Global Health Equity

Overview

Students investigate global vaccine inequity as a contemporary international health issue. They apply determinants of health, hauora, the socio-ecological perspective and ethical reasoning to analyse how unequal access affects communities and evaluate possible responses.

Learning intentions

Students will:

• explain how personal, interpersonal, societal and global determinants influence health inequities
• analyse the interconnected consequences of unequal vaccine access for hauora
• consider ethical tensions, including fairness, responsibility, choice and resource allocation
• evaluate responses at personal, community, national and international levels.

Success criteria

• I can explain at least three determinants contributing to vaccine inequity.
• I can connect an influence to consequences for different dimensions of hauora.
• I can compare possible responses using evidence and ethical principles.
• I can justify which response is most likely to improve well-being and equity.

Curriculum links

• Analyse an adolescent health issue: influences, consequences for well-being and health-enhancing strategies.
• Take action to enhance an aspect of people’s well-being: identifying an issue, planning a workable response and considering its likely effectiveness.
• Evaluate factors that influence people’s ability to manage change: risk and protective factors, resilience, and personal, interpersonal and societal strategies.
• New Zealand Curriculum Health concepts: hauora, socio-ecological perspective, health promotion, attitudes and values; key competencies of thinking and participating and contributing.

Lesson structure (60 minutes)

1. 0–7 min · Engaging starter. Display two contrasting images: a well-resourced vaccination clinic and a crowded clinic with limited supplies, using the opening comparison slide. Ask: “If a disease can cross borders, should access to protection depend on where someone is born?” Students make an individual judgement, then share one reason with a partner. Establish respectful discussion expectations: critique systems and ideas, not people or cultures.

2. 7–17 min · Teacher input. Use the key concepts slides to introduce vaccine inequity and clarify that equity means removing unfair, avoidable barriers rather than giving everyone exactly the same resources. Briefly teach determinants of health: income and employment, education, housing and transport, health services, government policy, trade, technology, conflict, discrimination and geography. Link these to hauora: taha tinana, hinengaro, whānau and whenua. Explain interconnectedness: infection, travel, supply chains, misinformation and international decision-making can affect people far beyond one country. Emphasise that countries and communities are diverse; avoid presenting lower-income countries as helpless or homogeneous.

3. 17–30 min · Case-study analysis. Distribute the global vaccine inequity case-study worksheet. Students read a concise case study comparing vaccine access, delivery barriers and outcomes in a high-income country and a lower-income country during the COVID-19 pandemic. In pairs, students identify influences at personal, interpersonal, societal and international levels, then trace two cause-and-effect chains: “This influence contributed to… which affected… because…”. They record short- and long-term consequences for at least three dimensions of hauora and identify who is directly and indirectly affected.

4. 30–43 min · Collaborative evaluation. In groups of four, students use the response options on the worksheet: patent sharing or voluntary licensing, technology transfer and local manufacturing, international funding for delivery systems, targeted public-health communication, and individual vaccination where available. Each student takes a role: evidence finder, hauora analyst, ethics chair or spokesperson. Groups rank their top three responses against likely impact, feasibility, sustainability and equity. They must explain one possible unintended consequence and one way to reduce it.

5. 43–53 min · Critical-thinking discussion. Show the ethical dilemma and discussion prompts. Present the dilemma: “During a global outbreak, should a country prioritise its own population before sharing doses and technology?” Groups contribute one claim, one reason and one counterargument. Prompt deeper thinking: Who has power? Who carries the greatest risk? What responsibilities do governments, pharmaceutical companies, international organisations and individuals have? How might Māori concepts of collective well-being and whanaungatanga support a response focused on shared responsibility? Acknowledge that cultural knowledge is not a single viewpoint and invite students to connect ideas respectfully rather than speak for Māori communities.

6. 53–60 min · Formative assessment and exit ticket. Students complete the final task on the conclusion and exit-ticket section: “The most effective and fair response is… because…”. They must include one determinant, one consequence for hauora, one ethical consideration and one limitation. Invite two students to share different conclusions, then preview that this structure can support an NCEA analysis or a community health action plan.

Resources

• the global health equity slide deck
• the global vaccine inequity case-study worksheet
• Projector or interactive display
• Board and coloured markers
• Reliable evidence extracts from the World Health Organization, UNICEF, Our World in Data and New Zealand public-health agencies
• Large paper or shared digital document for group rankings
• Timer

Assessment

• Circulate during pair analysis and check whether students distinguish determinants, consequences and strategies rather than listing them.
• Listen for connections between personal, interpersonal, societal and international factors; question unsupported claims and prompt students to explain “how” or “why”.
• Collect the exit ticket and assess whether it includes a justified response, an equity consideration and a clear link to hauora. Use responses to plan a follow-up lesson on evidence quality and NCEA writing.

Differentiation

• Provide a determinant word bank, a four-level socio-ecological organiser and sentence starters: “A key influence is…”, “This contributes to… because…”, and “This response may be effective for… but less effective for…”.
• Give students who need support a shortened case study with key evidence highlighted; allow verbal rehearsal before writing and pair students strategically. Ensure all data and examples are explained without assuming prior knowledge.
• Challenge confident students to distinguish equality from equity, evaluate the reliability and limitations of evidence, and explain interrelationships between two responses or determinants.
• Use inclusive examples from multiple regions and avoid deficit language. Offer students a quiet alternative to whole-class speaking, and remind the class not to disclose personal vaccination, illness or whānau experiences.