Examine the relative importance of prevention and treatment in limiting the spread of one or more diseases.

Examine how governments and other stakeholders can affect the severity of famine.

Marks should be allocated according to the Paper 1 markbands (available under the "Your tests" tab > supplemental materials).

The relative importance of policies of prevention and treatment will depend partly on the nature of the disease – chronic (non-communicable), or contagious/infectious – as well as on the economic, social, demographic and political characteristics of affected communities. Social marginalization issues, government priorities, means of infection and government priorities are also important considerations.

Possible applied themes (AO2) demonstrating knowledge and understanding (AO1):

The relative importance of prevention over treatment of disease will depend on a variety of factors, including:

• The nature of the disease (chronic or infectious) – e.g. cardiovascular disease or cholera): prevention may be more important in one than the other.
• Means of infection and transmission. The pattern and rate of diffusion of the disease.
• Economic characteristics and wealth of the community.
• Demographic characteristics – an ageing population may be more prone to particular chronic diseases.
• Availability of medical professionals and facilities; cost of medicines and healthcare.
• Government priorities; levels of education and awareness; access to social media.

Good answers may be well structured (AO4) and may additionally offer a critical evaluation (AO3) of the statement in a way that examines the complex interactions between various factors affecting strategies of prevention and treatment from different perspectives and scales. The power of different stakeholders might also be examined. Another approach might be to consider the changing relative importance of prevention and treatment for countries and places at different levels of development.

For 5–6 marks, expect weakly evidenced outlining of prevention and/or treatment for one or more diseases.

For 7–8 marks, expect a structured account which includes:

• either an evidenced explanation of strategies of prevention and treatment for one or more diseases
• or a discursive conclusion (or ongoing evaluation) regarding the relative importance of prevention and treatment of one or more diseases.

For 9–10 marks, expect both of these traits.

Marks should be allocated according to the Paper 1 markbands (available under the "Your tests" tab > supplemental materials).

The focus of the question is on the severity, rather than the causes, of famine, and the role and actions of different stakeholders. In some cases, the severity of the famine may be actually worsened, rather than alleviated. Apart from governments, other stakeholders include: international aid agencies and other humanitarian groups, local communities, and the media. Time scale is also important, as famine might be alleviated in the short term. In the long term, international aid may increase resilience and reduce the severity of future famines.

Possible applied themes (AO2) demonstrating knowledge and understanding (AO1):

The relative importance of prevention over treatment of disease will depend on a variety of factors, including:

• The severity of famine is affected by a variety of human factors and the actions of different stakeholders.
• Stakeholders include local and national governments, international aid agencies and humanitarian groups, local communities and the media.
• The views and attitudes of different stakeholders (local, national and international) should be considered.
• The actions of the media may play an important role in highlighting the severity of famine.
• International aid may be both short and long term. In the short term, medical, food aid and water supplies will reduce death tolls from hunger and malnutrition. However, in the long term this may increase dependency on foreign aid.
• Long-term aid may increase resilience and reduce the severity of future famine.
• Local communities may also increase resilience to famine, through actions such as introduction of improved farming techniques, irrigation practices, and drought-resistant crops/animals.
• Improvements in education, health care and infrastructure in local communities are also important.

Good answers may be well structured (AO4) and may additionally offer a critical evaluation (AO3) of the statement in a way that examines the contribution and power of different stakeholders in reducing the severity of famine. Another approach might be to examine the severity of famine in different places and geographical contexts, and how severity might be alleviated over time scales.

For 5–6 marks, expect weakly evidenced outlining of the influence of governments and/or other stakeholders in affecting the severity of famine.

For 7–8 marks, expect a structured account which includes:

• either an evidenced explanation of the influence of governments and other stakeholders in affecting the severity of famine
• or a discursive conclusion (or ongoing evaluation) grounded in geographical concepts and/or perspectives.

For 9–10 marks, expect both of these traits.

This was a straightforward question, but several candidates confused prevention and treatment and hardly any examined their relative importance. The majority chose malaria and/or HIV/AIDS, with a few using Covid-19. Some of the better responses considered how different diseases require more treatment or prevention and how some countries might need to take a different approach to another country.

This was generally well answered. Some did not focus on the question asked and wrote about the causes of the famine rather than the severity. There was a good use of case studies, with Yemen being popular, and good responses were able to refer to the relative power of different stakeholders, for example, government aid and media.