June 2026
The 2025 VCE Health and Human Development exam showed that students needed more than memorised definitions of health and wellbeing.
They needed to use those definitions.
This was especially clear in questions about social health and wellbeing, the relationship between physical and mental health and wellbeing, self-assessed health status, smoking and vaping, violence prevention, migration and water and sanitation.
Across these questions, the report made one message clear: students needed to show links.
A dimension of health and wellbeing had to be linked to a real example.
A relationship between dimensions had to move in both directions.
A health status measure had to be named with context and direction.
A graph had to be interpreted using both groups and correct units.
A factor had to explain the variation, not just affect health generally.
A program or issue had to be connected to a dimension of health and wellbeing.
In this subject, definitions are only the starting point.
The marks come from applying them.
Social health and wellbeing needed quality of relationships
Question 1a asked students to outline what is meant by social health and wellbeing.
Strong responses described social health and wellbeing as involving the state and quality of an individual’s interactions and relationships with others. This could include relationships with family and friends, supportive networks, communication and the ability to adapt to different social situations.
A weak response might say:
Social health and wellbeing is about having friends.
That is partly true, but it is too narrow.
A stronger response would say:
Social health and wellbeing refers to the quality of relationships and interactions an individual has with others, including supportive family and friendship networks and the ability to adapt to different social situations.
This response gives the main features of the dimension.
That matters because VCE Health and Human Development expects students to understand the dimension, not just recognise one example of it.
“Dynamic” meant changing over time
Question 1a also required students to use an example to show how social health and wellbeing can be dynamic.
The report noted that students needed to demonstrate that dynamic means changing.
This is an important exam detail.
A strong response might explain that a person may have strong social health and wellbeing while surrounded by supportive friends at school, but if they move to another state and lose regular contact with those friends, their sense of connection and support may decrease. This shows that social health and wellbeing can change over time.
The example needed to show change.
It was not enough to give an example of social health and wellbeing at one point in time.
Dynamic means the dimension can improve or worsen as circumstances change.
Dimensions should not be treated as separate boxes
Question 1b asked students to describe the relationship between physical and mental health and wellbeing, with reference to how each dimension impacts the other.
The report showed that many students struggled because they listed characteristics of the two dimensions rather than showing the connection between them.
This question was not asking:
What is physical health and wellbeing?
What is mental health and wellbeing?
It was asking:
How does each affect the other?
A strong response needed two directions.
Physical health and wellbeing can affect mental health and wellbeing.
Mental health and wellbeing can affect physical health and wellbeing.
Students who only explained one direction could not fully answer the question.
Physical health and wellbeing can influence mental health and wellbeing
A strong physical-to-mental link could look like this:
If a person has good physical health and wellbeing, such as being free from illness and having high energy levels, they may be able to attend school, work or sport regularly. This can increase confidence and self-esteem, promoting mental health and wellbeing.
This response works because it does not simply name physical characteristics.
It explains how those physical characteristics influence mental health and wellbeing.
The chain is:
physical capacity → participation → confidence or self-esteem → mental health and wellbeing.
That is what the question wanted.
Mental health and wellbeing can influence physical health and wellbeing
The relationship also works the other way.
A strong mental-to-physical link could look like this:
If a person has strong mental health and wellbeing, such as high levels of self-esteem and confidence, they may feel more motivated to join a sports team or exercise regularly. This can improve fitness, energy levels and body functioning, promoting physical health and wellbeing.
Again, the response shows a chain.
mental health and wellbeing → motivation → behaviour → physical health and wellbeing.
The report made clear that marks were awarded for showing these connections.
Definitions alone were not enough.
Self-assessed health status was subjective
Question 3a asked students to outline what is meant by self-assessed health status.
Accepted answers included an individual’s own perception of their health at a given point in time, a subjective measure where individuals rate their own health, or an individual’s own assessment of overall health and wellbeing collected through survey data.
This term is important because it differs from objective health status measures such as mortality rates or life expectancy at birth.
Self-assessed health status is based on how people rate their own health.
A strong response should include the idea of personal perception or subjective assessment.
A weak response might say:
It is how healthy someone is.
That misses the self-assessment element.
Graph interpretation needed both groups
Question 3b asked students to use data from the graph to outline one variation in self-assessed health status between population group A and population group B.
The report noted that students needed to refer to both population groups.
This is a key data skill.
A strong answer could state:
A greater percentage of population group B reported excellent or very good self-assessed health status, at approximately 60%, compared with approximately 40% of population group A.
This answer works because it identifies the variation and compares the two groups.
A weaker response would be:
Population group B had 60% excellent or very good health.
That uses data, but it does not outline the variation between the two groups.
Data comparison needs both sides.
Units mattered in health status data
The report also noted that students needed to use the correct unit, which was percentage.
This matters because the graph presented proportions of population groups.
A response should not simply write:
60 compared with 40.
It should write:
approximately 60% compared with approximately 40%.
Units show that the student has read the graph correctly.
This is a small detail, but in VCE Health and Human Development small details often decide marks.
Sociocultural factors had to explain the variation
Question 3c asked students to identify two sociocultural factors and describe how they could lead to the variation outlined in part b.
This was more demanding than simply naming two factors.
Students had to explain how each factor could lead to the difference in self-assessed health status between population group A and population group B.
Possible sociocultural factors included:
income
education
employment status
occupation
social networks
social isolation
cultural background
food security
early life experiences
access to health care
social exclusion
commercial factors
packaging and labels
The factor needed to be linked to both groups.
For example, if population group B had better self-assessed health status, the response should explain how population group B may have more of a protective factor or population group A may experience more of a risk factor.
Income needed a health pathway
A strong response using income could write:
Population group B may have higher average incomes than population group A. This may allow more people in population group B to afford nutritious foods, private health care and safe housing, reducing the risk of illness and supporting physical and mental health and wellbeing. This could contribute to more people in population group B rating their health as excellent or very good compared with population group A.
This response does several things.
It identifies a sociocultural factor.
It compares the two groups.
It explains how the factor affects health.
It links back to the variation in self-assessed health status.
This is much stronger than writing:
Income affects health because rich people are healthier.
The exam rewards the pathway, not the slogan.
Social networks needed a connection to health
A strong response using social networks could write:
Population group B may have stronger social networks than population group A. This may provide more emotional support, practical assistance and a stronger sense of belonging, reducing feelings of isolation and improving mental and social health and wellbeing. As a result, more people in population group B may rate their health as excellent or very good compared with population group A.
This shows how social networks affect health and wellbeing.
It also links the factor back to self-assessed health status.
The report noted that students commonly lost marks by only mentioning one population group. This type of comparative explanation avoids that problem.
Access to health care could explain differences
Access to health care was another strong sociocultural factor.
A response could explain that population group A may have less access to health care than population group B due to cost, language barriers, location or lack of culturally safe services. This may mean conditions are diagnosed later or not treated effectively, increasing morbidity and reducing physical health and wellbeing. Therefore, fewer people in population group A may rate their health as excellent or very good compared with population group B.
This response works because it links access to health care to actual health outcomes and self-perception.
It is not enough to state that access to health care is different.
Students need to explain how that difference affects health.
Health outcomes needed specific measures
Question 4a asked students to explain two ways smoking or vaping may affect health outcomes in Australia.
The report made clear that generic references to health outcomes were not enough.
Students needed to use specific health outcome language, such as:
increased prevalence of lung cancer
increased incidence of cardiovascular disease
increased morbidity from COPD
increased mortality from heart attack
decreased life expectancy
increased burden of disease from smoking-related illness
A response such as “smoking impacts health outcomes” is too vague.
Even “smoking increases morbidity” is too vague unless the condition is named.
The strongest responses used specific conditions and stated the direction of change.
Smoking and vaping needed cause-and-effect
A strong smoking or vaping response might write:
Cigarettes and e-cigarettes may contain carcinogens that damage body cells as they divide, increasing the likelihood of tumour development. This can increase the prevalence of lung cancer in Australia.
Another strong response could write:
Smoking and vaping may expose users to chemicals that contribute to plaque build-up in arteries, increasing the risk of cardiovascular disease. This can increase mortality from heart attacks and reduce life expectancy.
These responses show cause and effect.
They do not simply state that smoking is unhealthy.
They explain how smoking or vaping can affect a specific health outcome.
Health and wellbeing dimensions also appeared in violence prevention
Question 9b asked students to describe how the prevention of violence against women and girls could promote two dimensions of health and wellbeing.
This question required students to link prevention to dimensions.
For physical health and wellbeing, students could explain that preventing violence reduces injuries such as bruising, fractures, burns, sexual violence-related harm or death, allowing body systems to function more effectively.
For mental health and wellbeing, students could explain that preventing violence reduces trauma, fear, anxiety and psychological distress, while increasing self-esteem, confidence and feelings of safety.
For social health and wellbeing, students could explain that preventing violence may allow women and girls to attend school, work or community activities safely, forming supportive relationships and social networks.
The key was to describe the effect of prevention, not only the harm caused by violence.
Dimension examples needed specificity
The report noted that generic examples were often too vague.
For physical health and wellbeing, writing “complete daily tasks” was not specific enough.
A stronger response should name the physical issue prevented:
injuries
infection
disability
pain
death
sexual and reproductive harm
malnutrition or exhaustion where relevant
For spiritual health and wellbeing, the report noted that students often wrote “increased sense of belonging”, but needed to specify belonging to whom or what.
A stronger response might explain that preventing violence may allow women and girls to participate safely in community or cultural activities, increasing a sense of belonging to their community or cultural group.
Specificity makes the dimension clear.
Mass migration required health outcome analysis
Question 10b asked students to analyse the implications of mass migration on the health outcomes of those migrating.
This question required students to use health outcome language, not just describe movement.
Mass migration may worsen health outcomes if people experience overcrowded refugee camps, unsafe water, limited sanitation, food insecurity or lack of access to health care. These conditions can increase morbidity from communicable diseases and malnutrition, and increase mortality from infection, dehydration, violence or exposure.
It can also affect mental health outcomes through trauma, family separation, grief, uncertainty and psychological distress.
A more developed analysis could acknowledge that migration may improve health outcomes if people move away from conflict, persecution or famine and gain access to safety, shelter, food and health services.
Analysis requires more than a list of disadvantages.
It requires explanation of implications.
Water and sanitation required health status links
Section B required students to discuss how access to safe water and sanitation contributes to differences in health status between high-income and low-income countries.
This was another major health status application.
Sources showed that high-income countries had far greater access to safely managed drinking water and sanitation than low-income countries. Source 3 stated that globally there are nearly 1.7 billion cases of childhood diarrhoeal disease every year, with 2.2 billion people lacking safely managed drinking water and 3.5 billion lacking safely managed sanitation.
Students could use this evidence to explain that poor access to safe water and sanitation increases exposure to pathogens, increasing morbidity and mortality from diarrhoeal disease. This may contribute to higher under-five mortality, lower life expectancy at birth and higher burden of disease in low-income countries compared with high-income countries.
Again, the strongest answers used health status language.
Health status answers needed measurable language
Across the exam, students needed to distinguish dimensions of health and wellbeing from health status.
Health and wellbeing dimensions describe aspects of a person’s life and functioning: physical, social, mental, emotional and spiritual.
Health status refers to an individual’s or population’s overall level of health, often measured using indicators.
Relevant health status measures include:
life expectancy at birth
morbidity
mortality
incidence
prevalence
burden of disease
under-five mortality rate
maternal mortality ratio
self-assessed health status
Students should choose the language that fits the question.
If the question asks about health outcomes, a measurable outcome is often needed.
If the question asks about dimensions, students should name and explain the dimension.
Direction of change mattered
The report repeatedly showed that direction mattered.
Students should write:
increases morbidity from lung cancer
decreases life expectancy
increases mortality from cardiovascular disease
reduces psychological distress
promotes social health and wellbeing
increases self-assessed health status
reduces burden of disease
increases life expectancy at birth
A phrase such as “impacts morbidity” or “affects life expectancy” is weaker because it does not say how.
Health and Human Development marks often depend on showing the direction of the effect.
Strong responses built complete chains
The best health and wellbeing responses built chains like this:
Preventing violence against women and girls may reduce injuries such as fractures or bruising, allowing body systems to function more effectively and promoting physical health and wellbeing.
or:
Lower access to safely managed sanitation can increase faecal contamination of water sources, spreading pathogens that cause diarrhoeal disease. This can increase morbidity and mortality, contributing to poorer health status in low-income countries.
These chains are specific.
They link the cause to the health effect.
They use correct terminology.
That is what the 2025 report repeatedly rewarded.
Why health and wellbeing marks were lost
Marks were likely lost when students:
- defined dimensions without applying them
- described dimensions separately rather than explaining relationships
- did not show that dynamic means changing
- used data without both groups or without units
- named sociocultural factors without linking them to the variation
- wrote generic health outcome statements
- failed to state whether health outcomes increased or decreased
- discussed violence rather than prevention of violence
- used vague dimension examples
- confused health and wellbeing dimensions with health status indicators
- described global issues without measurable health status links
These are common errors because the content feels familiar.
Students need to slow down and complete the link.
What future Health and Human Development students should learn from 2025
The 2025 VCE Health and Human Development exam shows that health and wellbeing preparation should focus on applied links.
Students should practise:
- defining each dimension with accurate features
- using examples that show change over time
- explaining two-way relationships between dimensions
- defining self-assessed health status as subjective
- using graph data with both groups and units
- explaining sociocultural variations between groups
- naming specific health outcomes
- stating direction of change
- distinguishing dimensions from health status indicators
- linking violence prevention to dimensions
- analysing migration through health outcomes
- linking water and sanitation to morbidity, mortality and life expectancy at birth
- writing cause-and-effect chains
These skills help students move beyond memorised definitions.
Health and wellbeing questions reward connection.
How ATAR STAR teaches health and wellbeing in VCE Health and Human Development
At ATAR STAR, health and wellbeing is taught through applied reasoning.
Students learn the definitions, but they also practise linking dimensions to examples, interpreting health status data, explaining variations between population groups and connecting issues to measurable health outcomes. They are trained to write complete cause-and-effect chains that show how and why health is affected.
The 2025 Examination Report confirms why this matters. High-scoring students did not simply define health and wellbeing.
They used the concepts accurately.