World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Psychology

D-Index
50
Citations
8170
World Ranking
5497
National Ranking
2997

Fiona McTavish 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 Fiona McTavish 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: 85 publications — 11th percentile

11% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Fiona McTavish 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 Fiona McTavish 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

Fiona McTavish is affiliated with the University of Wisconsin-Madison in the United States. Their academic profile does not include any recently published papers or frequent co-authors, which indicates a limited publicly available research output at this time.

There are no recorded frequent publication venues tied to their work, nor are there specific book publications attributed to them. This absence of detailed publication data restricts the visibility of their contributions in scientific literature or academic press.

No main or subfields of study have been identified for Fiona McTavish based on the available data. Similarly, no defined main topics of research work are documented, which suggests that publicly accessible information about their research focus is minimal or not yet established.

There are no recorded awards or recognitions associated with their name, and they are currently an active researcher. The lack of detailed bibliometric and domain-specific information limits the ability to further contextualize their academic profile beyond the institutional affiliation.

Best Publications

  • A Smartphone Application to Support Recovery From Alcoholism: A Randomized Clinical Trial

    David H. Gustafson;Fiona M. McTavish;Ming-Yuan Chih;Amy K. Atwood

  • Effect of computer support on younger women with breast cancer.

    David H. Gustafson;Robert Hawkins;Suzanne Pingree;Fiona McTavish

  • The roles of social support and coping strategies in predicting breast cancer patients' emotional well-being: testing mediation and moderation models.

    Junghyun Kim;Jeong Yeob Han;Bret Shaw;Fiona McTavish

  • Impact of surgery and chemotherapy on the quality of life of younger women with breast carcinoma: a prospective study

    Neeraj K. Arora;David H. Gustafson;Robert P. Hawkins;B S Fiona McTavish

  • Experiences of women with breast cancer: exchanging social support over the CHESS computer network.

    Bret R. Shaw;Fiona McTavish;Robert Hawkins;David H. Gustafson

  • CHESS: 10 Years of Research and Development in Consumer Health Informatics for Broad Populations, Including the Underserved

    David H Gustafson;Robert P Hawkins;Eric W Boberg;Fiona McTavish

  • Use and impact of ehealth system by low-income women with breast cancer

    David H. Gustafson;Fiona M. McTavish;William Stengle;Denise Ballard

  • Development and Pilot Evaluation of a Computer-Based Support System for Women with Breast Cancer

    David Gustafson;Meg Wise;Fiona McTavish;Jean Otis Taylor

  • Internet‐Based Interactive Support for Cancer Patients: Are Integrated Systems Better?

    David H. Gustafson;Robert Hawkins;Fiona McTavish;Suzanne Pingree

  • Effects of insightful disclosure within computer mediated support groups on women with breast cancer.

    Bret R. Shaw;Robert Hawkins;Fiona McTavish;Suzanne Pingree

  • Barriers to information access, perceived health competence, and psychosocial health outcomes: test of a mediation model in a breast cancer sample

    Neeraj K. Arora;Pauley Johnson;David H. Gustafson;Fiona McTavish

  • Proceedings from the 9th annual conference on the science of dissemination and implementation

    David Chambers;Lisa Simpson;Felicia Hill-Briggs;Gila Neta

  • CHESS improves cancer caregivers' burden and mood: results of an eHealth RCT.

    Lori L. DuBenske;David H. Gustafson;Kang Namkoong;Robert P. Hawkins

  • How Patients Recovering From Alcoholism Use a Smartphone Intervention

    Fiona M. McTavish;Ming-Yuan Chih;Dhavan Shah;David H. Gustafson

  • The process and effect of supportive message expression and reception in online breast cancer support groups.

    Eunkyung Kim;Jeong Yeob Han;Tae Joon Moon;Bret Shaw

  • EFFECTS OF USING ONLINE NARRATIVE AND DIDACTIC INFORMATION ON HEALTHCARE PARTICIPATION FOR BREAST CANCER PATIENTS

    Meg Wise;Jeong Yeob Han;Bret Shaw;Fiona McTavish

  • Empathic Exchanges in Online Cancer Support Groups: Distinguishing Message Expression and Reception Effects

    Jeong Yeob Han;Dhavan V. Shah;Eunkyung Kim;Kang Namkoong

  • Expressing Positive Emotions within Online Support Groups by Women with Breast Cancer

    Jeong Yeob Han;Bret R. Shaw;Robert P. Hawkins;Suzanne Pingree

  • CHESS: An interactive computer system for women with breast cancer piloted with an under-served population.

    F. M. McTavish;D. H. Gustafson;B. H. Owens;M. Wise

  • Predictors of Online Health Information Seeking Among Women with Breast Cancer: The Role of Social Support Perception and Emotional Well-Being

    Sojung Claire Kim;Dhavan V. Shah;Kang Namkoong;Fiona M. McTavish

  • Factors Associated with Use of Interactive Cancer Communication System: An Application of the Comprehensive Model of Information Seeking.

    Jeong Yeob Han;Meg Wise;Eunkyung Kim;Ray Pingree

Frequent Co-Authors

David H. Gustafson
David H. Gustafson University of Wisconsin–Madison
Robert P. Hawkins
Robert P. Hawkins University of Wisconsin–Madison
Suzanne Pingree
Suzanne Pingree University of Wisconsin–Madison
Dhavan V. Shah
Dhavan V. Shah University of Wisconsin–Madison
Bret R. Shaw
Bret R. Shaw University of Wisconsin–Madison
Lisa A. Marsch
Lisa A. Marsch Dartmouth College
Timothy B. Baker
Timothy B. Baker University of Wisconsin–Madison
Kevin E. O'Grady
Kevin E. O'Grady University of Maryland, College Park
Cheryl L. Holt
Cheryl L. Holt University of Maryland, College Park
Carol M. Mangione
Carol M. Mangione University of California, Los Angeles

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 degree in Psychology opens diverse career opportunities, especially as the demand for qualified mental health professionals continues to rise. One popular pathway is working as a substance abuse counselor, which combines clinical expertise with a strong commitment to helping others.

Licensing and educational requirements for substance abuse counselors can vary by location. For example, the substance abuse counselor requirements in Houston may differ from those in other cities. If you’re considering becoming a substance abuse counselor in Huntsville, you’ll find specific certification standards and practical training experiences are required.

In addition, the Indianapolis substance abuse counselor certification requirements emphasize approved academic programs and supervised fieldwork. Meanwhile, the Irvine substance abuse counselors education requirements highlight the value of accredited online degrees for flexibility and access.

Earning a Psychology degree online can pave the way to these rewarding roles—whether you want to work directly with individuals facing addiction or take on broader mental health responsibilities within your community.

Best Scientists Citing Fiona McTavish

Trending Scientists