Background and aims: Despite its inclusion in the 11th revision of the International Classification of Diseases, there is a virtual paucity of high-quality scientific evidence about compulsive sexual behavior disorder (CSBD), especially in underrepresented and underserved populations. Therefore, we comprehensively examined CSBD across 42 countries, genders, and sexual orientations, and validated the original (CSBD-19) and short (CSBD-7) versions of the Compulsive Sexual Behavior Disorder Scale to provide standardized, state-of-the-art screening tools for research and clinical practice.Method: Using data from the International Sex Survey (N = 82,243; M_age = 32.39 years, SD = 12.52), we evaluated the psychometric properties of the CSBD-19 and CSBD-7 and compared CSBD across 42 countries, three genders, eight sexual orientations, and individuals with low vs. high risk of experiencing CSBD.Results: A total of 4.8% of the participants were at high risk of experiencing CSBD. Country- and gender-based differences were observed, while no sexual-orientation-based differences were present in CSBD levels. Only 14% of individuals with CSBD have ever sought treatment for this disorder, with an additional 33% not having sought treatment because of various reasons. Both versions of the scale demonstrated excellent validity and reliability.Discussion and conclusions: This study contributes to a better understanding of CSBD in underrepresented and underserved populations and facilitates its identification in diverse populations by providing freely accessible ICD-11-based screening tools in 26 languages. The findings may also serve as a crucial building block to stimulate research into evidence-based, culturally sensitive prevention and intervention strategies for CSBD that are currently missing from the literature.

Learning research skills should be a goal during undergraduate training of physicians. To identify Latin American medical students' appraisal on research skills university training. A self-administered survey about experience in research, self-assessment of research skills, quality of training in the area received at the university and that importance of publishing as undergraduate students, was answered by 208 medical students aged 23 ± 3 years (54% male), attending a medical students congress. Seventy percent of respondents pertained to medical students' scientific societies and 34% had published in a scientific journal. Fifty two percent considered as good or very good the training level received at their universities on information retrieval and 45% considered good the training in research methodology. Thirty two percent considered as poor or none the training received in scientific writing and 37% in the publishing process. Eighty nine percent considered student publishing as important and 61% perceived limitations in this matter. The university training level received by Latin American medical students on research and publication process was evaluated as deficient by these students.

Plagiarism is a serious, yet widespread type of research misconduct, and is often neglected in developing countries. Despite its far-reaching implications, plagiarism is poorly acknowledged and discussed in the academic setting, and insufficient evidence exists in Latin America and developing countries to inform the development of preventive strategies. In this context, we present a longitudinal case study of seven instances of plagiarism and cheating arising in four consecutive classes (2011–2014) of an Epidemiology Masters program in Lima, Peru, and describes the implementation and outcomes of a multifaceted, “zero-tolerance” policy aimed at introducing research integrity. Two cases involved cheating in graded assignments, and five cases correspond to plagiarism in the thesis protocol. Cases revealed poor awareness of high tolerance to plagiarism, poor academic performance, and widespread writing deficiencies, compensated with patchwriting and copy-pasting. Depending on the events’ severity, penalties included course failure (6/7) and separation from the program (3/7). Students at fault did not engage in further plagiarism. Between 2011 and 2013, the Masters program sequentially introduced a preventive policy consisting of: (i) intensified research integrity and scientific writing education, (ii) a stepwise, cumulative writing process; (iii) honor codes; (iv) active search for plagiarism in all academic products; and (v) a “zero-tolerance” policy in response to documented cases. No cases were detected in 2014. In conclusion, plagiarism seems to be widespread in resource-limited settings and a greater response with educational and zero-tolerance components is needed to prevent it.

The selection of a medical specialty has been associated with multiple factors, such as personal preferences, academic exposure, motivational factors and sociodemographic factors, such as gender. The number of women in the medical field has increased in recent years. In Latin America, we have not found any studies that explore this relationship. To determine whether there is an association between gender and the intention to choose a medical specialty in medical students from 11 countries in Latin America. Secondary analysis of the Collaborative Working Group for the Research of Human Resources for Health (Red-LIRHUS) data; a multi-country project of students in their first year and fifth year of study, from 63 medical schools in 11 Latin American countries. All students who referred intention to choose a certain medical specialty were considered as participants. Of the 11073 surveyed students, 9235 indicated the name of a specific specialty. The specialties chosen most often in the fifth year were General Surgery (13.0%), Pediatrics (11.0%), Internal Medicine (10.3%) and Obstetrics/Gynecology (9.0%). For women, the top choices were Pediatrics (15.8%), Obstetrics/Gynecology (11.0%), Cardiology (8.7%), General Surgery (8.6%), and Oncology (6.4%). In the adjusted analysis, the female gender was associated with the choice of Obstetrics/Gynecology (RP: 2.75; IC95%: 2.24–3.39); Pediatric Surgery (RP: 2.19; IC95%: 1.19–4.00), Dermatology (RP: 1.91; IC95%:1.24–2.93), Pediatrics (RP: 1.83; IC95%: 1.56–2.17), and Oncology (RP: 1.37; IC95%: 1.10–1.71). There is an association between the female gender and the intention to choose Obstetrics/Gynecology, Pediatrics, Pediatric Surgery, Dermatology, and Oncology. We recommend conducting studies that consider other factors that can influence the choice of a medical specialty.