minimised. Based on current knowledge, it would appear they work together in ways that are not yet fully understood. Doctors bene- fit from being made aware of their stereotyping biases through the types of strategy described by Bur- gess et al., 3 yet many of these ‘biases’ amount to human cogni- tive processes for organising com- plex material and cannot, and should not, be targets of elimina- tion. Many of these [stereotyping] ‘biases’ amount to human cognitive processes for organising complex material and cannot, and should not, be targets of elimination REFERENCES 1 Nazione S, Silk K. Patient race and perceived illness responsibility: effects on provider helping and bias. Med Educ 2013;47: 78190. 2 Wittenbrink B, Judd CM, Park B. Evidence for racial prejudice at the implicit level and its relationship with questionnaire measures. J Pers Soc Psychol 1997;72 (2):26274. 3 Burgess D, van Ryn M, Dovidio J, Somnath S. Reducing racial bias among health care providers: lessons from social-cognitive psychology. J Gen Intern Med 2007;22 (6):8827. 4 Stone J, Moskowitz GB. Non- conscious bias in medical decision making: what can be done to reduce it? Med Educ 2011;45: 76876. 5 Eva KW, Norman GR. Heuristics and biases a biased perspective on clinical reasoning. Med Educ 2005;39:8702. 6 Lutfey KE, Eva KW, Gerstenberger E, Link CL, McKinlay JB. Physician cognitive processing as a source of diagnostic and treatment disparities in coronary heart disease: results of a factorial priming experiment. J Health Soc Behav 2010;51 (1):1629. 7 Lutfey K, Freese J. Toward some fundamentals of fundamental causality: socioeconomic status and health in the routine clinic visit for diabetes. J Am Soc 2005;110 (5):132672. Sexual prejudice among medical students Ludwing Florez-Salamanca & Jose Rubio Despite recent social and legislative efforts to establish equal rights for the lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans- sexual (LGBT) community, atti- tudes that derive from sexual prejudice in health care providers are still of concern around the world. 1 Sexual prejudice in health care providers has several implica- tions, 24 which include the stigmati- sation and exclusion of LGBT individuals, the imposition of feel- ings of discomfort, poor communi- cation, the disruption of the development of positive alliances with LGBT patients and the disre- gard of specific health and health care needs. 57 In addition, sexual prejudice results in less access to and underutilisation of health care services among the LGBT commu- nity, and leads to inequality of treat- ment and poorer quality of care. 5 Attitudes that derive from sexual preju- dice in health care providers are of con- cern around the world The LGBT community represents a minority group with higher levels of risk for psychiatric disorders, sexually transmitted diseases, poor health outcomes, social marginali- sation and particular health care needs. 6,8 For these reasons, sexual prejudice in health care providers is likely to have a particularly nega- tive impact on this minority with public health implications. 1 Identi- fying and addressing sexual preju- dice in individuals during medical training may represent an initial strategy for improving the provi- sion of health care to the LGBT population. 9 High rates of sexual prejudice have been reported in students in training for different health care careers, including medical, nursing and psychology students. 24 Rates of sexual prejudice among doctors in training range between 15% and 25%, 24 and are higher in males, individuals without LGBT friends or patients, individuals who have not previously had a sexual partner, people with strong reli- gious beliefs and people on low incomes. 24 New York State Psychiatric Institute, New York, USA Correspondence: Dr Ludwing Florez- Salamanca, Clinical Therapeutics, New York State Psychiatric Institute, Unit 69, New York, New York 10032, USA. Tel: 00 1 212 543 2574 ; E-mail: florezl@nyspi.columbia.edu doi: 10.1111/medu.12208 758 ª 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. MEDICAL EDUCATION 2013; 47: 752–759 commentaries