World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!
John N. Lavis

John N. Lavis

D-Index & Metrics

Social Sciences and Humanities

D-Index
81
Citations
28536
World Ranking
350
National Ranking
20

John N. Lavis 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 John N. Lavis 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: 473 publications — 97th percentile

97% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

John N. Lavis 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 John N. Lavis 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: 81 D-Index — 96th percentile

96% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Overview

John N. Lavis is affiliated with McMaster University in Canada and has contributed extensively to the fields of health professions and medicine. Their research spans multiple subfields, including general health professions, economics and econometrics, public health, environmental and occupational health, management science and operations research, and organizational behavior and human resource management.

The primary focus of their work lies within health policy implementation science, health systems, economic evaluations, quality of life, and primary care and health outcomes. Additional topics explored include health sciences research and education, evaluation and performance assessment, healthcare cost, quality, and practices, as well as clinical practice guidelines implementation.

Some of the recent papers by John N. Lavis include:

  • How does integrated knowledge translation (IKT) compare to other collaborative research approaches to generating and translating knowledge? Learning from experts in the field (2020, Health Research Policy and Systems)
  • Understanding the implementation of evidence-informed policies and practices from a policy perspective: a critical interpretive synthesis (2021, Implementation Science)
  • International treaties have mostly failed to produce their intended effects (2022, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences)
  • Institutional and behaviour-change interventions to support COVID-19 public health measures: a review by the Lancet Commission Task Force on public health measures to suppress the pandemic (2021, International Health)
  • What to do with all the AGREEs? The AGREE portfolio of tools to support the guideline enterprise (2020, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology)

Frequent co-authors in their research collaborations include:

  • Michael G. Wilson
  • Jeremy Grimshaw (13 publications)
  • Fadi El-Jardali (10 publications)
  • Kerry Waddell (8 publications)
  • Will Moy (7 publications)

John N. Lavis has published multiple papers in prominent academic venues such as:

  • Health Research Policy and Systems (17 publications)
  • Journal of Clinical Epidemiology (6 publications)
  • International Journal of Health Policy and Management (4 publications)
  • Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (4 publications)
  • Research Square (4 publications)

Best Publications

  • Knowledge translation of research findings

    Jeremy M Grimshaw;Martin P Eccles;John N Lavis;Sophie J Hill

  • How can research organizations more effectively transfer research knowledge to decision makers

    John N. Lavis;Dave Robertson;Jennifer M. Woodside;Christopher B. McLeod

  • Towards systematic reviews that inform health care management and policy-making.

    John Lavis;Huw Davies;Andy Oxman;Jean-Louis Denis

  • SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 15: Engaging the public in evidence-informed policymaking.

    Andrew D Oxman;Simon Lewin;John N Lavis;Atle Fretheim

  • Examining the Role of Health Services Research in Public Policymaking

    John N. Lavis;Suzanne E. Ross;Jeremiah E. Hurley

  • Assessing country-level efforts to link research to action

    John N Lavis;Jonathan Lomas;Maimunah Hamid;Nelson K Sewankambo

  • Quality of care in for-profit and not-for-profit nursing homes: systematic review and meta-analysis

    Vikram R Comondore;P J Devereaux;Qi Zhou;Samuel B Stone

  • SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 14: Organising and using policy dialogues to support evidence-informed policymaking

    John N Lavis;Jennifer A Boyko;Andrew D Oxman;Simon Lewin

  • Sustainability science: an integrated approach for health-programme planning

    Russell L Gruen;Julian H Elliott;Monica L Nolan;Paul D Lawton

  • SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP). 1: What is evidence-informed policymaking?

    Andrew D Oxman;John N Lavis;Simon Lewin;Atle Fretheim

  • Use of research to inform public policymaking.

    John N Lavis;Francisco Becerra Posada;Andy Haines;Eric Osei

  • Research, public policymaking, and knowledge-translation processes: Canadian efforts to build bridges.

    John N. Lavis

  • A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing mortality rates of private for-profit and private not-for-profit hospitals

    P.J. Devereaux;Peter T.L. Choi;Christina Lacchetti;Bruce Weaver

  • What are the best methodologies for rapid reviews of the research evidence for evidence-informed decision making in health policy and practice: a rapid review.

    Michelle M. Haby;Michelle M. Haby;Evelina Chapman;Rachel Clark;Jorge Barreto

  • SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP)

    John N Lavis;Andrew D Oxman;Simon Lewin;Atle Fretheim

  • Effects of policy options for human resources for health: an analysis of systematic reviews

    Mickey Chopra;Salla Munro;John N Lavis;Gunn Vist

  • Use of evidence in WHO recommendations.

    Andrew D Oxman;John N Lavis;Atle Fretheim

  • Levers for addressing medical underuse and overuse: achieving high-value health care

    Adam G Elshaug;Meredith B Rosenthal;John N Lavis;John N Lavis;Shannon Brownlee

  • Measuring the impact of health research

    John Lavis;Suzanne Ross;Christopher McLeod;Alina Gildiner

  • How Can We Support the Use of Systematic Reviews in Policymaking

    John N. Lavis

  • Comparison of mortality between private for-profit and private not-for-profit hemodialysis centers: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

    P. J. Devereaux;Holger J. Schünemann;Nikila Ravindran;Mohit Bhandari

Frequent Co-Authors

Jeremy M. Grimshaw
Jeremy M. Grimshaw Ottawa Hospital
Julia Abelson
Julia Abelson McMaster University
Andrew D Oxman
Andrew D Oxman Norwegian Institute of Public Health
Atle Fretheim
Atle Fretheim Norwegian Institute of Public Health
Simon Lewin
Simon Lewin South African Medical Research Council
Fadi El-Jardali
Fadi El-Jardali American University of Beirut
Nelson K. Sewankambo
Nelson K. Sewankambo Rakai Health Sciences Program
Ian D. Graham
Ian D. Graham Ottawa Hospital
Steven J. Hoffman
Steven J. Hoffman York University
John-Arne Røttingen
John-Arne Røttingen The Research Council of Norway

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

For students interested in Social Sciences and Humanities, a variety of online degrees open doors to diverse career pathways. As remote learning grows in popularity, it's crucial to consider key factors such as accreditation, cost, program length, and career outcomes when choosing an online degree.

For those drawn to psychology, a cheap psychology degree online can provide a solid, affordable foundation without sacrificing quality. Graduates often pursue roles in counseling, HR, or research.

If you wish to help communities and individuals directly, an online master's in social work can lead to rewarding careers in clinical settings, schools, or nonprofit organizations. Flexible admission requirements make these programs accessible to a wide range of applicants.

Those striving for advanced clinical practice may consider accredited psyd programs to become licensed psychologists working in therapy, hospitals, or academic research.

Additionally, aspiring marriage and family therapists can benefit from mft degree options, which offer streamlined pathways to licensure and professional practice.

With thoughtful research, students can find reputable programs that suit their career goals and learning preferences, all while studying from anywhere in the world.

Best Scientists Citing John N. Lavis

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles