Table 4.
Low and medium income countries | High income countries | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BG | GR | SP | UK | NO | NL | |
Adequately funded health care infrastructure | ++ | ++ | ++ | |||
Existence and impact of dedicated SM policies, services, and resources | + | ++ | ++ | ++ | ||
Emphasis on nuances in SMS policies, resources, and delivery | + | + | ++ | ++ | ++ | |
Absence of dedicated and enacted policies related to inadequate provision, austerity, and lack of resources | ++ | ++ | + | |||
Drug companies viewed in terms of playing an explicit role in SM | ++ | ++ | ++ | |||
Drug companies in strong position to reinforcing biomedical focus in SM | ++ | ++ | ++ | |||
Focus on promoting SM at an individual level | ++ | + | ++ | |||
Behavioural interventions introduced by primary care services | ++ | ++ | ++ | |||
Presence of cycling-friendly physical and social environment | ++ | ++ | ||||
Expressed concerns with social rights & socialising healthcare cost | ++ | ++ | ++ |
‘++’ the statement is fully valid for this country; ‘+’ the statement is only to some extent valid for this country
Please note that each country is assessed in relation to how all other countries in the sample, e.g. regional differences exist within all countries in the sample, but they are relatively small compared to those in Spain, partly due to their autonomous status