Answers+HSC+Core+1

=2008 HSC PDHPE Past Paper=



====21a) Stronger responses clearly stated the relationship between injury and diabetes and the criteria for selection as National Health Priority Areas (social justice principles, prevalence of condition, priority population groups, cost to individuals and community, potential for change). These responses referred to social justice principles in particular and showed how these principles were relevant to the other criteria for example, the link between social justice principles and priority population groups. ==== ====Mid-range responses provided some reasons why injury and diabetes were identified as NHPAs. Responses generally covered prevalence, cost to community and individual and potential for change. These responses gave a general cause and effect comment at the end of a number of examples rather than specifically linking each example to the selection criteria. ==== ====Weaker responses referred to morbidity and mortality rates when explaining why injury and diabetes were identified as NHPAs but did not make the link between high prevalence, modifiable risk factors and the potential for change. Responses in the low range lacked the appropriate terminology and tended to be more of a description than explanation. ====

====21b) Stronger responses demonstrated a thorough understanding of the relevance of the chosen action areas and how they related to either skin or lung cancer. They provided a definition of the action area, applied this to skin or lung cancer and then drew out implications which were concise and specific. For example, when discussing building healthy public policy in relation to lung cancer, these responses described how the ban on smoking in pubs and clubs encouraged health enhancing behaviour such as a reduction or cessation in smoking habits due to less opportunity to smoke and/or the social stigma associated with leaving friends to smoke elsewhere. Similar links were established in relation to the graphic anti-smoking messages on cigarette packets and the bans on selling cigarettes to under 18s. Better responses showed clear analysis and demonstrated a clear understanding of the syllabus. ==== ====Mid-range responses showed an understanding of the action areas and provided a variety of examples to show how these were used to address skin or lung cancer. These responses made broad and general statements about implications rather than specific analysis of how each example would impact on behaviours or outcomes. Mid-range responses provided relevant examples and were clear and logical in their discussion. ==== ====Weaker responses showed some understanding of the action areas of the Ottawa Charter but were often did not draw out and relate implications of how the action areas would have an impact on skin or lung cancer. Statements were more descriptive and general and only provided basic examples of how the action areas were used to address the chosen disease. ====

Health Priorities in Australia HSC Core 1