Most of what the Balogun et al. (2025) article stated did not surprise me, but what did stand out was how telehealth improves engagement and accessibility for vulnerable groups with vision, auditory, or mobility impairments. I had not considered the role telehealth can play in providing communication for people who are deaf, which I admire, and I will say that telehealth is such an innovative way to work around the lack of sign language proficiency within this country. I think that telehealth is an effective tool to reach vulnerable populations, because accommodating this mode can be beneficial for a variety of people. This makes me think about its ability to assist with translation for clients and providers when they cannot speak to each other in a common language, especially when that language is not well-known. I think this would be an interesting area to explore and research, so that mental health services can be accessible for people regardless of language barriers.

In my opinion, funding is the main barrier to telehealth. More funding for social service organizations and non-profits would allow them to have access to safe and effective telehealth systems, as well as being able to provide people with limited income, and in rural areas, with the equipment necessary to access telehealth services.

Regarding the Zhu et al. (2024) article, I was not really surprised by the number of mental health providers using telehealth services, because having the option to reach a wider variety and greater number of people is a positive in many ways. It is a positive in advancing equity and inclusion by being able to help clients who have barriers to accessing mental health resources. It is also a positive for providers in the sense that it generates more profit for them, by being able to be licensed in a state and practice virtually from another, as well as having a more secure form of income during unexpected events. The rate of telemental health usage among providers was higher than what I had expected, because I would have assumed that after COVID-19, providers and clients would prefer to go back to normal routines. Two of the factors that providers said would affect their decisions to continue telemental health services were client preferences and health insurance reimbursement. Geographical location affects a client’s preference for virtual or in-person services, where a person living in a rural area would most likely want to continue virtually. Providers shared that they were more likely to use telemental health services if their patients paid out of pocket, because they would not have to worry about waiting to get reimbursed by health insurance companies.

I believe that telehealth services provide accessibility for vulnerable populations and are useful for reducing that gap. I also see how it can be preferred by practitioners because of the flexibility it provides. I would like to use telehealth services eventually in my own practice, because of the variety of people you can serve, and to be able to have flexibility in my work schedule. I also think that training would be useful to be able to efficiently provide telehealth services, so starting off seeing clients in-person would be preferable. I also value the power of in-person interactions and how much more you can learn from a person based on their body language. In the future, I would like to be able to balance both forms of services in my own practice.