World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!
Julia C.M. van Weert

Julia C.M. van Weert

D-Index & Metrics

Discipline name D-Index World Ranking Current World Ranking National Ranking Current National Ranking Publications Citations
Social Sciences and Humanities 48 3174 2918 131 125 170 8741

Julia C.M. van Weert publications per year

The chart shows the history of publications by Julia C.M. van Weert between 2003 and 2025, highlighting the no. of papers published in each year and offering an overview of the publication velocity of this scholar. Julia C.M. van Weert published across 23 years, from 2003 to 2025, averaging 9 papers a year. Output peaked at 22 publications in 2019. 36 of the 208 publications appeared in the last two years.

No. of publications
5 10 15 20
Bar chart. Horizontal axis: year, 2003 to 2025. Vertical axis: number of publications, 0 to 22. Peak 22 publications in 2019. 2003: 1 publication 2004: 2 publications 2005: 4 publications 2006: 1 publication 2007: 2 publications 2008: 3 publications 2009: 2 publications 2010: 3 publications 2011: 4 publications 2012: 4 publications 2013: 9 publications 2014: 6 publications 2015: 14 publications 2016: 13 publications 2017: 7 publications 2018: 12 publications 2019: 22 publications 2020: 18 publications 2021: 22 publications 2022: 14 publications 2023: 9 publications 2024: 17 publications 2025: 19 publications
2003 2025

208 publications in total across all disciplines

View publications per year as a table
Julia C.M. van Weert: publications per year, 2003 to 2025
Year Publications
2003 1
2004 2
2005 4
2006 1
2007 2
2008 3
2009 2
2010 3
2011 4
2012 4
2013 9
2014 6
2015 14
2016 13
2017 7
2018 12
2019 22
2020 18
2021 22
2022 14
2023 9
2024 17
2025 19
Total 208
Download as CSV

Julia C.M. van Weert 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 Julia C.M. van Weert sits on this spectrum.

No. of scientists
100 200 300 400
Bar chart with 54 bars. Horizontal axis: publications, 44–53 to 570+. Vertical axis: number of scientists, 0 to 474. Most scientists, 474, have 114–123 publications. The last bar groups every scientist with 570 publications or more. The highlighted bar, 164–173 publications, is where this scientist sits. 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
44–53 publications 570+

This scientist: 170 publications — 52nd percentile

52% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

View publications distribution as a table
Number of Social Sciences and Humanities scientists by publication count, Research.com 2026 ranking edition. Based on 7,777 ranked scientists.
Publications Scientists This scientist
44–53 28
54–63 61
64–73 161
74–83 225
84–93 301
94–103 390
104–113 406
114–123 474
124–133 453
134–143 434
144–153 407
154–163 411
164–173 391 170
174–183 313
184–193 319
194–203 304
204–213 285
214–223 246
224–233 213
234–243 170
244–253 167
254–263 162
264–273 138
274–283 138
284–293 113
294–303 106
304–313 95
314–323 101
324–333 81
334–343 69
344–353 56
354–363 36
364–373 42
374–383 41
384–393 44
394–403 27
404–413 30
414–423 20
424–433 29
434–443 29
444–453 25
454–463 19
464–473 21
474–483 11
484–493 17
494–503 7
504–513 6
514–523 12
524–533 10
534–543 7
544–553 6
554–563 12
564–569 8
570+ 100
Download as CSV

Julia C.M. van Weert 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 Julia C.M. van Weert sits on this spectrum.

No. of scientists
100 200 300
Bar chart with 71 bars. Horizontal axis: D-Index, 30 to 100+. Vertical axis: number of scientists, 0 to 313. Most scientists, 313, have 42 D-Index. The last bar groups every scientist with 100 D-Index or more. The highlighted bar, 48 D-Index, is where this scientist sits. 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: 48 D-Index — 61st percentile

61% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

View D-Index distribution as a table
Number of Social Sciences and Humanities scientists by D-index, Research.com 2026 ranking edition. Based on 7,777 ranked scientists.
D-Index Scientists This scientist
30 177
31 210
32 222
33 188
34 181
35 243
36 261
37 272
38 278
39 300
40 297
41 308
42 313
43 300
44 269
45 260
46 228
47 251
48 203 48
49 186
50 187
51 166
52 138
53 141
54 131
55 137
56 109
57 129
58 95
59 105
60 106
61 86
62 94
63 77
64 79
65 59
66 68
67 51
68 49
69 40
70 43
71 40
72 50
73 46
74 43
75 45
76 45
77 30
78 25
79 31
80 29
81 18
82 21
83 26
84 15
85 15
86 19
87 19
88 12
89 7
90 19
91 20
92 13
93 9
94 13
95 8
96 7
97 6
98 6
99 6
100+ 97
Download as CSV

Overview

Julia C.M. van Weert is affiliated with the University of Amsterdam in the Netherlands. Their research primarily spans the fields of Health Professions and Medicine, with a focus on General Health Professions and Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health.

Their scholarly efforts are situated within key subfields such as Sociology and Political Science, Applied Psychology, and Epidemiology. Their main topics of interest include Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare, Palliative Care and End-of-Life Issues, Health Literacy and Information Accessibility, Behavioral Health and Interventions, Media Influence and Health, Chronic Disease Management Strategies, and Patient Dignity and Privacy.

Julia C.M. van Weert has contributed publications to several journals, most frequently to Patient Education and Counseling, where they have 15 publications. Other common venues include the Journal of Medical Internet Research with 5 publications, European Geriatric Medicine with 4, International Journal of Medical Informatics with 3, and BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making with 3 publications.

Frequent coauthors in their research include Annemiek J. Linn, Nathalie van der Velde, Barbara C. Schouten, Stephanie Medlock, and Ellen M.A. Smets.

Recent papers authored or coauthored by Julia C.M. van Weert include:

  • Preference for and understanding of graphs presenting health risk information. The role of age, health literacy, numeracy and graph literacy, 2020, Patient Education and Counseling
  • Barriers and facilitators for shared decision making in older patients with multiple chronic conditions: a systematic review, 2021, BMC Geriatrics
  • Advancing urban mental health research: from complexity science to actionable targets for intervention, 2021, The Lancet Psychiatry
  • Barriers and facilitators influencing medication-related CDSS acceptance according to clinicians: A systematic review, 2021, International Journal of Medical Informatics
  • Investigating the feasibility of idiographic network models., 2022, Psychological Methods

Best Publications

  • Low health literacy and evaluation of online health information: A systematic review of the literature

    Nicola Diviani;Bas Van Den Putte;Stefano Giani;Julia C.M. Van Weert

  • The effectiveness of interventions using electronic reminders to improve adherence to chronic medication: a systematic review of the literature

    Marcia Vervloet;Annemiek J Linn;Julia C M van Weert;Dinny H de Bakker

  • Effective health communication - a key factor in fighting the COVID-19 pandemic.

    Arnstein Finset;Hayden Bosworth;Phyllis Butow;Pål Gulbrandsen

  • Differences in mobile health app use: A source of new digital inequalities?

    Nadine Bol;Natali Helberger;Julia C. M. van Weert

  • The Effectiveness of Health Animations in Audiences With Different Health Literacy Levels: An Experimental Study

    Corine S. Meppelink;Julia C. M. van Weert;Carola J. Haven;Edith G. Smit

  • Behavioral and Mood Effects of Snoezelen Integrated into 24‐Hour Dementia Care

    Julia C. M. Van Weert;Alexandra M. Van Dulmen;Peter M. M. Spreeuwenberg;Miel W. Ribbe

  • The effects of psychosocial methods on depressed, aggressive and apathetic behaviors of people with dementia: a systematic review

    Renate Verkaik;Julia C. M. van Weert;Anneke L. Francke

  • The characteristics and effectiveness of Question Prompt List interventions in oncology: a systematic review of the literature.

    Kim Brandes;Annemiek J. Linn;Phyllis N. Butow;Julia C. M. van Weert

  • Does Age Really Matter? Recall of Information Presented to Newly Referred Patients With Cancer

    Jesse Jansen;Phyllis N. Butow;Julia C.M. van Weert;Sandra van Dulmen

  • Interventions to improve recall of medical information in cancer patients: a systematic review of the literature.

    Nienke van der Meulen;Jesse Jansen;Sandra van Dulmen;Jozien Bensing

  • Decision aids to help older people make health decisions: a systematic review and meta-analysis

    Julia C. M. van Weert;Barbara C. van Munster;Barbara C. van Munster;Remco Sanders;René Spijker;René Spijker

  • Barriers and facilitators for shared decision making in older patients with multiple chronic conditions: a systematic review.

    Ruth E. Pel-Littel;Marjolein Snaterse;Nelly Marela Teppich;Bianca M. Buurman;Bianca M. Buurman

  • Exploring the role of health literacy in the evaluation of online health information: Insights from a mixed-methods study

    Nicola Diviani;Bas van den Putte;Bas van den Putte;Corine S. Meppelink;Julia C.M. van Weert

  • Effects of eHealth Interventions on Medication Adherence: A Systematic Review of the Literature

    Annemiek J Linn;Marcia Vervloet;Liset van Dijk;Edith G Smit

  • Effects of snoezelen, integrated in 24 h dementia care, on nurse–patient communication during morning care

    Julia C.M. van Weert;Alexandra M. van Dulmen;Peter M.M. Spreeuwenberg;Miel W. Ribbe

  • Recall in Older Cancer Patients: Measuring Memory for Medical Information

    Jesse Jansen;Julia van Weert;Nienke van der Meulen;Sandra van Dulmen

  • Should We Be Afraid of Simple Messages? The Effects of Text Difficulty and Illustrations in People With Low or High Health Literacy

    Corine S. Meppelink;Edith G. Smit;Bianca M. Buurman;Julia C. M. van Weert

  • Advancing urban mental health research: from complexity science to actionable targets for intervention.

    Junus M van der Wal;Claudia D van Borkulo;Marie K Deserno;Marie K Deserno;Josefien J F Breedvelt

  • Emotional and informational patient cues: the impact of nurses' responses on recall.

    Jesse Jansen;Julia C.M. van Weert;Judith de Groot;Sandra van Dulmen

  • Older cancer patients' information and support needs surrounding treatment: An evaluation through the eyes of patients, relatives and professionals

    Elise R Posma;Julia C M van Weert;Jesse Jansen;Jozien M Bensing

  • Older Cancer Patients’ User Experiences With Web-Based Health Information Tools: A Think-Aloud Study

    Sifra Bolle;Geke Romijn;Ellen M A Smets;Eugene F Loos

Frequent Co-Authors

Ellen M. A. Smets
Ellen M. A. Smets University of Amsterdam
Edith G. Smit
Edith G. Smit University of Amsterdam
Jozien M. Bensing
Jozien M. Bensing Utrecht University
Hanneke C. J. M. de Haes
Hanneke C. J. M. de Haes University of Amsterdam
Rose-Marie Dröes
Rose-Marie Dröes University of Amsterdam
Phyllis Butow
Phyllis Butow University of Sydney
Jeroen Lakerveld
Jeroen Lakerveld University of Amsterdam
Glyn Elwyn
Glyn Elwyn Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice
Gert-Jan de Bruijn
Gert-Jan de Bruijn University of Amsterdam
Rens Vliegenthart
Rens Vliegenthart Wageningen University & Research

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 Social Sciences or Humanities can lead to a wide variety of fulfilling careers—from clinical social work to applied behavior analysis and psychology. Fortunately, there are flexible and affordable online options for those looking to advance their education or make a career change.

Many students are searching for the cheapest online master's in social work to reduce costs while gaining essential skills. If you're interested in behavior analysis, consider finding the cheapest bcba online program to qualify for board certification in this growing field.

Those aiming to enter the workforce quickly may benefit from exploring accelerated msw programs that allow you to earn your degree in less time. Similarly, there are fast psychology degree options online for students eager to launch a career in mental health, counseling, research, or related fields.

By comparing program length, cost, and accreditation, you can choose a pathway that matches your career goals and life situation.

Best Scientists Citing Julia C.M. van Weert

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles