Sieck’s framework aims to promote greater access to technology and digital literacy for individuals in low-income situations. With healthcare options becoming increasingly digital, being able to receive updates on tests and maintain confidentiality, having a device for that is game-changing. Seick’s goal is to identify how to open these opportunities and pathways for all families. The most essential elements in Figure 1 are those related to economics, healthcare, and community support. Economically, as discussed, having access to the digital world, especially when it comes to healthcare, isn’t inexpensive, and a lack of economic success can lead to difficulties in receiving adequate healthcare. Healthcare: Does your medical care provider offer an app or website for patients to use, or provide telehealth services? Lastly, the community around the individual determines whether they feel supported during the process of obtaining medical advice or diagnosis. For instance, if a user gets advice from a doctor via telehealth to watch their sugar intake, their environment may be full of people or resources that will tempt them to consume sugar.

Seick’s framework is strong because it identifies that technology use for healthcare, even in general, is a necessity. It shouldn’t be a matter of some having it and some not if it is a requirement for human life. With that in mind, everyone should have the ability to access and understand how to utilize technology to benefit their lifestyles. So, this addresses the divide in technology use.

After reading Sanders and Scanlon, the two topics I found most important were the economic aspects and the differences between rural and urban areas. Economically, the article aligned with Sampson’s perspective by highlighting how some families cannot afford the technology they need. It also pointed out that low-income populations tend to rely heavily on smartphones. This reliance can limit access to news, general information, job applications, and essential services. Rural areas also face challenges due to limited high-speed internet, whereas urban areas have greater access to technology and faster connections. This divide affects the quality of healthcare access, as metropolitan areas benefit more from technological advances than rural ones. I agree that both the economic and geographic aspects make sense because lower-income families often cannot afford the necessary equipment, and infrastructure differences significantly impact access to technology.

Using a variation of the Bliss model encourages communities to participate in shaping strategies that promote activism and inclusion. This approach involves identifying causes, outcomes, target audiences, methods, and advocacy processes to promote digital inclusion. Policy infrastructure should ensure equitable access to technology and distribute resources more fairly. Low-income and rural areas require greater political attention to drive meaningful reforms, yet policymakers often struggle to prioritize addressing the digital divide over other pressing issues.

Craig’s perspective focused on the adaptability of technology to meet people’s specific needs. It went beyond simply supporting access to technology by emphasizing cultural relevance and ongoing support. Like other theories, it highlights the importance of understanding social factors that promote care and equity. Craig’s example relates to the broader concerns raised in the various studies, particularly how disparities in technological access can perpetuate social and economic inequalities. This highlights the importance of implementing inclusive, client-centered strategies that promote equity and long-term effectiveness.