Part 1
The framework outlined by Sieck et al. discusses how digital literacy and access are essential to nearly every social determinant of health (SDOH). Figure 1 illustrates digital inclusion. I think this framework is powerful because it recognizes that being able to connect to the internet, use technology effectively, and navigate digital systems is fundamental to health and well-being. With that being said, I think that the most important element in Figure 1 is Digital Literacy & Access. Digital literacy serves as the foundation that influences every other determinant; in other words, without connectivity, skills, and support, individuals cannot fully access education, employment, or healthcare opportunities.
Part 2
Yes, I think that this is a strong framework to describe the impact of the digital divide because it shows how digital literacy and access influence every major SDOH. It goes beyond simply people lacking internet or devices and demonstrates how that lack affects things like education, employment, healthcare access, and social connection. This framework also connects structural inequities (like income and housing disparities) with digital inequities. Gaps in technology gaps are not just about devices or data plans; they’re tied to broader systems of inequality.
Part 3
Sanders & Scanlon frame the digital divide as a clear justice issue because access to the internet and digital literacy determine who can participate fully in society, politically, economically, and socially. The area that stood out most to me was their argument that broadband should be treated as a public utility. I found this especially impactful because it challenges the idea that the internet is a luxury. I thought their argument was very persuasive; they provided real examples, like Chattanooga, Tennessee’s municipal broadband model to show that equitable, affordable internet access is possible when treated as a shared public good. I do think the authors defined the problem correctly by explaining that the divide isn’t just about who has a computer, but also about who has the skills, opportunities, and support to use technology effectively.
Part 4
The strategy from Sanders & Scanlon that I found most promising was their focus on community-based advocacy and education. Encouraging local organizations, libraries, and social service agencies to provide digital literacy training and advocate for equitable broadband policies is a strong and realistic approach. These institutions already serve as trusted community resources and often have direct relationships with the populations most affected by the digital divide.
One suggestion I found less realistic, though meaningful, was the idea of achieving widespread public ownership of broadband networks nationwide. While I agree that treating broadband like a public utility makes sense in theory, I think there could be barriers to implementation. Municipal broadband models, like the one in Chattanooga, shows what’s possible at the local level, but I imagine expanding this nationally would likely require major federal reform and funding that may not be feasible in the current political and economic climate.
Part 5
The most effective element of Craig et al.’s approach was how they adapted the AFFIRM program for online delivery. There were adjustments made to ensure LGBTQ+ youth could still access affirming, evidence-based CBT through telehealth, especially during the isolation of COVID-19. For example, they held an introductory session to help participants get comfortable using Zoom, used digital workbooks, and incorporated screen sharing and chat features to make sessions interactive and inclusive. These steps helped maintain the effectiveness of CBT while also creating a safe, supportive space for youth who might not have that support at home.
I see connections between this and the issues raised by Sieck et al. and Sanders & Scanlon. All three readings show how digital access and literacy directly impact equity. The success of AFFIRM Online depended on participants having reliable internet, devices, and comfort with technology, which are the same challenges that Sieck et al. describe as “super determinants of health.” Similarly, Sanders & Scanlon emphasize that these barriers are rooted in social injustice. Without addressing those broader access and literacy gaps discussed in the first two articles, even well designed interventions like AFFIRM risk leaving out the youth who need them most.
Hi Zallen! I really connected with what you said about digital literacy being the foundation for so many aspects of life. Your example of navigating college applications really resonated with me because I’ve seen firsthand how easy it is to fall behind without the right digital skills or guidance. I also appreciated your point about food access during the government shutdown it made me realize how much daily necessities now depend on being digitally connected. I agree that access to devices alone isn’t enough; people need the skills and support to use them effectively, whether it’s for healthcare, education, or even staying connected with their community.