- The framework of the Sieck et. al article was interesting I had not considered the impact that access to digital tools were to one’s health. The framework outlines that improved digital literacy and access can improve well-being outcomes for an individual several aspects of life; including economic, healthcare, education, food, housing and community. The most important elements of figure 1 are the items in the larger circle which were skills, connectivity, devices, applications and training/support. The items in the larger circle will impact the outcomes in the smaller six circles. The authors note that without ensuring that people have access and literacy that well-being or health outcomes will decline just because they will not be able to receive the resources, support and information that are mostly only available digitally.
- I believe the framework is helpful to understand the digital divide. We have gone digital in all aspects of daily life such as banking, telehealth, health trackers, and education. We have become a society dependent on digital tools, devices and applications. The same populations that are impacted by poverty, geological, ability and racial disparities are often impacted by the lack of access to devices or the lack of knowledge to use digital tools to complete everyday tasks. The days of completing paper referrals or applications for anything are becoming a thing of the past. Digital innovation is leaving behind marginalised communities and as innovation continues the digital divide will widen.
- Sanders and Scanlon article discussed the digital divide in three different aspects lack of access, lack of skill and lack of economic opportunity. Each aspect of the divide provided more information to support that specific barrier and how it impacts the digital divide. I agree with their description of the digital divide and how those populations who already facing disparities due to race, poverty, and ability will also face disparities related to lack of digital access. skills or the inability to purchase digital tools/data plans due to cost.
- Sanders and Scanlon noted that they believed the digital divide could be closed through advocacy and government funding. The article noted that the federal funding for a national campaign was not likely. The article shares that social workers can partner with National Digital Inclusion Alliance to provide training and access to bring people into the digital world. The advocacy strategy that will be most impact-full will be partnering with agencies that are already completing advocacy initiatives. The article mentioned that NDIA is working to lessen the divide by partnering with other community agencies who are striving to address the digital divide. I also like the strategy of creating a system to evaluate a person’s access to digital tools, ability to use the tools. I think this digital access triage maybe helpful to ensure that we meeting the clients needs based off of their access and skill level to digital tools. The community level strategies are limited as the article notes that federal funding and support is needed to address the concern on a larger scale. The federal support to address the concern is limited to the political climate of time. The article notes that one administration implemented initiatives to address the digital divide and the next administration reversed those initiatives.
- Craig, et. al adapted to tele-health services to support the LGBTQ community during the pandemic. The clinicians used an evidenced based method to complete group therapy sessions via Zoom. I think the most effective methods to their approach were ensuring that the clinicians that were conducting the sessions had extensive clinical experience (seven to 15 years )and were trained in both CBT and the program curriculum. The article also noted that they allowed space for the participants and clinicians to become familiar with Zoom and developed ground rules for the Zoom sessions. The Zoom sessions were interactive which may have increased overall engagement and community building. The limitations noted in the two previous articles can also be additional limitations for this specific population. There can be intersectionality between this specific population and other aspect of their identity that may impact their ability to participate in the program such as lack of access to a smartphone or device to attend, limited data due to cost and not having a safe place to participate in the sessions virtually due to lack of housing or not being accepted in their home.
Blog Post 5
1 Comment
Submit a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Hi Tierra!
I am also concerned with the digital divide widening as more and more technology is introduced. I wonder what we can do to help bridge this gap? It seems as if when people gain access to one technology, there is already a new better one being used. It is similar to me with what happens with kids and apps or social media. By the time their parents understand it, it isn’t cool anymore and there is already a new media they are using.
Great post!