Archive Issue
International Interdisciplinary Scientific Journal "Expert"
Volume 3 (2026)
Language of the original article: English
ABSTRACT. This paper presents an in-depth analysis of the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) and robotics into various areas of work with children and families, focusing on the study of practices related to social work with children. The article contributes to the literature by systematising AI-based and robotic tools as complementary resources for social work with children at risk and by outlining the professional and ethical conditions for their responsible implementation. The theoretical framework of the analysis is built through a synthesis of established models of smart technologies, including socially assistive robotics (SAR) as an approach used to support social engagement and child-centred practice. A specific analysis of the functionalities of examples of children's engagement and interaction with therapeutic robots - Nao and Kaspar - is presented to support the tone of the research in the context of this article, which emphasizes the importance of digital technologies and artificial intelligence and their implementation in the practice of social services and social activities with children. The article explores the role of artificial intelligence and its impact on children, their upbringing, education, therapy and development. The role of the social worker and the need for digital inclusion in his professional position are outlined, as the article addresses the critical gap in the scientific literature regarding the application of artificial intelligence and intelligent technologies in social practice and social work with children, which can be defined as the "Digital Divide". The article highlights key issues for discussion regarding the application of AI and intelligent technologies in the social sphere, setting out circumstances and recommendations for transformation at the practical level.
Keywords: artificial intelligence, intelligent technologies, socially assistive robotics, social work, social workers.
1. Vekova, L., Vazova, T., & Uzhikanova-Kovacheva, E. (2026). Innovative model for the application of digital technologies and artificial intelligence in social services for children without disabilities. In INTED2026 Proceedings: 20th International Technology, Education and Development Conference (Article 1549). IATED Academy. https://doi.org/10.21125/inted.2026.1549
2. Axelsson, M., Spitale, M., & Gunes, H. (2024). Robots as mental well-being coaches: design and ethical recommendations. ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction, 13(2), Article 19. https://doi.org/10.1145/3643457
3. Mathias, E. G., Pai, M. S., Guddattu, V., & Bramhagen, A. C. (2023). Non-pharmacological interventions to reduce anxiety among children undergoing surgery: a systematic review. Journal of Child Health Care, 27(3), 466–487. https://doi.org/10.1177/13674935211062336
4. Kewalramani, S., Palaiologou, I., Arnott, L., & Dardanou, M. (2020). The integration of the internet of toys in early childhood education: a platform for multi-layered interactions. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 28(2), 197–213. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2020.1735738
5. Kewalramani, S., Kidman, G., & Palaiologou, I. (2021). Using Artificial Intelligence (AI)-interfaced robotic toys in early childhood settings: a case for children’s inquiry literacy. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 29(5), 652–668. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2021.1968458
6. Catala, A., Sylla, C., & Ozgur, A. (2021). Smart Toys++: Exploiting the social connectedness for playing and learning. In Proceedings of the 20th Annual ACM Interaction Design and Children Conference (IDC '21) (pp. 679–681). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3459990.3460519
7. Asselborn, T., Guneysu, A., Mrini, K., Yadollahi, E., Ozgur, A., Johal, W., & Dillenbourg, P. (2018). Bringing letters to life: Handwriting with haptic-enabled tangible robots. In IDC '18: Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Interaction Design and Children (pp. 219–230). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3202185.3202747
8. Ko, S., Swaim, H., Sanghavi, H., Dong, J., Nadri, C., & Jeon, M. (2020). Robot-theater programs for different age groups to promote STEAM education and robotics research. In Companion of the 2020 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI '20) (pp. 299–301). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3371382.3378353
9. Wang, X., Song, S., Li, L., Wang, Q., Han, Z., & Qin, M. (2026). Charting the Complexity: Meta-Analyzing the Impacts of Social Robots on Child Development. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2026.2654076
10. Wood, J. L., Lehmann, H., Dautenhahn, K, Robins, B., Rainer, A., & Syrdal, D. (2016). Robot-Мediated interviews with children - What do potential users think? Interaction Studies, Volume 17, Issue 3, 438-460. https://doi.org/10.1075/is.17.3.07woo
11. Scassellati, B., Boccanfuso, L., Huang, C. M., Mademtzi, M., Qin, M., Salomons, N., Ventola, P., & Shic, F. (2018). Improving social skills in children with autism using a long-term, in-home social robot. Science Robotics, 3(21), eaat7544. https://doi.org/10.1126/scirobotics.aat7544
12. Jeong, S., Logan, D. E., Goodwin, M. S., Graca, S., O'Connell, B., Goodenough, H., Anderson, L., Stenquist, N., Fitzpatrick, K., Zisook, M., Plummer, L., Breazeal, C., & Weinstock, P. (2015). A social robot to mitigate stress, anxiety, and pain in hospital pediatric care. In HRI'15 Extended Abstracts: Proceedings of the Tenth Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction Extended Abstracts (pp. 103–104). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/2701973.2702028
13. Eind, R., & Heerink, M. (2018). Evaluation of the use of a Pleo robot at a child consultation clinic. In New Friends 2018: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Social Robots in Therapy and Education (pp. 41–42). Retrieved from https://newfriends2018.online/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/ProceedingsNF18-1.pdf
14. Ali, S., Manaloor, R., Ma, K., Sivakumar, M., Beran, T., Scott, S. D., & Hartling, L. (2021). A randomised trial of robot-based distraction to reduce children’s distress and pain during intravenous insertion in the emergency department. Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine, 23(1), 85–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43678-020-00023-5
15. Matheus, K., Vázquez, M., & Scassellati, B. (2022). A social robot for anxiety reduction via deep breathing. In 2022 31st IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN) (pp. 89–94). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/RO-MAN53752.2022.9900638
16. Beran, T. N., Ramirez-Serrano, A. Vanderkooi, O. G., & Kuhn, S. (2013). Reducing children's pain and distress towards flu vaccinations: a novel and effective application of humanoid robotics. Vaccine, 31(25), 2772–2777. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2013.03.056
17. Feil-Seifer, D., & Matarić, M. J. (2011). Automated detection and classification of positive vs. negative robot interactions with children with autism using distance-based features. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI '11) (pp. 323–330). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/1957656.1957785
18. Génération Robots. (n.d.). Programmable humanoid robot NAO V6. Retrieved May 22, 2026, from https://www.generationrobots.com/en/403100-programmable-humanoid-robot-nao-v6.html
19. Mitevska, M., & Nikiforov, D. (2024). Artificial intelligence and robots for the benefit of successful humans. In International Scientific Conference "Multidisciplinary Innovations for Social Change: Educational Transformations and Entrepreneurship" (pp. 622–629). Burgas Free University. Retrieved from http://research.bfu.bg:8080/server/api/core/bitstreams/fbfceefd-869d-4b84-9f79-223bd6f3177c/content [in Bulgarian]
20. Akyazı, K. G., & Baştemur, Ş. (2024). Interactive Robots: Therapy Robots. Current Approaches in Psychiatry, 16(1), 16–30. https://doi.org/10.18863/pgy.1242958
21. University of Hertfordshire. (n.d.). Meet KASPAR: Technical specifications and social mediator functions. Retrieved May 23, 2026, from https://www.herts.ac.uk/kaspar/meet-kaspar
22. MacDorman, K. F., & Ishiguro, H. (2006). The uncanny advantage of using androids in cognitive and social science research. Interaction Studies: Social Behaviour and Communication in Biological and Artificial Systems, 7(3), 297–337. https://doi.org/10.1075/is.7.3.03mac
23. Bartneck, C., & Forlizzi, J. (2004). A design-centred framework for social human-robot interaction. In RO-MAN 2004: 13th IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (pp. 591–594). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2004.1374827
24. Bechade, L., Dubuisson-Duplessis, G., Pittaro, G., Garcia, M., & Devillers, L. (2019). Towards metrics of evaluation of Pepper robot as a social companion for the elderly. In M. Eskenazi, L. Devillers, & J. Mariani (Eds.), Advanced social interaction with agents (Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering, Vol. 510, pp. 89–101). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92108-2_11
25. Belpaeme, T., Kennedy, J., Ramachandran, A., Scassellati, B., & Tanaka, F. (2018). Social robots for education: A review. Science Robotics, 3(21), eaat5954. https://doi.org/10.1126/scirobotics.aat5954
26. Tapus, A., Peca, A., Aly, A., Costescu, C., Jisa, L., Pintea, S., Rusu, A., & David, D. (2012). Children with autism social engagement in interaction with Nao, an imitative robot – A series of single case experiments. Interaction Studies, 13(3), 315–347. https://doi.org/10.1075/is.13.3.01tap
27. Alkhaldi, N., Faisal, M., & Mutawa, A. M. (2026). Utilizing human–robot interaction in autism therapy to enhance children’s social skills: Literature review. ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction, 15(2), Article 45. https://doi.org/10.1145/3776539
28. Giullian, N., Ricks, D., Atherton, A., Colton, M., Goodrich, M., & Brinton, B. (2010). Detailed requirements for robots in autism therapy. In 2010 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics (pp. 2595–2602). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSMC.2010.5641908
29. Dehghan, Z., Reyhani, T., Mohammadpour, V., Aemmi, S. Z., Shojaeian, R., & Asghari Nekah, S. M. (2017). The effectiveness of dramatic puppet and therapeutic play in anxiety reduction in children undergoing surgery: A randomized clinical trial. Iranian Red Crescent Medical Journal, 19(3), e41178. https://doi.org/10.5812/ircmj.41178
30. Willemse, K. (2025). A conceptual participatory framework for integrating coding and robotics in early childhood education. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2025.2581653
31. Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: an agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1
32. Eckert, M., Efe, Z., Guenthner, L., Baldofski, S., Kuehne, K., Wundrack, R., Thomas, J., Saee, S., Kohls, E., & Rummel-Kluge, C. (2022). Acceptability and feasibility of a messenger-based psychological chat counselling service for children and young adults ("krisenchat"): A cross-sectional study. Internet Interventions, 27, 100508. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.invent.2022.100508
33. Rarey, F., Thomas, J., Berghöfer, A., Kuchinke, L., Meinlschmidt, G., Rummel-Kluge, C., Wundrack, R., & Ziegler, M. (2024). The association of socioeconomic status with the success of chat-based online counselling for children and youth: A latent change score modelling approach. SSRN. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4726456
34. Baldofski, S., Kohls, E., Efe, Z., Eckert, M., Saee, S., Thomas, J., Wundrack, R., & Rummel-Kluge, C. (2023). The impact of a messenger-based psychosocial chat counseling service on further help-seeking among children and young adults: Longitudinal study. JMIR Mental Health, 10, Article e43780. https://doi.org/10.2196/43780
35. Kohls, E., Guenthner, L., Baldofski, S., Eckert, M., Efe, Z., Kuehne, K., Saee, S., Thomas, J., Wundrack, R., & Rummel-Kluge, C. (2022). Suicidal ideation among children and young adults in a 24/7 messenger-based psychological chat counseling service. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 13, 862298. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2022.862298
36. Rickwood, D. J., Mazzer, K. R., & Telford, N. R. (2015). Social influences on seeking help from mental health services, in-person and online, during adolescence and young adulthood. BMC Psychiatry, 15, Article 40. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-015-0429-6
37. Efe, Z., Baldofski, S., Kohls, E., Eckert, M., Saee, S., Thomas, J., Wundrack, R., & Rummel-Kluge, C. (2024). Linguistic variables and gender differences within a messenger-based psychosocial chat counselling service for children and adolescents: Cross-sectional study. JMIR Formative Research, 8, Article e51795. https://doi.org/10.2196/51795
38. Báez, J. C., Bjugstad, A., Park, T. K., Jones, J. L., Bidwell, L. N., Sage, M., & Hitchcock, L. I. (2025). Social Work Educators Innovating with Generative AI: An Exploratory Study. Journal of Social Work Education, 61(1), 14–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/10437797.2024.2411170
39. Barsky, A., & Barsky, J. (2024). Practice Standards for Addressing Social Justice in Social Work Research. International Journal of Social Work Values and Ethics, 21(1), 137–169. https://doi.org/10.55521/10-021-110
40. Kapur, I., Kennedy, R., & Hickman, C. (2025). Artificial Intelligence Algorithms, Bias, and Innovation: Implications for Social Work. Journal of Evidence-Based Social Work, 22(4), 548–570. https://doi.org/10.1080/26408066.2025.2470903
ABSTRACT. This paper presents an in-depth analysis of the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) and robotics into various areas of work with children and families, focusing on the study of practices related to social work with children. The article contributes to the literature by systematising AI-based and robotic tools as complementary resources for social work with children at risk and by outlining the professional and ethical conditions for their responsible implementation. The theoretical framework of the analysis is built through a synthesis of established models of smart technologies, including socially assistive robotics (SAR) as an approach used to support social engagement and child-centred practice. A specific analysis of the functionalities of examples of children's engagement and interaction with therapeutic robots - Nao and Kaspar - is presented to support the tone of the research in the context of this article, which emphasizes the importance of digital technologies and artificial intelligence and their implementation in the practice of social services and social activities with children. The article explores the role of artificial intelligence and its impact on children, their upbringing, education, therapy and development. The role of the social worker and the need for digital inclusion in his professional position are outlined, as the article addresses the critical gap in the scientific literature regarding the application of artificial intelligence and intelligent technologies in social practice and social work with children, which can be defined as the "Digital Divide". The article highlights key issues for discussion regarding the application of AI and intelligent technologies in the social sphere, setting out circumstances and recommendations for transformation at the practical level.
Keywords: artificial intelligence, intelligent technologies, socially assistive robotics, social work, social workers.
References
1. Vekova, L., Vazova, T., & Uzhikanova-Kovacheva, E. (2026). Innovative model for the application of digital technologies and artificial intelligence in social services for children without disabilities. In INTED2026 Proceedings: 20th International Technology, Education and Development Conference (Article 1549). IATED Academy. https://doi.org/10.21125/inted.2026.1549
2. Axelsson, M., Spitale, M., & Gunes, H. (2024). Robots as mental well-being coaches: design and ethical recommendations. ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction, 13(2), Article 19. https://doi.org/10.1145/3643457
3. Mathias, E. G., Pai, M. S., Guddattu, V., & Bramhagen, A. C. (2023). Non-pharmacological interventions to reduce anxiety among children undergoing surgery: a systematic review. Journal of Child Health Care, 27(3), 466–487. https://doi.org/10.1177/13674935211062336
4. Kewalramani, S., Palaiologou, I., Arnott, L., & Dardanou, M. (2020). The integration of the internet of toys in early childhood education: a platform for multi-layered interactions. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 28(2), 197–213. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2020.1735738
5. Kewalramani, S., Kidman, G., & Palaiologou, I. (2021). Using Artificial Intelligence (AI)-interfaced robotic toys in early childhood settings: a case for children’s inquiry literacy. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 29(5), 652–668. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2021.1968458
6. Catala, A., Sylla, C., & Ozgur, A. (2021). Smart Toys++: Exploiting the social connectedness for playing and learning. In Proceedings of the 20th Annual ACM Interaction Design and Children Conference (IDC '21) (pp. 679–681). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3459990.3460519
7. Asselborn, T., Guneysu, A., Mrini, K., Yadollahi, E., Ozgur, A., Johal, W., & Dillenbourg, P. (2018). Bringing letters to life: Handwriting with haptic-enabled tangible robots. In IDC '18: Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Interaction Design and Children (pp. 219–230). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3202185.3202747
8. Ko, S., Swaim, H., Sanghavi, H., Dong, J., Nadri, C., & Jeon, M. (2020). Robot-theater programs for different age groups to promote STEAM education and robotics research. In Companion of the 2020 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI '20) (pp. 299–301). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3371382.3378353
9. Wang, X., Song, S., Li, L., Wang, Q., Han, Z., & Qin, M. (2026). Charting the Complexity: Meta-Analyzing the Impacts of Social Robots on Child Development. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2026.2654076
10. Wood, J. L., Lehmann, H., Dautenhahn, K, Robins, B., Rainer, A., & Syrdal, D. (2016). Robot-Мediated interviews with children - What do potential users think? Interaction Studies, Volume 17, Issue 3, 438-460. https://doi.org/10.1075/is.17.3.07woo
11. Scassellati, B., Boccanfuso, L., Huang, C. M., Mademtzi, M., Qin, M., Salomons, N., Ventola, P., & Shic, F. (2018). Improving social skills in children with autism using a long-term, in-home social robot. Science Robotics, 3(21), eaat7544. https://doi.org/10.1126/scirobotics.aat7544
12. Jeong, S., Logan, D. E., Goodwin, M. S., Graca, S., O'Connell, B., Goodenough, H., Anderson, L., Stenquist, N., Fitzpatrick, K., Zisook, M., Plummer, L., Breazeal, C., & Weinstock, P. (2015). A social robot to mitigate stress, anxiety, and pain in hospital pediatric care. In HRI'15 Extended Abstracts: Proceedings of the Tenth Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction Extended Abstracts (pp. 103–104). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/2701973.2702028
13. Eind, R., & Heerink, M. (2018). Evaluation of the use of a Pleo robot at a child consultation clinic. In New Friends 2018: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Social Robots in Therapy and Education (pp. 41–42). Retrieved from https://newfriends2018.online/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/ProceedingsNF18-1.pdf
14. Ali, S., Manaloor, R., Ma, K., Sivakumar, M., Beran, T., Scott, S. D., & Hartling, L. (2021). A randomised trial of robot-based distraction to reduce children’s distress and pain during intravenous insertion in the emergency department. Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine, 23(1), 85–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43678-020-00023-5
15. Matheus, K., Vázquez, M., & Scassellati, B. (2022). A social robot for anxiety reduction via deep breathing. In 2022 31st IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN) (pp. 89–94). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/RO-MAN53752.2022.9900638
16. Beran, T. N., Ramirez-Serrano, A. Vanderkooi, O. G., & Kuhn, S. (2013). Reducing children's pain and distress towards flu vaccinations: a novel and effective application of humanoid robotics. Vaccine, 31(25), 2772–2777. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2013.03.056
17. Feil-Seifer, D., & Matarić, M. J. (2011). Automated detection and classification of positive vs. negative robot interactions with children with autism using distance-based features. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI '11) (pp. 323–330). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/1957656.1957785
18. Génération Robots. (n.d.). Programmable humanoid robot NAO V6. Retrieved May 22, 2026, from https://www.generationrobots.com/en/403100-programmable-humanoid-robot-nao-v6.html
19. Mitevska, M., & Nikiforov, D. (2024). Artificial intelligence and robots for the benefit of successful humans. In International Scientific Conference "Multidisciplinary Innovations for Social Change: Educational Transformations and Entrepreneurship" (pp. 622–629). Burgas Free University. Retrieved from http://research.bfu.bg:8080/server/api/core/bitstreams/fbfceefd-869d-4b84-9f79-223bd6f3177c/content [in Bulgarian]
20. Akyazı, K. G., & Baştemur, Ş. (2024). Interactive Robots: Therapy Robots. Current Approaches in Psychiatry, 16(1), 16–30. https://doi.org/10.18863/pgy.1242958
21. University of Hertfordshire. (n.d.). Meet KASPAR: Technical specifications and social mediator functions. Retrieved May 23, 2026, from https://www.herts.ac.uk/kaspar/meet-kaspar
22. MacDorman, K. F., & Ishiguro, H. (2006). The uncanny advantage of using androids in cognitive and social science research. Interaction Studies: Social Behaviour and Communication in Biological and Artificial Systems, 7(3), 297–337. https://doi.org/10.1075/is.7.3.03mac
23. Bartneck, C., & Forlizzi, J. (2004). A design-centred framework for social human-robot interaction. In RO-MAN 2004: 13th IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (pp. 591–594). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2004.1374827
24. Bechade, L., Dubuisson-Duplessis, G., Pittaro, G., Garcia, M., & Devillers, L. (2019). Towards metrics of evaluation of Pepper robot as a social companion for the elderly. In M. Eskenazi, L. Devillers, & J. Mariani (Eds.), Advanced social interaction with agents (Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering, Vol. 510, pp. 89–101). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92108-2_11
25. Belpaeme, T., Kennedy, J., Ramachandran, A., Scassellati, B., & Tanaka, F. (2018). Social robots for education: A review. Science Robotics, 3(21), eaat5954. https://doi.org/10.1126/scirobotics.aat5954
26. Tapus, A., Peca, A., Aly, A., Costescu, C., Jisa, L., Pintea, S., Rusu, A., & David, D. (2012). Children with autism social engagement in interaction with Nao, an imitative robot – A series of single case experiments. Interaction Studies, 13(3), 315–347. https://doi.org/10.1075/is.13.3.01tap
27. Alkhaldi, N., Faisal, M., & Mutawa, A. M. (2026). Utilizing human–robot interaction in autism therapy to enhance children’s social skills: Literature review. ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction, 15(2), Article 45. https://doi.org/10.1145/3776539
28. Giullian, N., Ricks, D., Atherton, A., Colton, M., Goodrich, M., & Brinton, B. (2010). Detailed requirements for robots in autism therapy. In 2010 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics (pp. 2595–2602). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSMC.2010.5641908
29. Dehghan, Z., Reyhani, T., Mohammadpour, V., Aemmi, S. Z., Shojaeian, R., & Asghari Nekah, S. M. (2017). The effectiveness of dramatic puppet and therapeutic play in anxiety reduction in children undergoing surgery: A randomized clinical trial. Iranian Red Crescent Medical Journal, 19(3), e41178. https://doi.org/10.5812/ircmj.41178
30. Willemse, K. (2025). A conceptual participatory framework for integrating coding and robotics in early childhood education. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2025.2581653
31. Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: an agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1
32. Eckert, M., Efe, Z., Guenthner, L., Baldofski, S., Kuehne, K., Wundrack, R., Thomas, J., Saee, S., Kohls, E., & Rummel-Kluge, C. (2022). Acceptability and feasibility of a messenger-based psychological chat counselling service for children and young adults ("krisenchat"): A cross-sectional study. Internet Interventions, 27, 100508. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.invent.2022.100508
33. Rarey, F., Thomas, J., Berghöfer, A., Kuchinke, L., Meinlschmidt, G., Rummel-Kluge, C., Wundrack, R., & Ziegler, M. (2024). The association of socioeconomic status with the success of chat-based online counselling for children and youth: A latent change score modelling approach. SSRN. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4726456
34. Baldofski, S., Kohls, E., Efe, Z., Eckert, M., Saee, S., Thomas, J., Wundrack, R., & Rummel-Kluge, C. (2023). The impact of a messenger-based psychosocial chat counseling service on further help-seeking among children and young adults: Longitudinal study. JMIR Mental Health, 10, Article e43780. https://doi.org/10.2196/43780
35. Kohls, E., Guenthner, L., Baldofski, S., Eckert, M., Efe, Z., Kuehne, K., Saee, S., Thomas, J., Wundrack, R., & Rummel-Kluge, C. (2022). Suicidal ideation among children and young adults in a 24/7 messenger-based psychological chat counseling service. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 13, 862298. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2022.862298
36. Rickwood, D. J., Mazzer, K. R., & Telford, N. R. (2015). Social influences on seeking help from mental health services, in-person and online, during adolescence and young adulthood. BMC Psychiatry, 15, Article 40. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-015-0429-6
37. Efe, Z., Baldofski, S., Kohls, E., Eckert, M., Saee, S., Thomas, J., Wundrack, R., & Rummel-Kluge, C. (2024). Linguistic variables and gender differences within a messenger-based psychosocial chat counselling service for children and adolescents: Cross-sectional study. JMIR Formative Research, 8, Article e51795. https://doi.org/10.2196/51795
38. Báez, J. C., Bjugstad, A., Park, T. K., Jones, J. L., Bidwell, L. N., Sage, M., & Hitchcock, L. I. (2025). Social Work Educators Innovating with Generative AI: An Exploratory Study. Journal of Social Work Education, 61(1), 14–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/10437797.2024.2411170
39. Barsky, A., & Barsky, J. (2024). Practice Standards for Addressing Social Justice in Social Work Research. International Journal of Social Work Values and Ethics, 21(1), 137–169. https://doi.org/10.55521/10-021-110
40. Kapur, I., Kennedy, R., & Hickman, C. (2025). Artificial Intelligence Algorithms, Bias, and Innovation: Implications for Social Work. Journal of Evidence-Based Social Work, 22(4), 548–570. https://doi.org/10.1080/26408066.2025.2470903
© 2026 The Author(s)
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
Uzhikanova-Kovacheva, E. (2026). ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND INTELLIGENT TECHNOLOGIES IN THE FIELD OF SOCIAL WORK WITH CHILDREN AT RISK. International Interdisciplinary Scientific Journal “Expert”, 3, Article 3, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.62034/2815-5300/2026-v3-003
Citation Format APA
Uzhikanova-Kovacheva, E. (2026). ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND INTELLIGENT TECHNOLOGIES IN THE FIELD OF SOCIAL WORK WITH CHILDREN AT RISK. International Interdisciplinary Scientific Journal “Expert”, 3, Article 3, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.62034/2815-5300/2026-v3-003.
© 2023-2026 «ASPECT-PRO» LTD. Website design and layout are copyrighted. Content under CC BY unless specified.
About the Journal