World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!
Danielle R.M. Timmermans

Danielle R.M. Timmermans

D-Index & Metrics

Social Sciences and Humanities

D-Index
51
Citations
9650
World Ranking
2604
National Ranking
100

Danielle R.M. Timmermans 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 Danielle R.M. Timmermans 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: 216 publications — 70th percentile

70% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Danielle R.M. Timmermans 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 Danielle R.M. Timmermans 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: 51 D-Index — 68th percentile

68% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Overview

Danielle R.M. Timmermans is affiliated with Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam in the Netherlands. Their research primarily focuses on health professions and medicine, with notable contributions in general health professions and interdisciplinary subfields including sociology and political science, pediatrics, perinatology, child health, oncology, and applied psychology.

The scientist has explored several key topics throughout their career. These include:

  • Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
  • Global Cancer Incidence and Screening
  • Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
  • Risk Perception and Management
  • Behavioral Health and Interventions
  • Climate Change Communication and Perception
  • Vaccine Coverage and Hesitancy

Timmermans has published extensively in various academic venues. Frequent publication outlets include:

  • BMC Public Health
  • Medical Decision Making
  • PLoS ONE
  • Journal of Risk Research
  • Research Square

Recent papers authored or co-authored by Timmermans illustrate involvement in health communication and decision-making research. Selected works include:

  • "Current Best Practice for Presenting Probabilities in Patient Decision Aids: Fundamental Principles," 2021, Medical Decision Making
  • "Current Challenges When Using Numbers in Patient Decision Aids: Advanced Concepts," 2021, Medical Decision Making
  • "Choice architecture interventions to change physical activity and sedentary behavior: a systematic review of effects on intention, behavior and health outcomes during and after intervention," 2020, International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
  • "Women's Participation in Decision-Making in Maternity Care: A Qualitative Exploration of Clients' Health Literacy Skills and Needs for Support," 2021, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
  • "Routinization of prenatal screening with the non-invasive prenatal test: pregnant women's perspectives," 2021, European Journal of Human Genetics

Collaborations form an important part of Timmermans' research network. Frequent co-authors include:

  • Olga C. Damman
  • Liesbeth Claassen
  • Marion de Vries
  • Lorraine L. Landais
  • Evert Verhagen

Best Publications

  • Adverse events and potentially preventable deaths in Dutch hospitals: results of a retrospective patient record review study

    M Zegers;M C de Bruijne;C Wagner;L H F Hoonhout

  • 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

  • Monitoring the level of government trust, risk perception and intention of the general public to adopt protective measures during the influenza A (H1N1) pandemic in the Netherlands

    Willemien van der Weerd;Daniëlle Rm Timmermans;Desirée Jma Beaujean;Jurriaan Oudhoff

  • Do Mothers Matter?: A Comparison of Models of the Influence of Mothers’ and Fathers’ Educational and Occupational Status on Children’s Educational Attainment

    Sylvia E. Korupp;Harry B.G. Ganzeboom;Tanja van der Lippe

  • Are pregnant women making informed choices about prenatal screening

    Matthijs van den Berg;Danielle R M Timmermans;Leo P ten Kate;John M G van Vugt

  • The impact of task complexity on information use in multi‐attribute decision making

    Danielle Timmermans

  • Patient record review of the incidence, consequences, and causes of diagnostic adverse events.

    Laura Zwaan;Martine de Bruijne;Cordula Wagner;Abel Thijs

  • Congruence between patients' preferred and perceived participation in medical decision-making: a review of the literature

    Linda Brom;Wendy Hopmans;H Roeline W Pasman;Danielle R M Timmermans

  • Informed decision making in the context of prenatal screening.

    Matthijs van den Berg;Danielle R.M. Timmermans;Leo P. ten Kate;John M.G. van Vugt

  • Waiting for elective general surgery: Impact on health related quality of life and psychosocial consequences

    J P Oudhoff;D R M Timmermans;D L Knol;A B Bijnen

  • Public Experiences, Knowledge and Expectations about Medical Genetics and the Use of Genetic Information

    Lidewij Henneman;Danielle R.M. Timmermans;Gerrit van der Wal

  • Current Best Practice for Presenting Probabilities in Patient Decision Aids: Fundamental Principles

    Carissa Bonner;Lyndal J. Trevena;Wolfgang Gaissmaier;Paul K. J. Han

  • Accepting or declining the offer of prenatal screening for congenital defects: test uptake and women's reasons.

    Matthijs van den Berg;Danielle R. M. Timmermans;Johanna H. Kleinveld;Elisa Garcia

  • The use of PROMs and shared decision-making in medical encounters with patients: An opportunity to deliver value-based health care to patients.

    Olga C. Damman;Anant Jani;Brigit A. de Jong;Annemarie Becker;Annemarie Becker

  • Public attitudes towards genetic testing revisited: comparing opinions between 2002 and 2010.

    Lidewij Henneman;Eric Vermeulen;Carla G van El;Liesbeth Claassen

  • Patients' ideas, fears and expectations of their coronary risk: barriers for primary prevention.

    Ben van Steenkiste;Trudy van der Weijden;Daniëlle Timmermans;Jaqueline Vaes

  • Attitudes of pregnant women and male partners towards non-invasive prenatal testing and widening the scope of prenatal screening

    Rachèl V van Schendel;Johanna H Kleinveld;Wybo J Dondorp;Eva Pajkrt

  • Ideals of patient autonomy in clinical decision making: a study on the development of a scale to assess patients’ and physicians’ views

    A M Stiggelbout;A C Molewijk;W Otten;D R M Timmermans

  • Using family history information to promote healthy lifestyles and prevent diseases; a discussion of the evidence.

    Liesbeth Claassen;Lidewij Henneman;A Cecile J W Janssens;Miranda Wijdenes-Pijl

  • Perceived risk and representations of cardiovascular disease and preventive behaviour in people diagnosed with familial hypercholesterolemia: a cross-sectional questionnaire study.

    Liesbeth Claassen;Lidewij Henneman;Iris Kindt;Theresa M. Marteau

  • Clinical Characteristics Affect the Impact of an Uninformative DNA Test Result: The Course of Worry and Distress Experienced by Women Who Apply for Genetic Testing for Breast Cancer

    Sandra van Dijk;Daniëlle R.M. Timmermans;Hanne Meijers-Heijboer;Aad Tibben

  • Exploring the causes of adverse events in hospitals and potential prevention strategies

    M Smits;M Zegers;P P Groenewegen;D R M Timmermans

Frequent Co-Authors

Theresa M. Marteau
Theresa M. Marteau University of Cambridge
Anne M. Stiggelbout
Anne M. Stiggelbout Leiden University Medical Center
Giel Nijpels
Giel Nijpels VU University Medical Center
Dirk L. Knol
Dirk L. Knol VU University Medical Center
Roel Vermeulen
Roel Vermeulen Utrecht University
Peter P. Groenewegen
Peter P. Groenewegen Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research
Paul K. J. Han
Paul K. J. Han Maine Medical Center
Jacqueline M. Dekker
Jacqueline M. Dekker VU University Medical Center
Suresh Senan
Suresh Senan University of Amsterdam
Ellen Peters
Ellen Peters University of Oregon

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 Social Sciences and Humanities in the USA opens many diverse career pathways. Thanks to flexible online options, students can now specialize in fields like social work and psychology from anywhere. Many universities offer online msw programs affordable for students looking to step into impactful social work careers without heavy financial burdens.

For those interested in behavior analysis, bcba programs provide specialized training for supporting individuals with behavioral challenges—an increasingly in-demand field. Time-efficient degree options are also available; students can choose accelerated msw online programs to complete their studies and launch their careers faster.

Psychology remains a top choice for many. Those wanting to fast-track their education should consider accelerated psychology programs online. Each pathway leads to valuable roles in education, healthcare, counseling, or human services, helping you make a difference while adapting to your schedule and budget.

Best Scientists Citing Danielle R.M. Timmermans

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles