The spatial placement and concentration of Health Development Offices are critically important for influencing the health behaviour of the elderly [5]. A health prevention service can achieve long-term results if the network of Health Development Offices has national coverage and is easily accessible to the population, especially the elderly [1]. Besides spatial placement, however, factors influencing service uptake, including transportation options and other sociological health factors, should not be overlooked [6, 33].
The availability of transportation infrastructure can significantly improve, or its absence can worsen, the absorption of interested parties from the Office's catchment area. However, the health value attitudes and knowledge of those living in the area of a Health Development Office can also vary significantly, affecting both the establishment and utilization of the Office [9]. It must not be forgotten that the purpose of Health Development Offices is to improve morbidity indicators that lead to leading causes of death.
Significant progress can be made in reducing health risks through nutrition, physical activity, and mental health improvements, which are worth considering in old age [15].
From the degree of concentration, it can be concluded, that despite inequalities, the network of Health Development Offices is suitable for serving the needs of the total and elderly populations. However, coverage is not yet complete, and the location concentration also highlights that there are areas in need of network development, as well as considering capacity development of existing providers in light of demands. Health Development Offices work with similar infrastructure and human resources regardless of the size of the affected district, while significant differences exist between their territorial service areas.
Based on the descriptions, we must see that numerous factors influence the formation of the existing network of Health Development Offices [32]. The star topology of the Health Development Office is partly explainable by the population's territorial distribution, with transportation, communication, and infrastructure factors also cited as further explanatory reasons.
Central organizational processes, with efficiency and effectiveness in mind, also facilitated the formation of the star topology; however, based on the county differences in the number of Health Development Offices per 100,000 population, it's evident that besides the mentioned factors, numerous factors influence the spatial placement of Health Development Offices. It's not coincidental that the capital and its immediate surroundings became underweight based on Location Quotient Indexes.
As Kornyicki [16] revealed, those European Union funds and grants that established the Health Development Offices contributed to the formation of their territorial structure and preferred the following factors in Hungary:
-
The formation and improvement of individual behaviour patterns serving health among the domestic population, especially improving the health attitudes of high-risk target groups.
-
Preferring small regions over the capital.
-
Upgrading underdeveloped areas, part of which is influencing health-related attitudes in a positive direction.
-
Strengthening public health with systematic steps.
-
Approaching health development with an integrated perspective.
-
Ensuring the quality of health prevention services and reducing the quality heterogeneity of provided services.
-
Enhancing the “gatekeeper” role of general practitioners.
-
Improving the cooperation between preventive service providers and the social and economic actors in the affected areas.
-
Improving morbidity and mortality indicators by prioritizing primary and secondary prevention.
An additional important aspect in the establishment of Health Development Offices was that they operate integrally and play a significant role in the implementation of the region's health development strategy. This function represents an active link, a bridge between the region's health service providers, the local government, and civil organizations, which is critically important for preserving the health of the elderly, according to Molnár and colleagues and VG Janson & Elisabeth [26, 35].
Facilitated by EU grant funding, 2014 saw the establishment of 20 Health Development Offices in the most socioeconomically disadvantaged districts and an additional 18 in districts categorized as disadvantaged, out of a total of 61 offices [16]. The data shows that the first health development offices served to catch up with underdeveloped areas to improve positive health attitudes and health preservation. Approaching from a health sociology perspective, we can expect significantly worse morbidity and mortality indicators in underdeveloped areas, which can be attributed to socialization, social and geographical environment, and individual values, warranting increased social attention [20].
After 2014, Health Development Offices inaugurated under the EFOP and VEKOP programs expanded their roles to include mental hygiene and mental health services, marking a notable advancement in the field [15]. Remarkable, it was the VEKOP grants that facilitated the inclusion of the capital city into the Health Development Offices network, thereby playing a crucial role in establishing a star topology in the distribution of these services where the population was a crucial influence factor.