World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Psychology

D-Index
50
Citations
13508
World Ranking
5362
National Ranking
2933

Diana J. Burgess publication distribution in Psychology in 2026

The chart shows the distribution of publications by all Research.com ranked scientists in the field of Psychology in 2026. The highlighted bar marks where Diana J. Burgess sits on this spectrum.

31–40 publications: 6 scientists 41–50 publications: 52 scientists 51–60 publications: 138 scientists 61–70 publications: 299 scientists 71–80 publications: 461 scientists 81–90 publications: 605 scientists 91–100 publications: 713 scientists 101–110 publications: 736 scientists 111–120 publications: 686 scientists 121–130 publications: 670 scientists 131–140 publications: 644 scientists 141–150 publications: 597 scientists 151–160 publications: 576 scientists 161–170 publications: 477 scientists 171–180 publications: 450 scientists 181–190 publications: 397 scientists 191–200 publications: 343 scientists 201–210 publications: 328 scientists 211–220 publications: 313 scientists 221–230 publications: 283 scientists 231–240 publications: 226 scientists 241–250 publications: 196 scientists 251–260 publications: 201 scientists 261–270 publications: 171 scientists 271–280 publications: 151 scientists 281–290 publications: 139 scientists 291–300 publications: 113 scientists 301–310 publications: 102 scientists 311–320 publications: 100 scientists 321–330 publications: 76 scientists 331–340 publications: 92 scientists 341–350 publications: 85 scientists 351–360 publications: 69 scientists 361–370 publications: 71 scientists 371–380 publications: 63 scientists 381–390 publications: 58 scientists 391–400 publications: 57 scientists 401–410 publications: 43 scientists 411–420 publications: 33 scientists 421–430 publications: 50 scientists 431–440 publications: 41 scientists 441–450 publications: 32 scientists 451–460 publications: 27 scientists 461–470 publications: 28 scientists 471–480 publications: 25 scientists 481–490 publications: 28 scientists 491–500 publications: 20 scientists 501–510 publications: 23 scientists 511–520 publications: 26 scientists 521–530 publications: 17 scientists 531–540 publications: 21 scientists 541–550 publications: 14 scientists 551–560 publications: 16 scientists 561–570 publications: 10 scientists 571–580 publications: 22 scientists 581–590 publications: 9 scientists 591–600 publications: 14 scientists 601–610 publications: 9 scientists 611–620 publications: 11 scientists 621–630 publications: 4 scientists 631–640 publications: 7 scientists 641–650 publications: 5 scientists 651–660 publications: 10 scientists 661–670 publications: 8 scientists 671–680 publications: 8 scientists 681–690 publications: 4 scientists 691–700 publications: 3 scientists 701–704 publications: 4 scientists 705+ publications: 100 scientists
31 publications 705+

This scientist: 133 publications — 40th percentile

40% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

The last bar groups every scientist with 705 publications or more.

Diana J. Burgess D-index placement in Psychology in 2026

The chart shows the D-index (discipline H-index) distribution of Psychology scientists ranked by Research.com in 2026. The highlighted bar marks where Diana J. Burgess sits on this spectrum.

30–31 D-Index: 398 scientists 32–33 D-Index: 702 scientists 34–35 D-Index: 671 scientists 36–37 D-Index: 659 scientists 38–39 D-Index: 641 scientists 40–41 D-Index: 671 scientists 42–43 D-Index: 617 scientists 44–45 D-Index: 558 scientists 46–47 D-Index: 495 scientists 48–49 D-Index: 487 scientists 50–51 D-Index: 445 scientists 52–53 D-Index: 390 scientists 54–55 D-Index: 408 scientists 56–57 D-Index: 345 scientists 58–59 D-Index: 325 scientists 60–61 D-Index: 321 scientists 62–63 D-Index: 248 scientists 64–65 D-Index: 290 scientists 66–67 D-Index: 218 scientists 68–69 D-Index: 219 scientists 70–71 D-Index: 215 scientists 72–73 D-Index: 183 scientists 74–75 D-Index: 169 scientists 76–77 D-Index: 132 scientists 78–79 D-Index: 137 scientists 80–81 D-Index: 120 scientists 82–83 D-Index: 112 scientists 84–85 D-Index: 86 scientists 86–87 D-Index: 101 scientists 88–89 D-Index: 83 scientists 90–91 D-Index: 77 scientists 92–93 D-Index: 70 scientists 94–95 D-Index: 78 scientists 96–97 D-Index: 58 scientists 98–99 D-Index: 53 scientists 100–101 D-Index: 57 scientists 102–103 D-Index: 48 scientists 104–105 D-Index: 53 scientists 106–107 D-Index: 46 scientists 108–109 D-Index: 24 scientists 110–111 D-Index: 35 scientists 112–113 D-Index: 27 scientists 114–115 D-Index: 32 scientists 116–117 D-Index: 31 scientists 118–119 D-Index: 22 scientists 120–121 D-Index: 16 scientists 122–123 D-Index: 24 scientists 124–125 D-Index: 18 scientists 126–127 D-Index: 11 scientists 128–129 D-Index: 19 scientists 130–131 D-Index: 10 scientists 132–133 D-Index: 16 scientists 134–135 D-Index: 10 scientists 136–137 D-Index: 12 scientists 138–139 D-Index: 8 scientists 140–141 D-Index: 5 scientists 142–143 D-Index: 12 scientists 144+ D-Index: 98 scientists
30 D-Index 144+

This scientist: 50 D-Index — 54th percentile

54% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

The last bar groups every scientist with 144 D-Index or more.

Overview

Diana J. Burgess is affiliated with the University of Minnesota in the United States. Their research spans primarily the fields of Medicine and Health Professions, with a total of 49 and 38 publications respectively. Within these broader fields, their work includes significant contributions to General Health Professions, Pharmacology, Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health, Sociology and Political Science, and Cognitive Neuroscience.

The main topics addressed in Burgess's research include musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation, pain management and placebo effect, healthcare professionals' stress and burnout, health policy implementation science, primary care and health outcomes, racial and ethnic identity research, and global health workforce issues.

Frequent co-authors with whom Burgess has collaborated include Marianne S. Matthias, Johanne Eliacin, Brent C. Taylor, Stephanie L. Taylor, and Robert D. Kerns. These collaborations reflect ongoing research networks in related fields.

Regular publication venues for their work are:

  • Journal of Pain
  • Journal of General Internal Medicine
  • Patient Education and Counseling
  • Pain Medicine
  • Contemporary Clinical Trials

Recent papers authored or co-authored by Burgess provide insight into their research focus and output. These include:

  • TIDieR-telehealth: precision in reporting of telehealth interventions used in clinical trials - unique considerations for the Template for the Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist, 2022, BMC Medical Research Methodology
  • Pivoting to virtual delivery for managing chronic pain with nonpharmacological treatments: implications for pragmatic research, 2020, Pain
  • The role of weight bias and role-modeling in medical students' patient-centered communication with higher weight standardized patients, 2021, Patient Education and Counseling
  • Veterans' perceptions of racial bias in VA mental healthcare and their impacts on patient engagement and patient-provider communication, 2020, Patient Education and Counseling
  • Racial Implicit Bias and Communication Among Physicians in a Simulated Environment, 2024, JAMA Network Open

Best Publications

  • Impact of weight bias and stigma on quality of care and outcomes for patients with obesity

    S. M. Phelan;Diana J Burgess;Mark W Yeazel;Wendy L Hellerstedt

  • Who women are, who women should be: Descriptive and Prescriptive Gender Stereotyping in Sex Discrimination

    Diana J Burgess;Eugene Borgida

  • Attitudinal Ambivalence and the Conflict between Group and System Justification Motives in Low Status Groups

    John T. Jost;Diana Burgess

  • Reducing Racial Bias Among Health Care Providers: Lessons from Social-Cognitive Psychology

    Diana Burgess;Diana Burgess;Michelle van Ryn;Michelle van Ryn;John Dovidio;Somnath Saha

  • Why Do Providers Contribute to Disparities and What Can Be Done About It

    Diana J. Burgess;Diana J. Burgess;Steven S. Fu;Steven S. Fu;Michelle Van Ryn

  • The Association between Perceived Discrimination and Underutilization of Needed Medical and Mental Health Care in a Multi-Ethnic Community Sample

    Diana J Burgess;Diana J Burgess;Yingmei Ding;Margaret Hargreaves;Michelle van Ryn

  • Effects of perceived discrimination on mental health and mental health services utilization among gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender persons.

    Diana Burgess;Diana Burgess;Diana Burgess;Richard Lee;Alisia Tran;Michelle Van Ryn

  • THE IMPACT OF RACISM ON CLINICIAN COGNITION, BEHAVIOR, AND CLINICAL DECISION MAKING

    Michelle van Ryn;Diana J. Burgess;John F. Dovidio;Sean Phelan

  • Medical School Experiences Associated with Change in Implicit Racial Bias Among 3547 Students: A Medical Student CHANGES Study Report

    Mph Michelle van Ryn PhD;Rachel Hardeman;Sean M. Phelan;Diana J. Burgess;Diana J. Burgess

  • Implicit and explicit weight bias in a national sample of 4,732 medical students: The medical student CHANGES study

    Sean M. Phelan;John F. Dovidio;Rebecca M. Puhl;Diana J. Burgess;Diana J. Burgess

  • Stereotype threat and health disparities: what medical educators and future physicians need to know

    Diana J. Burgess;Jennifer Warren;Sean Phelan;John Dovidio

  • Physicians’ Perceptions of Patients’ Social and Behavioral Characteristics and Race Disparities in Treatment Recommendations for Men With Coronary Artery Disease

    Michelle Van Ryn;Diana J Burgess;Jennifer Malat;Joan Griffin

  • Do Contact and Empathy Mitigate Bias Against Gay and Lesbian People Among Heterosexual First-Year Medical Students? A Report From the Medical Student CHANGE Study.

    Sara E. Burke;John F. Dovidio;Julia M. Przedworski;Rachel R. Hardeman

  • Unhealthy interactions: the role of stereotype threat in health disparities.

    Joshua Aronson;Diana J Burgess;Diana J Burgess;Sean M. Phelan;Lindsay Juarez

  • Understanding the provider contribution to race/ethnicity disparities in pain treatment: insights from dual process models of stereotyping.

    Diana J. Burgess;Diana J. Burgess;Mph Michelle Van Ryn PhD;Mph Michelle Van Ryn PhD;Megan Crowley-Matoka;Jennifer Malat

  • What Motivates Employees to Transfer Knowledge Outside Their Work Unit

    Diana J Burgess

  • Does stereotype threat affect women in academic medicine

    Diana Jill Burgess;Anne Joseph;Michelle van Ryn;Molly Carnes;Molly Carnes

  • Are Providers More Likely to Contribute to Healthcare Disparities Under High Levels of Cognitive Load? How Features of the Healthcare Setting May Lead to Biases in Medical Decision Making

    Diana J. Burgess

  • Stigma, perceived blame, self‐blame, and depressive symptoms in men with colorectal cancer

    Sean M. Phelan;Joan M. Griffin;Joan M. Griffin;George L. Jackson;S. Yousuf Zafar

  • Patient race and physicians' decisions to prescribe opioids for chronic low back pain

    Diana Jill Burgess;Diana Jill Burgess;Megan Crowley-Matoka;Sean Phelan;John F. Dovidio

  • AttitudinalAmbivalence andthe Conflict Between Groupand System JustificationMotives in Low Status Groups

    John T. Jost;Diana Burgess

Frequent Co-Authors

Michelle van Ryn
Michelle van Ryn Oregon Health & Science University
John F. Dovidio
John F. Dovidio Yale University
Rachel R. Hardeman
Rachel R. Hardeman University of Minnesota
Robert D. Kerns
Robert D. Kerns Yale University
Sally W. Vernon
Sally W. Vernon The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston
Timothy J Wilt
Timothy J Wilt University of Minnesota
James F. Burgess
James F. Burgess Boston University
Rebecca M. Puhl
Rebecca M. Puhl University of Connecticut
Eugene Borgida
Eugene Borgida University of Minnesota
John T. Jost
John T. Jost New York University

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

Pursuing a degree in psychology unlocks a variety of career opportunities, both online and on-campus. Many students choose to follow the pathway to become a licensed therapist, which requires a combination of academic qualifications, supervised clinical experience, and passing state exams.

Requirements can vary depending on your location. For those interested in how to become a licensed therapist in Richmond or becoming a licensed therapist in Riverside, it’s crucial to understand the specific licensing criteria for each state, such as clinical hour requirements and approved graduate programs.

Similarly, those researching how to become a licensed therapist in Sacramento or becoming a licensed therapist in Saint Paul should review local licensing board regulations and seek accredited degree programs that align with their career goals.

Online psychology degrees can offer flexible options for those balancing study, work, and life. Regardless of your chosen pathway, researching local credentialing requirements is essential for success in the field.

Best Scientists Citing Diana J. Burgess

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles