Numerical skills are essential to make informed decisions in our daily life. Unfortunately, many people lack basic numeracy, which limits their ability to accurately interpret risks (i.e., risk literacy). In this paper, we provide an overview of research investigating the role of numeracy in two prominent domains, where most research was concentrated, health and finance. We summarize what has been learned so far in these domains and suggest promising venues for future research. We conclude that it is important to conduct interventions to improve numeracy in less numerate individuals and to help them make informed decisions and achieve better life outcomes.

Purpose of Review To summarize findings about the emergence and characteristics of canonical babbling in children with late detected developmental disorders (LDDDs), such as autism spectrum disorder, Rett syndrome, and fragile X syndrome. In particular, we ask whether infants’ vocal development in the first year of life contains any markers that may contribute to earlier detection of these disorders. Recent Findings Only a handful studies have investigated canonical babbling in infants with LDDDs. With divergent research paradigms and definitions applied, findings on the onset and characteristics of canonical babbling are inconsistent and difficult to compare. Infants with LDDDs showed reduced likelihood to produce canonical babbling vocalizations. If achieved, this milestone was more likely to be reached beyond the critical time window of 5–10 months. Summary Canonical babbling appears promising as a potential marker for early detection of infants at risk for developmental disorders. In-depth studies on babbling characteristics in LDDDs are warranted.

Background: Longer time intervals to diagnosis and treatment are associated with worse survival for various types of cancer. The patient, diagnostic, and treatment intervals are considered core indicators for early diagnosis and treatment. This review estimated the median duration of these intervals for various types of cancer and compared it across high- and lower-income countries. Methods and findings: We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis (prospectively registered protocol CRD42020200752). Three databases (MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science) and information sources including grey literature (Google Scholar, OpenGrey, EThOS, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses) were searched. Eligible articles were published during 2009 to 2022 and reported the duration of the following intervals in adult patients diagnosed with primary symptomatic cancer: patient interval (from the onset of symptoms to first presentation to a healthcare professional), diagnostic interval (from first presentation to diagnosis), and treatment interval (from diagnosis to treatment start). Interval duration was recorded in days and study medians were combined in a pooled estimate with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The methodological quality of studies was assessed using the Aarhus checklist. A total of 410 articles representing 68 countries and reporting on 5,537,594 patients were included. The majority of articles reported data from high-income countries (n = 294, 72%), with 116 (28%) reporting data from lower-income countries. Pooled meta-analytic estimates were possible for 38 types of cancer. The majority of studies were conducted on patients with breast, lung, colorectal, and head and neck cancer. In studies from high-income countries, pooled median patient intervals generally did not exceed a month for most cancers. However, in studies from lower-income countries, patient intervals were consistently 1.5 to 4 times longer for almost all cancer sites. The majority of data on the diagnostic and treatment intervals came from high-income countries. Across both high- and lower-income countries, the longest diagnostic intervals were observed for hematological (71 days [95% CI 52 to 85], e.g., myelomas (83 days [47 to 145])), genitourinary (58 days [50 to 77], e.g., prostate (85 days [57 to 112])), and digestive/gastrointestinal (57 days [45 to 67], e.g., colorectal (63 days [48 to 78])) cancers. Similarly, the longest treatment intervals were observed for genitourinary (57 days [45 to 66], e.g., prostate (75 days [61 to 87])) and gynecological (46 days [38 to 54], e.g., cervical (69 days [45 to 108]) cancers. In studies from high-income countries, the implementation of cancer-directed policies was associated with shorter patient and diagnostic intervals for several cancers. This review included a large number of studies conducted worldwide but is limited by survivor bias and the inherent complexity and many possible biases in the measurement of time points and intervals in the cancer treatment pathway. In addition, the subintervals that compose the diagnostic interval (e.g., primary care interval, referral to diagnosis interval) were not considered. Conclusions: These results identify the cancers where diagnosis and treatment initiation may take the longest and reveal the extent of global disparities in early diagnosis and treatment. Efforts should be made to reduce help-seeking times for cancer symptoms in lower-income countries. Estimates for the diagnostic and treatment intervals came mostly from high-income countries that have powerful health information systems in place to record such information.

Objective: Breast cancer survival is lower in low‐ and middle‐income countries (LMICs) partially due to many women being diagnosed with late‐stage disease. The patient interval refers to the time elapsed between the detection of symptoms and the first consultation with a healthcare provider and is considered one of the core indicators for early diagnosis and treatment. The goal of the current research was to conduct a meta‐analysis of the duration of the patient interval in LMICs and investigate the socio‐demographic and socio‐cultural factors related to longer delays in presentation.Methods: We conducted a systematic review with meta‐analysis (pre‐registered protocol CRD42020200752). We searched seven information sources (2009–2022) and included 50 articles reporting the duration of patient intervals for 18,014 breast cancer patients residing in LMICs.Results: The longest patient intervals were reported in studies from the Middle East (3–4 months), followed by South‐East Asia (2 months), Africa (1–2 months), Latin America (1 month), and Eastern Europe (1 month). Older age, not being married, lower socio‐economic status, illiteracy, low knowledge about cancer, disregarding symptoms or not attributing them to cancer, fear, negative beliefs about cancer, and low social support were related to longer delays across most regions. Longer delays were also related to use of alternative medicine in the Middle East, South‐East Asia, and Africa and distrust in the healthcare system in Eastern Europe.Conclusions: There is large variation in the duration of patient intervals across LMICs in different geographical regions. Patient intervals should be reduced and, for this purpose, it is important to explore their determinants taking into account the social, cultural, and economic context.