Left to Their Own Devices: Service Providers' Perspectives of Digital Media Use Among Youth in Residential Treatment

Background

Emerging scholarship highlights the ubiquity and importance of Digital Media Participation (DMP) for youth within social, educational, and recreational environments. DMP refers to internet-based interaction and exchange of text, audio, video. Youth admitted to residential treatment programs (RTPs) are at significant risk online and offline. While DMP can compound existing psychosocial difficulties, when used productively there are substantial benefits for youth, such as relief from social isolation and identity exploration. 

There has been a shift in RTPs from fostering isolated, self-contained settings, towards promoting family and community integration. The extant literature on DMP use by youth in RTPs suggests that the shift toward integration has not incorporated the rapid growth of youth DMP, inhibiting opportunities for youth to 1) learn to remain safe while engaging in DMP, and 2) access the benefits of DMP while in treatment. This paper reports on service providers’ perspectives on DMP among youth in RTPs examining 1) how the digital media participation of YRT aligns with contemporary treatment models; and 2) the opportunities and obstacles associated with DMP among youth in RTPs.

Methods/Sample

Guided by a Social Constructionist theoretical framework this phenomenological qualitative study applied McCracken’s (1988) Long Interview Method (LIM) to in-depth semi-structured interviews with 25 service providers, including child and youth workers, managers, social workers and a nurse. Purposeful sampling was conducted at one co-ed rural program and three urban programs. NVivo software was used to execute the LIM data analysis process involving movement from particular to general applying specific and categorical observations, and comparison of themes.

Findings

Service providers were conscious of the tension between risks and benefits associated with youth DMP. All service providers, regardless of discipline, highlighted positive DMP by youth, including examples such as an Instragram account for mental health support, expressive arts online, and resources promoting treatment engagement. Internet overuse and cyberbullying were among the examples of negative DMP. Differences emerged among service providers according to discipline and age regarding the importance of DMP and the amount and types of DMP access that should be available to youth in RTPs. Service providers from the rural program were most resistant to incorporating technology. This was related to its “back to basics” treatment philosophy and geographic isolation, whereas the programs within urban settings were more inclined to embrace greater DMP access and integration within the programs.

Conclusion and Implications:

Despite concerns about DMP safety, privacy and confidentiality, there was an acceptance that some DMP access and use by youth within RTPs was reasonable and potentially complementary to program and treatment goals. Differences between rural and urban treatment settings were linked to client needs, treatment philosophy and geographic location. These findings are consistent with the contemporary move toward greater fluidity between treatment setting and home community care within RTPs. Further research is required to explore, whether the need for some settings to provide a ‘digital disconnect’ may remain important for youth who require a separation from their community both physically and virtually.