World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Social Sciences and Humanities

D-Index
62
Citations
15008
World Ranking
1267
National Ranking
590

Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher publication distribution in Social Sciences and Humanities in 2026

The chart shows the distribution of publications by all Research.com ranked scientists in the field of Social Sciences and Humanities in 2026. The highlighted bar marks where Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher sits on this spectrum.

44–53 publications: 28 scientists 54–63 publications: 61 scientists 64–73 publications: 161 scientists 74–83 publications: 225 scientists 84–93 publications: 301 scientists 94–103 publications: 390 scientists 104–113 publications: 406 scientists 114–123 publications: 474 scientists 124–133 publications: 453 scientists 134–143 publications: 434 scientists 144–153 publications: 407 scientists 154–163 publications: 411 scientists 164–173 publications: 391 scientists 174–183 publications: 313 scientists 184–193 publications: 319 scientists 194–203 publications: 304 scientists 204–213 publications: 285 scientists 214–223 publications: 246 scientists 224–233 publications: 213 scientists 234–243 publications: 170 scientists 244–253 publications: 167 scientists 254–263 publications: 162 scientists 264–273 publications: 138 scientists 274–283 publications: 138 scientists 284–293 publications: 113 scientists 294–303 publications: 106 scientists 304–313 publications: 95 scientists 314–323 publications: 101 scientists 324–333 publications: 81 scientists 334–343 publications: 69 scientists 344–353 publications: 56 scientists 354–363 publications: 36 scientists 364–373 publications: 42 scientists 374–383 publications: 41 scientists 384–393 publications: 44 scientists 394–403 publications: 27 scientists 404–413 publications: 30 scientists 414–423 publications: 20 scientists 424–433 publications: 29 scientists 434–443 publications: 29 scientists 444–453 publications: 25 scientists 454–463 publications: 19 scientists 464–473 publications: 21 scientists 474–483 publications: 11 scientists 484–493 publications: 17 scientists 494–503 publications: 7 scientists 504–513 publications: 6 scientists 514–523 publications: 12 scientists 524–533 publications: 10 scientists 534–543 publications: 7 scientists 544–553 publications: 6 scientists 554–563 publications: 12 scientists 564–569 publications: 8 scientists 570+ publications: 100 scientists
44 publications 570+

This scientist: 278 publications — 84th percentile

84% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

The last bar groups every scientist with 570 publications or more.

Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher D-index placement in Social Sciences and Humanities in 2026

The chart shows the D-index (discipline H-index) distribution of Social Sciences and Humanities scientists ranked by Research.com in 2026. The highlighted bar marks where Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher sits on this spectrum.

30 D-Index: 177 scientists 31 D-Index: 210 scientists 32 D-Index: 222 scientists 33 D-Index: 188 scientists 34 D-Index: 181 scientists 35 D-Index: 243 scientists 36 D-Index: 261 scientists 37 D-Index: 272 scientists 38 D-Index: 278 scientists 39 D-Index: 300 scientists 40 D-Index: 297 scientists 41 D-Index: 308 scientists 42 D-Index: 313 scientists 43 D-Index: 300 scientists 44 D-Index: 269 scientists 45 D-Index: 260 scientists 46 D-Index: 228 scientists 47 D-Index: 251 scientists 48 D-Index: 203 scientists 49 D-Index: 186 scientists 50 D-Index: 187 scientists 51 D-Index: 166 scientists 52 D-Index: 138 scientists 53 D-Index: 141 scientists 54 D-Index: 131 scientists 55 D-Index: 137 scientists 56 D-Index: 109 scientists 57 D-Index: 129 scientists 58 D-Index: 95 scientists 59 D-Index: 105 scientists 60 D-Index: 106 scientists 61 D-Index: 86 scientists 62 D-Index: 94 scientists 63 D-Index: 77 scientists 64 D-Index: 79 scientists 65 D-Index: 59 scientists 66 D-Index: 68 scientists 67 D-Index: 51 scientists 68 D-Index: 49 scientists 69 D-Index: 40 scientists 70 D-Index: 43 scientists 71 D-Index: 40 scientists 72 D-Index: 50 scientists 73 D-Index: 46 scientists 74 D-Index: 43 scientists 75 D-Index: 45 scientists 76 D-Index: 45 scientists 77 D-Index: 30 scientists 78 D-Index: 25 scientists 79 D-Index: 31 scientists 80 D-Index: 29 scientists 81 D-Index: 18 scientists 82 D-Index: 21 scientists 83 D-Index: 26 scientists 84 D-Index: 15 scientists 85 D-Index: 15 scientists 86 D-Index: 19 scientists 87 D-Index: 19 scientists 88 D-Index: 12 scientists 89 D-Index: 7 scientists 90 D-Index: 19 scientists 91 D-Index: 20 scientists 92 D-Index: 13 scientists 93 D-Index: 9 scientists 94 D-Index: 13 scientists 95 D-Index: 8 scientists 96 D-Index: 7 scientists 97 D-Index: 6 scientists 98 D-Index: 6 scientists 99 D-Index: 6 scientists 100+ D-Index: 97 scientists
30 D-Index 100+

This scientist: 62 D-Index — 84th percentile

84% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

The last bar groups every scientist with 100 D-Index or more.

Overview

Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher is affiliated with the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor in the United States. Their research is primarily situated within the field of Medicine, with a particular focus on General Health Professions, Economics and Econometrics, Applied Psychology, Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health, and Oncology.

The scientist's work covers a variety of topics, including:

  • Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Behavioral Health and Interventions
  • Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
  • Healthcare cost, quality, practices
  • Global Cancer Incidence and Screening
  • Vaccine Coverage and Hesitancy
  • Colorectal Cancer Screening and Detection

Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher has contributed to numerous publications, with recent papers including:

  • Current Best Practice for Presenting Probabilities in Patient Decision Aids: Fundamental Principles, 2021, Medical Decision Making
  • The Lancet Breast Cancer Commission, 2024, The Lancet
  • Vaccine Hesitancy and Rejection of a Vaccine for the Novel Coronavirus in the United States, 2021, Frontiers in Immunology
  • Current Challenges When Using Numbers in Patient Decision Aids: Advanced Concepts, 2021, Medical Decision Making
  • Vaccine Hesitancy and Concerns About Vaccine Safety and Effectiveness in Shanghai, China, 2020, American Journal of Preventive Medicine

The scientist frequently publishes in venues such as:

  • MDM Policy & Practice
  • Medical Decision Making
  • Patient Education and Counseling
  • Journal of General Internal Medicine
  • JAMA Network Open

Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher collaborates regularly with several co-authors, including:

  • Jessica S. Ancker
  • Natalie C. Benda
  • Sarah T. Hawley
  • Mohit Sharma
  • Abram L. Wagner

Best Publications

  • Measuring Numeracy without a Math Test: Development of the Subjective Numeracy Scale

    Angela Fagerlin;Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher;Peter A. Ubel;Aleksandra Jankovic

  • Helping Patients Decide: Ten Steps to Better Risk Communication

    Angela Fagerlin;Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher;Peter A. Ubel

  • Presenting quantitative information about decision outcomes: a risk communication primer for patient decision aid developers

    Lyndal J. Trevena;Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher;Adrian Edwards;Wolfgang Gaissmaier

  • The impact of the format of graphical presentation on health-related knowledge and treatment choices.

    Sarah T. Hawley;Brian Zikmund-Fisher;Peter Ubel;Aleksandra Jancovic

  • Validation of the subjective numeracy scale: Effects of low numeracy on comprehension of risk communications and utility elicitations

    Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher;Dylan M. Smith;Peter A. Ubel;Angela Fagerlin

  • An online community improves adherence in an internet-mediated walking program. Part 1: results of a randomized controlled trial.

    Caroline R Richardson;Lorraine R Buis;Adrienne W Janney;David E Goodrich

  • Making numbers matter: present and future research in risk communication

    Angela Fagerlin;Peter A. Ubel;Dylan M. Smith;Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher

  • A Matter of Perspective: Choosing for Others Differs from Choosing for Yourself in Making Treatment Decisions

    Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher;Brianna Sarr;Angela Fagerlin;Peter A. Ubel

  • Decision-making processes for breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer screening: the DECISIONS survey.

    Richard M. Hoffman;Carmen L. Lewis;Michael P. Pignone;Mick P. Couper

  • Communicating side effect risks in a tamoxifen prophylaxis decision aid: the debiasing influence of pictographs.

    Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher;Peter A. Ubel;Dylan M. Smith;Holly A. Derry

  • The effect of format on parents' understanding of the risks and benefits of clinical research: a comparison between text, tables, and graphics.

    Alan R. Tait;Terri Voepel-Lewis;Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher;Angela Fagerlin

  • Associations between health literacy and preventive health behaviors among older adults: findings from the health and retirement study

    Dena M. Fernandez;Janet L. Larson;Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher

  • All Stories Are Not Alike: A Purpose-, Content-, and Valence-Based Taxonomy of Patient Narratives in Decision Aids

    Victoria A. Shaffer;Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher

  • The defining characteristics of Web 2.0 and their potential influence in the online vaccination debate.

    Holly O. Witteman;Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher

  • The Role of Clinical Uncertainty in Treatment Decisions for Diabetic Patients with Uncontrolled Blood Pressure

    Eve A. Kerr;Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher;Mandi L. Klamerus;Usha Subramanian

  • Physicians Recommend Different Treatments for Patients Than They Would Choose for Themselves

    Peter A. Ubel;Andrea M. Angott;Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher

  • The DECISIONS Study: A Nationwide Survey of United States Adults Regarding 9 Common Medical Decisions:

    Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher;Mick P. Couper;Eleanor Singer;Carrie A. Levin

  • Trends in Risk Perceptions and Vaccination Intentions: A Longitudinal Study of the First Year of the H1N1 Pandemic

    Courtney A. Gidengil;Andrew M. Parker;Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher

  • Use of the Internet and ratings of information sources for medical decisions: results from the DECISIONS survey.

    Mick P. Couper;Eleanor Singer;Carrie A. Levin;Floyd J. Fowler

  • Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research Consortium: Accelerating Evidence-Based Practice of Genomic Medicine

    Robert C. Green;Robert C. Green;Katrina A.B. Goddard;Gail P. Jarvik;Laura M. Amendola

  • Narratives that address affective forecasting errors reduce perceived barriers to colorectal cancer screening.

    Amanda J. Dillard;Angela Fagerlin;Sonya Dal Cin;Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher

  • Making Numbers Matter: Present and Future Research in Risk Communication

    Unknown

Frequent Co-Authors

Angela Fagerlin
Angela Fagerlin University of Utah
Peter A. Ubel
Peter A. Ubel Duke University
Mick P. Couper
Mick P. Couper University of Michigan–Ann Arbor
Reshma Jagsi
Reshma Jagsi University of Michigan–Ann Arbor
Paul K. J. Han
Paul K. J. Han Maine Medical Center
Kent A. Griffith
Kent A. Griffith University of Michigan–Ann Arbor
J. Scott Roberts
J. Scott Roberts University of Michigan–Ann Arbor
Raymond De Vries
Raymond De Vries University of Michigan–Ann Arbor
Eleanor Singer
Eleanor Singer University of Michigan–Ann Arbor
Steven J. Katz
Steven J. Katz University of Michigan–Ann Arbor

If you think any of the details on this page are incorrect, let us know.

Report an issue

We appreciate your kind effort to assist us to improve this page, it would be helpful providing us with as much detail as possible in the text box below:

Related Online Degrees & Career Pathways

Exploring a career in the Social Sciences and Humanities opens up a wealth of opportunities, especially with the growing accessibility of online education. Today, students can pursue a wide range of specialized degrees from the comfort of their home, allowing for better flexibility and work-life balance.

For those interested in supporting individuals and communities, a social work accelerated program can fast-track your journey to becoming a licensed social worker. Similarly, students passionate about human behavior can consider accelerated psychology degree programs to quickly gain the credentials needed to work in counseling, research, or mental health services.

If you are drawn to guiding students or families, exploring the cheapest online school counseling programs (cacrep-accredited) is a smart option, providing high-quality educational standards at an affordable cost. For those interested specifically in working with couples and families, there are also top mft programs available online.

These pathways can lead to meaningful careers in education, healthcare, and community services, with the added benefit of online learning flexibility and diverse specialization options.

Best Scientists Citing Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles