1. Framework from Sieck et al. (2021)

The framework from Sieck and colleagues focuses on digital inclusion as a crucial factor that influences all other social determinants of health. It emphasizes that digital access means having the internet, devices, and the skills to use them; isn’t just convenient, but necessary for overall well-being. The most important elements in Figure 1, to me, are digital literacy and internet connectivity. These two create the foundation for everything else such as access to education, employment, and healthcare. Without them, people are automatically left behind in a world that increasingly operates online. This framework really opened my eyes to how something as simple as not having Wi-Fi or digital skills can shape a person’s health outcomes.

2. Is this a good framework for describing the digital divide?

Yes, I think this is an excellent framework because it goes beyond describing technology as a luxury. It helps visualize how deeply technology connects to all areas of life, especially in health and social care. The framework shows that improving digital access is about giving them equal opportunities to live healthy, informed, and connected lives. It paints a complete picture of how the digital divide directly contributes to inequality and poor health outcomes, which is especially relevant in today’s telehealth-driven world.

3. Sanders & Scanlon (2021) – The digital divide as a social justice issue

The section that impacted me the most was where Sanders and Scanlon discussed how digital inequality disproportionately affects low-income families, older adults, and people of color. Their argument that the digital divide is a social justice issue made perfect sense because it’s about fairness, not just technology. They were persuasive in explaining that when certain groups lack access, they’re essentially being excluded from education, employment, healthcare, and civic participation. I think they defined the problem correctly because they connected digital inequality to larger systems of oppression which shows how lack of access can keep people trapped in cycles of disadvantage.

4. Strategies to advocate for change

The strategy I found most promising was the focus on community-based initiatives that promote digital literacy through libraries, schools, and local organizations. These are realistic because they build on existing resources that already serve vulnerable populations. I also liked their push for policy reform to expand broadband access in underserved areas. However, I think suggestions like expecting full government funding or rapid nationwide change might be unrealistic in the short term. Structural barriers like cost, infrastructure, and political priorities make that difficult to achieve quickly. Still, local and community-level efforts can make a powerful difference over time.

5. Craig et al. (2021) – Telehealth and LGBTQ+ youth

Craig and colleagues did a great job showing how telehealth can be adapted to meet the unique needs of LGBTQ+ youth through Affirmative Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT). What I found most effective about their approach was how they combined mental health treatment with accessibility and inclusivity. Telehealth removes barriers such as fear of discrimination, transportation issues, and limited local providers. It connects directly to the first two articles because it proves how digital access can literally determine who receives care and who doesn’t. Without digital inclusion, many LGBTQ+ youth would not have a safe or affirming space to access therapy. This example reinforces that digital equity is more than just having technology, it’s more so using it to build fairness, connection, and healing across communities.