about the adoption of information technology in social welfare agencies: Some key considerations. European Journal of Social Work, 21(4), 521–529. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691457.2017.1297773
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goffman, E. (1961). Encounters. Two studies in the sociology of interactions by Erving Goffman. Bobbs-Merrill.
   Google Scholar
• Goffman, E. (1963). Behavior in public places. Notes in the social organizations of gatherings. The Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Graham, D. R. (1992). Incremental development and delivery for large software systems. In IEE colloquium on software prototyping and evolutionary development. IET. November: 2-1.
   Google Scholar
• Heimer, M., Näsman, E., & Palme, J. (2018). Vulnerable children’s rights to participation, protection, and provision: The process of defining the problem in Swedish child and family welfare. Child & Family Social Work, 23(2), 316–323. https://doi.org/10.1111/cfs.12424
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hofstede, G., van Nijnatten, C., & Suurmond, J. (2001). Communication strategies of family supervisors and clients in organizing participation. European Journal of Social Work, 4(2), 131–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/714052863
   Google Scholar
• Juhlia, K., & Abrams, L. S. (2011). Special issue editorial: Constructing identities in social work settings. Qualitative Social Work, 10(3), 277–292. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325011409480
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keymolen, E., & Broeders, D. (2013). Innocence lost: Care and control in Dutch Digital Youth Care. British Journal of Social Work, 43(1), 41–63. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcr169
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klemsdal, L., & Clegg, S. (2022). Defining the work situation in organization theory: bringing Goffman back in. Culture and Organization, 28(6), 471–484. https://doi.org/10.1080/14759551.2022.2090563
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Križ, K., & Skivenes, M. (2010). We have very different positions on some issues’: how child welfare workers in Norway and England bridge cultural differences when communicating with ethnic minority families. European Journal of Social Work, 13(1), 3–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691450903135626
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kvakic, M., & Wærdahl, R. (2022). Trust and power in the space between visibility and invisibility. Exploring digital and social media practices in Norwegian Child Welfare Services. European Journal of Social Work, https://doi.org/10.1080/13691457.2022.2099350
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Matscheck, D., & Berg Eklundh, L. (2015). Does BBIC make a difference? Structured assessment of child protection and support. Nordic Social Work Research, 5(3), 193–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/2156857X.2014.986749
   Google Scholar
• Mitchell, C., Chege, F., Maina, L., & Rothman, M. (2016). Beyond engagement in working with children in eight Nairobi slums to address safety, security, and housing: Digital tools for policy and community dialogue. Global Public Health, 11(5-6), 651–665. https://doi.org/10.1080/17441692.2016.1165720
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Munro, E. (2020). Effective child protection (3rd ed.). Los Angeles.
   Google Scholar
• National Aeronautics and Space Administration. (2020). NASA TLX Task load index. https://humansystems.arc.nasa.gov/groups/TLX/.
   Google Scholar
• National Board of Health and welfare, (NBW) report 2021-5-7384. (2021). E-hälsa och välfärdsteknik i kommunerna 2021. Uppföljning av den digitala utvecklingen i socialtjänsten och den kommunala hälso- och sjukvården [E-health and welfare technology in the municipalities 2021. Following up the development of digital development in social care and the municipal health care]. Published: www.socialstyrelsen.se, May 2021.
   Google Scholar
• Nordesjö, K., Scaramuzzino, G., & Ulmestig, R. (2022). The social worker-client relationship in the digital era: A configurative literature review. European Journal of Social Work, 25(2), 303–315. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691457.2021.1964445
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Silverman, D. (2000). Interpreting qualitative data, methods for analysing talk, text and interaction. Sage Publications Ltd.
   Google Scholar
• Svensson, L., & Larsson, S. (2017). Digitalisering och socialt arbete - en kunskapsöversikt [Digitalisation and social work – a literature review] (5th ed.). LUii reports 3(5). Lunds universitets internetinstitut (LUii).
   Google Scholar
• Taylor, A. (2017). Social work and digitalisation: Bridging the knowledge gaps. Social Work Education, 36(8), 869–879. https://doi.org/10.1080/02615479.2017.1361924
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomas, W. I. (1951). Social behavior and personality. Russell Sage Foundation.
   Google Scholar
• Tregeagle, S., & Darcy, M. (2007). Child Welfare and Information and Communication Technology: Today’s challenge. British Journal of Social Work, 38(8), 1481–1498. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcm048
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trischler, J., & Westman Trischler, J. (2022). Design for experience - A public service design approach in the age of digitalization. Public Management Review, 24(8), 1251–1270. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2021.1899272
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verschuere, B., Brandsen, T., & Pestoff, V. (2012). Co-production: The state of the art in research and the future agenda. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 23(4), 1083–1101. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-012-9307-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar