Influence of cardiovascular risk, hypertension and diabetes in accelerometry features
In: Gerontechnology: international journal on the fundamental aspects of technology to serve the ageing society, Band 21, Heft s, S. 1-1
ISSN: 1569-111X
84 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: Gerontechnology: international journal on the fundamental aspects of technology to serve the ageing society, Band 21, Heft s, S. 1-1
ISSN: 1569-111X
Background: Between 1997 and 2010, the English government pursued an ambitious programme to reduce health inequalities, the explicit and sustained commitment of which was historically and internationally unique. Previous evaluations have produced mixed results. None of these evaluations have, however, compared the trends in health inequalities within England with those in other European countries. We carried out an innovative analysis to assess whether changes in trends in health inequalities observed in England after the implementation of its programme, have been more favourable than those in other countries without such a programme. Methods: Data were obtained from nationally representative surveys carried out in England, Finland, the Netherlands and Italy for years around 1990, 2000 and 2010. A modified difference-in-difference approach was used to assess whether trends in health inequalities in 2000-2010 were more favourable as compared to the period 1990-2000 in England, and the changes in trends in inequalities after 2000 in England were then compared to those in the three comparison countries. Health outcomes were self-assessed health, long-standing health problems, smoking status and obesity. Education was used as indicator of socioeconomic position. Results: After the implementation of the English strategy, more favourable trends in some health indicators were observed among low-educated people, but trends in health inequalities in 2000-2010 in England were not more favourable than those observed in the period 1990-2000. For most health indicators, changes in trends of health inequalities after 2000 in England were also not significantly different from those seen in the other countries. Conclusions: In this rigorous analysis comparing trends in health inequalities in England both over time and between countries, we could not detect a favourable effect of the English strategy. Our analysis illustrates the usefulness of a modified difference-in-difference approach for assessing the impact of policies on population-level health inequalities.
BASE
Conservation priorities that are based on species distribution, endemism, and vulnerability may underrepresent biologically unique species as well as their functional roles and evolutionary histories. To ensure that priorities are biologically comprehensive, multiple dimensions of diversity must be considered. Further, understanding how the different dimensions relate to one another spatially is important for conservation prioritization, but the relationship remains poorly understood. Here, we use spatial conservation planning to (i) identify and compare priority regions for global mammal conservation across three key dimensions of biodiversity-taxonomic, phylogenetic, and traits-and (ii) determine the overlap of these regions with the locations of threatened species and existing protected areas. We show that priority areas for mammal conservation exhibit low overlap across the three dimensions, highlighting the need for an integrative approach for biodiversity conservation. Additionally, currently protected areas poorly represent the three dimensions of mammalian biodiversity. We identify areas of high conservation priority among and across the dimensions that should receive special attention for expanding the global protected area network. These high-priority areas, combined with areas of high priority for other taxonomic groups and with social, economic, and political considerations, provide a biological foundation for future conservation planning efforts.
BASE
Socioeconomic inequalities in mortality are a challenge for public health around the world, but appear to be resistant to policy-making. We aimed to identify European countries which have been more successful than others in narrowing inequalities in mortality, and the factors associated with narrowing inequalities. We collected and harmonised mortality data by educational level in 15 European countries over the last 25 years, and quantified changes in inequalities in mortality using a range of measures capturing different perspectives on inequality (e.g., 'relative' and 'absolute' inequalities, inequalities in 'attainment' and 'shortfall'). We determined which causes of death contributed to narrowing of inequalities, and conducted country- and period-fixed effects analyses to assess which country-level factors were associated with narrowing of inequalities in mortality. Mortality among the low educated has declined rapidly in all European countries, and a narrowing of absolute, but not relative inequalities was seen in many countries. Best performers were Austria, Italy (Turin) and Switzerland among men, and Spain (Barcelona), England and Wales, and Austria among women. Ischemic heart disease, smoking-related causes (men) and amenable causes often contributed to narrowing inequalities. Trends in income inequality, level of democracy and smoking were associated with widening inequalities, but rising health care expenditure was associated with narrowing inequalities. Trends in inequalities in mortality have not been as unfavourable as often claimed. Our results suggest that health care expansion has counteracted the inequalities widening effect of other influences. © 2019, The Author(s). ; LIFEPATH project
BASE
In: Morrison , J , Pons-Vigues , M , Becares , L , Burstrom , B , Gandarillas , A , Dominguez-Berjon , F , Diez , E , Costa , G , Ruiz , M , Pikhart , H , Marinacci , C , Hoffmann , R , Santana , P & Borrell , C 2014 , ' Health inequalities in European cities: perceptions and beliefs among local policymakers ' , BMJ Open Gastroenterology , vol. 4 , no. 5 . https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004454
Objective: To describe the knowledge and beliefs of public policymakers on social inequalities in health and policies to reduce them in cities from different parts of Europe during 2010 and 2011. Design: Phenomenological qualitative study. Setting: 13 European cities. Participants: 19 elected politicians and officers with a directive status from 13 European cities. Main outcome: Policymaker's knowledge and beliefs. Results: Three emerging discourses were identified among the interviewees, depending on the city of the interviewee. Health inequalities were perceived by most policymakers as differences in life-expectancy between population with economic, social and geographical differences. Reducing health inequalities was a priority for the majority of cities which use surveys as sources of information to analyse these. Bureaucracy, funding and population beliefs were the main barriers. Conclusions: The majority of the interviewed policymakers gave an account of interventions focusing on the immediate determinants and aimed at modifying lifestyles and behaviours in the more disadvantaged classes. More funding should be put towards academic research on effective universal policies, evaluation of their impact and training policymakers and officers on health inequalities in city governments.
BASE
In: BMJ Open
OBJECTIVE: To describe the knowledge and beliefs of public policymakers on social inequalities in health and policies to reduce them in cities from different parts of Europe during 2010 and 2011. DESIGN: Phenomenological qualitative study. SETTING: 13 European cities. PARTICIPANTS: 19 elected politicians and officers with a directive status from 13 European cities. MAIN OUTCOME: Policymaker's knowledge and beliefs. RESULTS: Three emerging discourses were identified among the interviewees, depending on the city of the interviewee. Health inequalities were perceived by most policymakers as differences in life-expectancy between population with economic, social and geographical differences. Reducing health inequalities was a priority for the majority of cities which use surveys as sources of information to analyse these. Bureaucracy, funding and population beliefs were the main barriers. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of the interviewed policymakers gave an account of interventions focusing on the immediate determinants and aimed at modifying lifestyles and behaviours in the more disadvantaged classes. More funding should be put towards academic research on effective universal policies, evaluation of their impact and training policymakers and officers on health inequalities in city governments.
BASE
In: BMJ Open , 4 (5) , Article e004454 . (2014)
To describe the knowledge and beliefs of public policymakers on social inequalities in health and policies to reduce them in cities from different parts of Europe during 2010 and 2011.
BASE
Socioeconomic inequalities in mortality are a challenge for public health around the world, but appear to be resistant to policy-making. We aimed to identify European countries which have been more successful than others in narrowing inequalities in mortality, and the factors associated with narrowing inequalities. We collected and harmonised mortality data by educational level in 15 European countries over the last 25 years, and quantified changes in inequalities in mortality using a range of measures capturing different perspectives on inequality (e.g., 'relative' and 'absolute' inequalities, inequalities in 'attainment' and 'shortfall'). We determined which causes of death contributed to narrowing of inequalities, and conducted country- and period-fixed effects analyses to assess which country-level factors were associated with narrowing of inequalities in mortality. Mortality among the low educated has declined rapidly in all European countries, and a narrowing of absolute, but not relative inequalities was seen in many countries. Best performers were Austria, Italy (Turin) and Switzerland among men, and Spain (Barcelona), England and Wales, and Austria among women. Ischemic heart disease, smoking-related causes (men) and amenable causes often contributed to narrowing inequalities. Trends in income inequality, level of democracy and smoking were associated with widening inequalities, but rising health care expenditure was associated with narrowing inequalities. Trends in inequalities in mortality have not been as unfavourable as often claimed. Our results suggest that health care expansion has counteracted the inequalities widening effect of other influences.
BASE
Objective: To describe the knowledge and beliefs of public policymakers on social inequalities in health and policies to reduce them in cities from different parts of Europe during 2010 and 2011. Design: Phenomenological qualitative study. Setting: 13 European cities. Participants: 19 elected politicians and officers with a directive status from 13 European cities. Main outcome: Policymaker's knowledge and beliefs. Results: Three emerging discourses were identified among the interviewees, depending on the city of the interviewee. Health inequalities were perceived by most policymakers as differences in life-expectancy between population with economic, social and geographical differences. Reducing health inequalities was a priority for the majority of cities which use surveys as sources of information to analyse these. Bureaucracy, funding and population beliefs were the main barriers. Conclusions: The majority of the interviewed policymakers gave an account of interventions focusing on the immediate determinants and aimed at modifying lifestyles and behaviours in the more disadvantaged classes. More funding should be put towards academic research on effective universal policies, evaluation of their impact and training policymakers and officers on health inequalities in city governments.
BASE
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether government efforts in reducing inequalities in health in European countries have actually made a difference to mortality inequalities by socioeconomic group. DESIGN: Register based study. DATA SOURCE: Mortality data by level of education and occupational class in the period 1990-2010, usually collected in a census linked longitudinal study design. We compared changes in mortality between the lowest and highest socioeconomic groups, and calculated their effect on absolute and relative inequalities in mortality (measured as rate differences and rate ratios, respectively). SETTING: All European countries for which data on socioeconomic inequalities in mortality were available for the approximate period between years 1990 and 2010. These included Finland, Norway, Sweden, Scotland, England and Wales (data applied to both together), France, Switzerland, Spain (Barcelona), Italy (Turin), Slovenia, and Lithuania. RESULTS: Substantial mortality declines occurred in lower socioeconomic groups in most European countries covered by this study. Relative inequalities in mortality widened almost universally, because percentage declines were usually smaller in lower socioeconomic groups. However, as absolute declines were often smaller in higher socioeconomic groups, absolute inequalities narrowed by up to 35%, particularly among men. Narrowing was partly driven by ischaemic heart disease, smoking related causes, and causes amenable to medical intervention. Progress in reducing absolute inequalities was greatest in Spain (Barcelona), Scotland, England and Wales, and Italy (Turin), and absent in Finland and Norway. More detailed studies preferably using individual level data are necessary to identify the causes of these variations. CONCLUSIONS: Over the past two decades, trends in inequalities in mortality have been more favourable in most European countries than is commonly assumed. Absolute inequalities have decreased in several countries, probably more as a side effect of population wide behavioural changes and improvements in prevention and treatment, than as an effect of policies explicitly aimed at reducing health inequalities.
BASE
This report presents the conceptual design of a new European research infrastructure EuPRAXIA. The concept has been established over the last four years in a unique collaboration of 41 laboratories within a Horizon 2020 design study funded by the European Union. EuPRAXIA is the first European project that develops a dedicated particle accelerator research infrastructure based on novel plasma acceleration concepts and laser technology. It focuses on the development of electron accelerators and underlying technologies, their user communities, and the exploitation of existing accelerator infrastructures in Europe. EuPRAXIA has involved, amongst others, the international laser community and industry to build links and bridges with accelerator science — through realising synergies, identifying disruptive ideas, innovating, and fostering knowledge exchange. The Eu-PRAXIA project aims at the construction of an innovative electron accelerator using laser- and electron-beam-driven plasma wakefield acceleration that offers a significant reduction in size and possible savings in cost over current state-of-the-art radiofrequency-based accelerators. The foreseen electron energy range of one to five gigaelectronvolts (GeV) and its performance goals will enable versatile applications in various domains, e.g. as a compact free-electron laser (FEL), compact sources for medical imaging and positron generation, table-top test beams for particle detectors, as well as deeply penetrating X-ray and gamma-ray sources for material testing. EuPRAXIA is designed to be the required stepping stone to possible future plasma-based facilities, such as linear colliders at the high-energy physics (HEP) energy frontier. Consistent with a high-confidence approach, the project includes measures to retire risk by establishing scaled technology demonstrators. This report includes preliminary models for project implementation, cost and schedule that would allow operation of the full Eu-PRAXIA facility within 8—10 years.
BASE
This report presents the conceptual design of a new European research infrastructure EuPRAXIA. The concept has been established over the last four years in a unique collaboration of 41 laboratories within a Horizon 2020 design study funded by the European Union. EuPRAXIA is the first European project that develops a dedicated particle accelerator research infrastructure based on novel plasma acceleration concepts and laser technology. It focuses on the development of electron accelerators and underlying technologies, their user communities, and the exploitation of existing accelerator infrastructures in Europe. EuPRAXIA has involved, amongst others, the international laser community and industry to build links and bridges with accelerator science - through realising synergies, identifying disruptive ideas, innovating, and fostering knowledge exchange. The Eu-PRAXIA project aims at the construction of an innovative electron accelerator using laser- and electron-beam-driven plasma wakefield acceleration that offers a significant reduction in size and possible savings in cost over current state-of-the-art radiofrequency-based accelerators. The foreseen electron energy range of one to five gigaelectronvolts (GeV) and its performance goals will enable versatile applications in various domains, e.g. as a compact free-electron laser (FEL), compact sources for medical imaging and positron generation, table-top test beams for particle detectors, as well as deeply penetrating X-ray and gamma-ray sources for material testing. EuPRAXIA is designed to be the required stepping stone to possible future plasma-based facilities, such as linear colliders at the high-energy physics (HEP) energy frontier. Consistent with a high-confidence approach, the project includes measures to retire risk by establishing scaled technology demonstrators. This report includes preliminary models for project implementation, cost and schedule that would allow operation of the full Eu-PRAXIA facility within 8-10 ...
BASE
In: Assmann , R W , Weikum , M K , Akhter , T , Alesini , D , Alexandrova , A S , Anania , M P , Andreev , N E , Andriyash , I , Artioli , M , Aschikhin , A , Audet , T , Bacci , A , Barna , I F , Bartocci , S , Bayramian , A , Beaton , A , Beck , A , Bellaveglia , M , Beluze , A , Bernhard , A , Biagioni , A , Bielawski , S , Bisesto , F G , Bonatto , A , Boulton , L , Brandi , F , Brinkmann , R , Briquez , F , Brottier , F , Bründermann , E , Büscher , M , Buonomo , B , Bussmann , M H , Bussolino , G , Campana , P , Cantarella , S , Cassou , K , Chancé , A , Chen , M , Chiadroni , E , Cianchi , A , Cioeta , F , Clarke , J A , Cole , J M , Costa , G , Couprie , M E , Cowley , J , Croia , M , Cros , B , Crump , P A , D'Arcy , R , Dattoli , G , Del Dotto , A , Delerue , N , Del Franco , M , Delinikolas , P , De Nicola , S , Dias , J M , Di Giovenale , D , Diomede , M , Di Pasquale , E , Di Pirro , G , Di Raddo , G , Dorda , U , Erlandson , A C , Ertel , K , Esposito , A , Falcoz , F , Falone , A , Fedele , R , Ferran Pousa , A , Ferrario , M , Filippi , F , Fils , J , Fiore , G , Fiorito , R , Fonseca , R A , Franzini , G , Galimberti , M , Gallo , A , Galvin , T C , Ghaith , A , Ghigo , A , Giove , D , Giribono , A , Gizzi , L A , Grüner , F J , Habib , A F , Haefner , C , Heinemann , T , Helm , A , Hidding , B , Holzer , B J , Hooker , S M , Hosokai , T , Hübner , M , Ibison , M , Incremona , S , Irman , A , Iungo , F , Jafarinia , F J , Jakobsson , O , Jaroszynski , D A , Jaster-Merz , S , Joshi , C , Kaluza , M , Kando , M , Karger , O S , Karsch , S , Khazanov , E , Khikhlukha , D , Kirchen , M , Kirwan , G , Kitégi , C , Knetsch , A , Kocon , D , Koester , P , Kononenko , O S , Korn , G , Kostyukov , I , Kruchinin , K O , Labate , L , Le Blanc , C , Lechner , C , Lee , P , Leemans , W , Lehrach , A , Li , X , Li , Y , Libov , V , Lifschitz , A , Lindstrøm , C A , Litvinenko , V , Lu , W , Lundh , O , Maier , A R , Malka , V , Manahan , G G , Mangles , S P D , Marcelli , A , Marchetti , B , Marcouillé , O , Marocchino , A , Marteau , F , Martinez de la Ossa , A , Martins , J L , Mason , P D , Massimo , F , Mathieu , F , Maynard , G , Mazzotta , Z , Mironov , S , Molodozhentsev , A Y , Morante , S , Mosnier , A , Mostacci , A , Müller , A S , Murphy , C D , Najmudin , Z , Nghiem , P A P , Nguyen , F , Niknejadi , P , Nutter , A , Osterhoff , J , Oumbarek Espinos , D , Paillard , J L , Papadopoulos , D N , Patrizi , B , Pattathil , R , Pellegrino , L , Petralia , A , Petrillo , V , Piersanti , L , Pocsai , M A , Poder , K , Pompili , R , Pribyl , L , Pugacheva , D , Reagan , B A , Resta-Lopez , J , Ricci , R , Romeo , S , Rossetti Conti , M , Rossi , A R , Rossmanith , R , Rotundo , U , Roussel , E , Sabbatini , L , Santangelo , P , Sarri , G , Schaper , L , Scherkl , P , Schramm , U , Schroeder , C B , Scifo , J , Serafini , L , Sharma , G , Sheng , Z M , Shpakov , V , Siders , C W , Silva , L O , Silva , T , Simon , C , Simon-Boisson , C , Sinha , U , Sistrunk , E , Specka , A , Spinka , T M , Stecchi , A , Stella , A , Stellato , F , Streeter , M J V , Sutherland , A , Svystun , E N , Symes , D , Szwaj , C , Tauscher , G E , Terzani , D , Toci , G , Tomassini , P , Torres , R , Ullmann , D , Vaccarezza , C , Valléau , M , Vannini , M , Vannozzi , A , Vescovi , S , Vieira , J M , Villa , F , Wahlström , C G , Walczak , R , Walker , P A , Wang , K , Welsch , A , Welsch , C P , Weng , S M , Wiggins , S M , Wolfenden , J , Xia , G , Yabashi , M , Zhang , H , Zhao , Y , Zhu , J & Zigler , A 2020 , ' EuPRAXIA Conceptual Design Report ' , European Physical Journal: Special Topics , vol. 229 , no. 24 , pp. 3675-4284 . https://doi.org/10.1140/epjst/e2020-000127-8
This report presents the conceptual design of a new European research infrastructure EuPRAXIA. The concept has been established over the last four years in a unique collaboration of 41 laboratories within a Horizon 2020 design study funded by the European Union. EuPRAXIA is the first European project that develops a dedicated particle accelerator research infrastructure based on novel plasma acceleration concepts and laser technology. It focuses on the development of electron accelerators and underlying technologies, their user communities, and the exploitation of existing accelerator infrastructures in Europe. EuPRAXIA has involved, amongst others, the international laser community and industry to build links and bridges with accelerator science — through realising synergies, identifying disruptive ideas, innovating, and fostering knowledge exchange. The Eu-PRAXIA project aims at the construction of an innovative electron accelerator using laser- and electron-beam-driven plasma wakefield acceleration that offers a significant reduction in size and possible savings in cost over current state-of-the-art radiofrequency-based accelerators. The foreseen electron energy range of one to five gigaelectronvolts (GeV) and its performance goals will enable versatile applications in various domains, e.g. as a compact free-electron laser (FEL), compact sources for medical imaging and positron generation, table-top test beams for particle detectors, as well as deeply penetrating X-ray and gamma-ray sources for material testing. EuPRAXIA is designed to be the required stepping stone to possible future plasma-based facilities, such as linear colliders at the high-energy physics (HEP) energy frontier. Consistent with a high-confidence approach, the project includes measures to retire risk by establishing scaled technology demonstrators. This report includes preliminary models for project implementation, cost and schedule that would allow operation of the full Eu-PRAXIA facility within 8—10 years.
BASE
We thank CERN for the very successful operation of the LHC, as well as the support staff from our institutions without whom ATLAS could not be operated efficiently. We acknowledge the support of ANPCyT, Argentina; YerPhI, Armenia; ARC, Australia; BMWFW and FWF, Austria; ANAS, Azerbaijan; SSTC, Belarus; CNPq and FAPESP, Brazil; NSERC, NRC, and CFI, Canada; CERN; CONICYT, Chile; CAS, MOST, and NSFC, China; COLCIENCIAS, Colombia; MSMT CR, MPO CR, and VSC CR, Czech Republic; DNRF and DNSRC, Denmark; IN2P3-CNRS, CEA-DSM/IRFU, France; GNSF, Georgia; BMBF, HGF, and MPG, Germany; GSRT, Greece; RGC, Hong Kong SAR, China; ISF, I-CORE, and Benoziyo Center, Israel; INFN, Italy; MEXT and JSPS, Japan; CNRST, Morocco; FOM and NWO, Netherlands; RCN, Norway; MNiSW and NCN, Poland; FCT, Portugal; MNE/IFA, Romania; MES of Russia and NRC KI, Russian Federation; JINR; MESTD, Serbia; MSSR, Slovakia; ARRS and MIZŠ, Slovenia; DST/NRF, South Africa; MINECO, Spain; SRC and Wallenberg Foundation, Sweden; SERI, SNSF, and Cantons of Bern and Geneva, Switzerland; MOST, Taiwan; TAEK, Turkey; STFC, United Kingdom; DOE and NSF, United States of America. In addition, individual groups and members have received support from BCKDF, the Canada Council, CANARIE, CRC, Compute Canada, FQRNT, and the Ontario Innovation Trust, Canada; EPLANET, ERC, FP7, Horizon 2020, and Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions, European Union; Investissements d'Avenir Labex and Idex, ANR, Région Auvergne, and Fondation Partager le Savoir, France; DFG and AvH Foundation, Germany; Herakleitos, Thales and Aristeia programmes cofinanced by EU-ESF and the Greek NSRF; BSF, GIF, and Minerva, Israel; BRF, Norway; Generalitat de Catalunya, Generalitat Valenciana, Spain; the Royal Society and Leverhulme Trust, United Kingdom. The crucial computing support from all WLCG partners is acknowledged gratefully, in particular from CERN, the ATLAS Tier-1 facilities at TRIUMF (Canada), NDGF (Denmark, Norway, Sweden), CC-IN2P3 (France), KIT/GridKA (Germany), INFN-CNAF (Italy), NL-T1 (Netherlands), PIC (Spain), ASGC (Taiwan), RAL (UK), and BNL (USA), the Tier-2 facilities worldwide and large non-WLCG resource providers. Major contributors of computing resources are listed in Ref. [74]
BASE
We acknowledge the support of ANPCyT, Argentina; YerPhI, Armenia; ARC, Australia; BMWFW and FWF, Austria; ANAS, Azerbaijan; SSTC, Belarus; CNPq and FAPESP, Brazil; NSERC, NRC and CFI, Canada; CERN; CONICYT, Chile; CAS, MOST and NSFC, China; COLCIENCIAS, Colombia; MSMT CR, MPO CR and VSC CR, Czech Republic; DNRF and DNSRC, Denmark; IN2P3-CNRS, CEA-DSM/IRFU, France; GNSF, Georgia; BMBF, HGF, and MPG, Germany; GSRT, Greece; RGC, Hong Kong SAR, China; ISF, I-CORE and Benoziyo Center, Israel; INFN, Italy; MEXT and JSPS, Japan; CNRST, Morocco; FOM and NWO, Netherlands; RCN, Norway; MNiSW and NCN, Poland; FCT, Portugal; MNE/IFA, Romania; MES of Russia and NRC KI, Russian Federation; JINR; MESTD, Serbia; MSSR, Slovakia; ARRS and MIZŠ, Slovenia; DST/NRF, South Africa; MINECO, Spain; SRC and Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation, Sweden; SERI, SNSF and Cantons of Bern and Geneva, Switzerland; MOST, Taiwan; TAEK, Turkey; STFC, United Kingdom; DOE and NSF, United States. In addition, individual groups and members have received support from BCKDF, the Canada Council, CANARIE, CRC, Compute Canada, FQRNT, and the Ontario Innovation Trust, Canada; EPLANET, ERC, FP7, Horizon 2020 and Marie Sklodowska-Curie Actions, European Union; Investissements d'Avenir Labex and Idex, ANR, Région Auvergne and Fondation Partager le Savoir, France; DFG and AvH Foundation, Germany; Herakleitos, Thales and Aristeia programmes co-financed by EU-ESF and the Greek NSRF; BSF, GIF and Minerva, Israel; BRF, Norway; Generalitat de Catalunya, Generalitat Valenciana, Spain; the Royal Society and Leverhulme Trust, United Kingdom.
BASE