June 2026
The 2025 VCE Health and Human Development Exam Report made one thing very clear: high-scoring responses were specific.
Students needed to do more than recognise the topic. They needed to answer the exact command, use correct terminology, apply concepts to the stimulus, make clear links to health and wellbeing or human development, and avoid generic statements that could apply to almost any question.
This mattered across the whole paper.
In Section A, students were asked to explain dimensions of health and wellbeing, compare food selection models, interpret self-assessed health status data, apply the social model of health, analyse Medicare, discuss Ottawa Charter action areas, and connect global health programs to WHO objectives, the Human Development Index, Sustainable Development Goals and effective aid.
In Section B, students needed to use four sources about water and sanitation to construct a sustained response worth 10 marks.
The strongest students were not necessarily writing the longest responses.
They were writing the most connected responses.
They could move from concept to example to impact.
What does the term mean?
What does the data show?
How does this factor affect health and wellbeing?
How does this initiative reflect the social model of health?
How does this program influence an HDI indicator?
How does this example promote human development?
How does the stimulus support the point?
These were the questions that determined performance.
Definitions needed more than memorised wording
The first question asked students to outline social health and wellbeing and use an example to show how it can be dynamic.
The report noted that students needed to demonstrate that dynamic means changing. Strong responses explained social health and wellbeing as involving the quality of interactions and relationships with others, including the ability to adapt to different social situations. They then used an example, such as a person having a supportive friendship network and later moving away, reducing that social support and therefore changing their social health and wellbeing.
This was a definition question, but it still required application.
Students needed to define the concept and show how it changes over time.
A generic statement such as “social health and wellbeing is about friends” was not enough for full marks. The response needed characteristics, change and an example.
That is a recurring lesson from 2025.
Even when the concept is familiar, the answer has to do what the command asks.
Dimensions of health and wellbeing had to be linked both ways
Question 1b asked students to describe the relationship between the physical and mental dimensions of health and wellbeing.
The report made an important point: students needed to show how physical health and wellbeing affects mental health and wellbeing, and how mental health and wellbeing affects physical health and wellbeing. They were awarded marks for showing the connection between dimensions, not simply listing characteristics of each.
This was a major source of mark loss.
A strong response might explain that being free from disease or injury can allow a person to attend school or work, increasing confidence and self-esteem. It could then explain that greater confidence may encourage the person to join a sport or gym, improving physical fitness and energy levels.
The key is the two-way relationship.
Physical → mental.
Mental → physical.
Students who only described the dimensions separately did not fully answer the question.
Comparison questions required actual comparison
Question 2a asked students to outline one similarity and one difference between the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Guide to Healthy Eating and the Australian Guide to Healthy Eating.
The report noted that some students did not make a proper comparison when discussing differences. This limited their answers.
A similarity could be that both guides visually represent the five food groups, show the same proportions of food groups, or promote drinking water. A difference could be that the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Guide to Healthy Eating includes cultural foods such as kangaroo or damper, whereas the Australian Guide to Healthy Eating does not.
The wording whereas matters.
A difference must compare both sides.
It is not enough to state one feature of one guide and stop. The student needed to show how that feature differs from the other guide.
The report also noted that abbreviating Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander is considered culturally inappropriate as best practice. This is an important reminder that respectful and accurate language matters in this subject.
Nutritional change needed specific dietary language
Question 2b asked students to identify and describe how one environmental challenge affects the ability to bring about nutritional change.
The report noted a common issue: students simply referred to a decrease in “healthy eating” without naming a specific nutrient, food type or dietary change.
This is one of the clearest lessons from the report.
Health and Human Development rewards specificity.
Students could discuss environmental challenges such as housing environment, geographic location, workplaces, access to physical resources, transport, climate, weather or infrastructure. But they needed to link that challenge to specific nutritional change.
For example, poor housing facilities may mean a person does not have access to an oven or stove. This may increase reliance on takeaway or microwavable meals, which are often higher in saturated fat, salt and sugar, instead of fresh produce that requires preparation.
This response works because it links:
environmental challenge → food access or preparation → specific dietary change.
“Less healthy eating” is too vague.
Data use required both comparison and units
Question 3 asked students to interpret a graph showing self-assessed health status for two population groups.
Question 3b required students to outline one variation between population group A and population group B using data from the graph. The report noted that students needed to refer to both groups and use the correct unit, percentage.
A strong answer would say that a greater percentage of population group B reported their self-assessed health status as excellent or very good, at approximately 60%, compared with approximately 40% of population group A.
This response includes:
the variation
both groups
data
the unit
Students often lose marks in data questions because they describe only one group or omit the unit. In 2025, that was not enough.
The graph had to be used accurately.
Sociocultural factors had to explain the variation
Question 3c asked students to identify two sociocultural factors and describe how each could lead to the variation in self-assessed health status outlined in part b.
The report noted that a common issue was only mentioning one population group. Students needed to refer to both groups to focus on the variation.
This is a major application skill.
If the variation was that population group B had a higher percentage reporting excellent or very good self-assessed health status than population group A, the sociocultural factors needed to explain why that difference might exist.
Possible factors included socioeconomic status, income, education, employment status, social networks, social isolation, cultural background, food security, early life experiences and access to health care.
A strong response might argue that population group B may have higher incomes than population group A, allowing more people to afford nutritious foods such as fruit and vegetables, which can support immune system functioning and reduce infectious disease. This could contribute to more people in population group B rating their health as excellent or very good.
The key is comparative explanation.
Not just “income affects health”.
Income may differ between the groups, and that difference helps explain the variation in self-assessed health status.
Health outcomes needed context
Question 4a asked students to explain two ways smoking or vaping may affect health outcomes in Australia.
The report identified a common problem: generic statements such as “smoking increases morbidity” or “smoking increases incidence” were not enough. Students needed to provide context, such as increased morbidity from lung cancer or increased incidence of cardiovascular disease. Students also needed to state the direction of the impact, such as decreased life expectancy.
This is another recurring 2025 theme.
Health outcome language must be specific.
A strong response could explain that cigarettes and e-cigarettes contain carcinogens that can damage body cells, increasing the prevalence of cancer in Australia. Another response could explain that harmful chemicals in cigarettes and e-cigarettes contribute to plaque build-up in arteries, increasing the likelihood of heart attack and increasing mortality from cardiovascular disease.
The structure is:
risk factor → biological or behavioural pathway → specific health outcome.
Generic outcome language was not enough.
Social model of health responses needed the model, not just an initiative
Question 4b asked students to describe one initiative based on the social model of health and outline how it could reduce rates of smoking or vaping.
The report noted that students needed to demonstrate a deep understanding of how the initiative reflected the social model of health.
This means students could not simply name an initiative such as Quit and say it helps people stop smoking. They needed to connect the initiative to features of the social model of health.
The social model may involve addressing broader determinants of health, focusing on prevention and health promotion, targeting whole communities, addressing inequities, or reflecting Ottawa Charter action areas such as developing personal skills.
For example, the Quit program could be linked to developing personal skills because it provides information and strategies to help people manage urges to smoke and quit successfully. This reflects health promotion and prevention, and can reduce smoking rates by equipping individuals with skills to change behaviour.
The initiative matters.
But the model matters more.
“Resource” questions needed a chain of reasoning
Question 4c asked students to explain how reducing rates of smoking or vaping may act as a resource individually and nationally.
The report noted that students needed to link the change from reducing smoking or vaping to an example of a resource for the individual or nation.
This required a chain.
For the individual:
Reducing smoking or vaping may reduce respiratory illnesses such as asthma or COPD. This may allow individuals to attend work more often, earn an income and afford resources such as nutritious food, housing or health care. In this way, reduced smoking or vaping acts as a resource for the individual.
For the nation:
Reducing smoking or vaping may reduce hospitalisations for cardiovascular disease or cancer. This may reduce pressure on the health system and allow government funds to be redirected to infrastructure, education or medical research. In this way, reduced smoking or vaping acts as a national resource.
The strongest responses did not just say “health improves”.
They explained how improved health becomes useful for living standards, productivity, income, government spending or social functioning.
WHO objectives had to be actual objectives
Question 5a asked students to identify one WHO objective and explain how it was reflected in a cholera vaccination program in Zimbabwe.
The report noted that a common issue was listing “promote, provide and protect”, which are components of the WHO goal, not objectives.
This distinction mattered.
Relevant WHO objectives included:
- preventing, mitigating and preparing for risks to health from all hazards
- rapidly detecting and sustaining an effective response to all health emergencies
- advancing primary health care and essential health system capacities for universal health coverage
- improving health service coverage and financial protection to address inequity and gender inequalities
- addressing health determinants and the main causes of ill health
Students did not need to reproduce the objective word-for-word, but they needed key terms.
A strong response could identify the objective of rapidly detecting and sustaining an effective response to health emergencies, then explain that the cholera outbreak was a health emergency because it had spread across all 10 provinces and involved more than 27 055 suspected cases. The vaccination of more than 2.1 million people reflected an effective response to reduce spread.
This is precise application.
HDI indicators had to be named correctly
Question 5b asked students to explain how the cholera vaccination program could affect one indicator of the Human Development Index for Zimbabwe.
The report noted common errors: students wrote “life expectancy” instead of life expectancy at birth, or “Gross National Income” instead of Gross National Income per capita. Others confused HDI indicators with HDI dimensions.
This is a terminology lesson.
The HDI indicators are:
life expectancy at birth
expected years of schooling
mean years of schooling
Gross National Income per capita
A strong response could explain that vaccinating 2.1 million people against cholera may reduce transmission and deaths from cholera, thereby increasing life expectancy at birth, contributing to an increase in Zimbabwe’s HDI.
The indicator must be named correctly.
Near-enough terminology was not always enough.
Sustainability required the ongoing nature of the concept
Question 6a asked students to identify the dimension of sustainability that works towards an equitable society, sustainable birth rates and increased access to education. The accepted answer was social sustainability.
Question 6b asked students to explain how this dimension promotes human development using two examples.
The report noted that students were expected to show the ongoing nature of sustainability using language such as now and into the future, continuing, ongoing or indefinitely.
This is a major VCE Health and Human Development point.
Sustainability is not just about having something now. It is about maintaining it for current and future generations.
Examples of social sustainability could include gender equality, access to education, safe and decent working conditions, peace and security, social protection, access to health care and access to human rights.
A strong response links:
social sustainability example → ongoing access or equity → human development concept.
For example, access to education now and into the future can allow more children to gain literacy and numeracy skills, increasing access to knowledge and expanding future choices, thereby promoting human development.
The phrase now and into the future is not decorative.
It shows sustainability.
Programs had to be linked to stimulus material
Question 7 asked about VACCA’s Koorie Kids Playgroup.
The report noted that students were required to link to the stimulus material. Students also needed to show how the program promoted health and wellbeing by linking program features to a dimension of health and wellbeing.
For example, participating in cultural arts, crafts and dance and getting to know other Koorie kids in the area could allow children and parents to form meaningful relationships, promoting social health and wellbeing. Gathering with other Koorie families and hearing stories could also strengthen belonging and cultural connection.
The important point is that the stimulus was not optional.
Students needed to use it.
A response that generally described playgroups without using the provided material would be less effective.
Medicare required analysis through sustainability and equity
Question 8 asked students to analyse the role of Medicare in promoting health outcomes in terms of sustainability and equity.
This type of question required students to go beyond describing Medicare.
They needed to explain how Medicare promotes health outcomes and analyse this through two concepts: sustainability and equity.
For equity, students could discuss how Medicare improves access to essential health services regardless of income, reducing financial barriers and helping more people receive diagnosis, treatment and care. This can reduce morbidity and mortality from conditions that might otherwise go untreated.
For sustainability, students could discuss how Medicare supports early intervention and preventative care, potentially reducing long-term pressure on hospitals and health system costs. However, sustainability could also be analysed in terms of the cost of maintaining universal access as demand increases.
The word analyse matters.
Students needed to break down the role of Medicare and connect it to the specified concepts.
Social action needed a concrete pathway
Question 9a asked students to describe one way people could engage with a non-government organisation to take individual or social action to prevent violence against women and girls.
The response needed an action, not just concern.
Students could describe donating to an NGO, volunteering, joining awareness campaigns, sharing campaign materials, participating in fundraising events, signing petitions, attending community education sessions or advocating for policy change.
The key was engagement with an NGO.
Question 9b then asked students to describe how prevention of violence against women and girls could promote two dimensions of health and wellbeing.
A strong response might explain that preventing violence can promote physical health and wellbeing by reducing injuries, disability or death. It could promote mental health and wellbeing by reducing fear, anxiety, psychological distress or trauma, and improving self-esteem and confidence.
The prevention of violence had to be linked to the dimension.
Mass migration required health outcome analysis
Question 10 asked students to identify one reason why populations might mass migrate and then analyse the implications of mass migration on the health outcomes of those migrating.
Reasons could include war, conflict, famine, persecution, natural disasters, economic collapse or climate-related events.
The 6-mark analysis required more than listing effects. Students needed to explain implications for health outcomes.
Mass migration could increase morbidity from infectious diseases due to overcrowded camps, poor sanitation or limited clean water. It could increase mortality from exposure, malnutrition, violence or lack of access to health care. It could also worsen mental health outcomes through trauma, separation from family, uncertainty and displacement.
The best responses would also recognise complexity. In some cases, migration may improve health outcomes if people move away from conflict or famine and gain access to safety, food, shelter and health care.
Analysis rewards depth.
Australia’s aid needed links to SDGs and effective aid
Question 11 focused on the Global Partnership for Education.
The stimulus stated that Australia had committed $570 million to GPE since 2007, and that GPE had supported 160 million more children to be in school, doubled the number of girls in school in partner countries, and provided 67 million more children with access to quality teachers.
Question 11a asked how Australia’s support of GPE promotes one SDG. A strong response could link the program to SDG 4: Quality Education by explaining that GPE improves access to education, including for girls and marginalised children, supporting inclusive and equitable quality education.
Question 11b asked why the Australian Government works with multilateral organisations. Students could justify that multilateral organisations combine funding, expertise and reach across multiple countries, allowing large-scale programs to be delivered more effectively.
Question 11c asked for another feature of effective aid evident in GPE. Students could discuss a feature such as addressing poverty, promoting equity, being sustainable, involving country ownership or focusing on results, then describe how it promotes human development.
Again, the stimulus evidence mattered.
Ottawa Charter responses needed action areas applied to the issue
Question 12 asked students to refer to two Ottawa Charter action areas and discuss how health promotion could address low levels of physical activity among young Australians.
The stimulus stated that at least 60 minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity daily is recommended for children aged 5–17, yet 83% of young people aged 15–17 did not meet this guideline in 2022.
Students needed to use two action areas, such as:
Build healthy public policy
Create supportive environments
Strengthen community action
Develop personal skills
Reorient health services
A strong response could explain that schools or governments could build healthy public policy by mandating minimum physical activity time during the school week, increasing opportunities for young people to meet the guideline. Another action area could be creating supportive environments by improving safe parks, bike paths and recreational facilities, making it easier for young Australians to be active.
The answer needed to apply the action areas to the issue: low physical activity.
Simply defining the Ottawa Charter was not enough.
Section B required synthesis, not source summary
Section B asked students to consider four sources relating to water and sanitation.
The sources included graphs showing the proportion of populations using safely managed drinking water and sanitation facilities in high-income and low-income countries, and a key-facts source noting that billions of people lack access to safely managed water and sanitation.
This section required students to use sources as evidence and connect them to Health and Human Development concepts.
A strong response would not simply describe each source in order.
It would synthesise.
For example, it could use the water and sanitation data to explain global inequalities, then link these inequalities to health outcomes such as diarrhoeal disease, mortality, morbidity and life expectancy at birth. It could connect access to sanitation and clean water to Sustainable Development Goals, human development, equity and sustainability.
The strongest Section B responses generally use data accurately, explain cause-and-effect relationships and organise ideas around the question rather than around the sources.
The strongest responses built chains
The 2025 report repeatedly rewarded chains of reasoning.
A strong Health and Human Development response often follows this structure:
concept → example → impact → outcome.
For example:
Poor access to safe drinking water can increase exposure to pathogens that cause diarrhoeal disease. This can increase morbidity and mortality, especially among children, reducing life expectancy at birth and limiting human development by reducing the ability to live a long and healthy life.
This kind of response is powerful because each sentence connects to the next.
Weak responses often stop too early:
“Poor water causes disease.”
That may be true, but it does not show enough of the pathway.
High-scoring students complete the chain.
What future Health and Human Development students should learn from 2025
The 2025 VCE Health and Human Development exam shows that students need to prepare for precision and application.
Students should practise:
- defining key terms with examples
- linking dimensions of health and wellbeing both ways
- making direct comparisons
- using respectful and accurate terminology
- naming specific nutrients, foods and dietary changes
- using data with both groups and correct units
- explaining variations between population groups
- connecting risk factors to specific health outcomes
- applying initiatives to the social model of health
- distinguishing WHO goals from WHO objectives
- naming HDI indicators correctly
- showing the ongoing nature of sustainability
- linking stimulus evidence to health and wellbeing
- analysing Medicare through equity and sustainability
- applying Ottawa Charter action areas to specific health issues
- using Section B sources as evidence rather than summarising them
These skills matter because the subject rewards applied understanding.
It is not enough to know the content.
Students need to use the content in the way the question demands.
How ATAR STAR approaches VCE Health and Human Development
At ATAR STAR, Health and Human Development is taught through application and precision.
Students learn definitions, models and frameworks, but they also practise linking them to data, stimulus material, case studies and command terms. They are trained to build cause-and-effect chains, use correct terminology, compare groups accurately and structure extended responses that address the exact question.
The 2025 Examination Report confirms why this matters. High-scoring students did not simply remember the course.
They applied it specifically.