World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Social Sciences and Humanities

D-Index
71
Citations
46819
World Ranking
706
National Ranking
132

Karl Claxton 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 Karl Claxton 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: 241 publications — 77th percentile

77% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Karl Claxton 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 Karl Claxton 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: 71 D-Index — 91st percentile

91% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Overview

Karl Claxton is affiliated with the University of York in the United Kingdom and has contributed significantly to research intersecting economics, health professions, and health policy. Their main fields of study encompass Economics, Econometrics and Finance as well as Health Professions, with substantial work in key subfields including Economics and Econometrics, General Health Professions, Sociology and Political Science, Health, and Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health.

Their research focuses primarily on topics such as Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, and Quality of Life; Global Health Care Issues; Healthcare Policy and Management; Healthcare cost, quality, and practices; Pharmaceutical Economics and Policy; Health disparities and outcomes; and Economic and Environmental Valuation.

Karl Claxton has published extensively in several academic venues, frequently contributing to Medical Decision Making and Health Economics, each accounting for six publications. They have also published multiple papers in Gates Open Research, BMJ Open, and Applied Health Economics and Health Policy.

Their recent published papers include:

  • Developing a reference protocol for structured expert elicitation in health-care decision-making: a mixed-methods study (2021, Health Technology Assessment)
  • What next after GDP-based cost-effectiveness thresholds? (2020, Gates Open Research)
  • Is an ounce of prevention worth a pound of cure? A cross-sectional study of the impact of English public health grant on mortality and morbidity (2020, BMJ Open)
  • Bayesian Econometric Modelling of Observational Data for Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Establishing the Value of Negative Pressure Wound Therapy in the Healing of Open Surgical Wounds (2020, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A (Statistics in Society))
  • How Effective is Marginal Healthcare Expenditure? New Evidence from England for 2003/04 to 2012/13 (2021, Applied Health Economics and Health Policy)

Karl Claxton frequently collaborates with other researchers. Their notable co-authors include James Lomas, Francesco Longo, Jessica Ochalek, Stephen Martin, and Mark Sculpher. Collaboration with these scholars spans numerous works, demonstrating active engagement in research networks related to health economics and policy.

Best Publications

  • Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes

    Michael F. Drummond;Mark J. Sculpher;Karl Claxton;Greg L. Stoddart

  • Decision Modelling for Health Economic Evaluation

    Andrew Briggs;Karl Claxton;Mark J Sculpher

  • Representing uncertainty: the role of cost-effectiveness acceptability curves.

    Elisabeth Fenwick;Karl Claxton;Mark Sculpher

  • The irrelevance of inference: a decision-making approach to the stochastic evaluation of health care technologies.

    Karl Claxton

  • The NICE cost-effectiveness threshold: what it is and what that means.

    Christopher McCabe;Karl Claxton;Anthony J Culyer;Anthony J Culyer

  • Methods for the estimation of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence cost-effectiveness threshold

    Karl Philip Claxton;Stephen Martin;Marta O Soares;Nigel Rice

  • Country-level cost effectiveness thresholds: initial estimates and the need for further research

    Beth Woods;Paul Revill;Mark Sculpher;Karl Claxton

  • Review of guidelines for good practice in decision-analytic modelling in health technology assessment

    Z Philips;L Ginnelly;M Sculpher;K Claxton

  • Good Practice Guidelines for Decision-Analytic Modelling in Health Technology Assessment: A Review and Consolidation of Quality Assessment

    Zoë Philips;Laura Bojke;Mark Sculpher;Karl Claxton

  • Probabilistic sensitivity analysis for NICE technology assessment: not an optional extra

    Karl Claxton;Mark Sculpher;Chris McCabe;Andrew Briggs

  • A rational framework for decision making by the National Institute For Clinical Excellence (NICE)

    Karl Claxton;Mark Sculpher;Michael Drummond

  • An economic approach to clinical trial design and research priority‐setting

    Karl Claxton;John Posnett

  • Whither trial-based economic evaluation for health care decision making?

    Mark J. Sculpher;Karl Claxton;Mike Drummond;Chris McCabe

  • Methods for assessing the cost-effectiveness of public health interventions: key challenges and recommendations.

    Helen Weatherly;Michael Drummond;Karl Claxton;Richard Cookson

  • Using value of information analysis to prioritise health research: some lessons from recent UK experience.

    Karl P Claxton;Mark J Sculpher

  • The International Decision Support Initiative Reference Case for Economic Evaluation: An Aid to Thought.

    Thomas Wilkinson;Mark J. Sculpher;Karl Claxton;Paul Revill

  • A pilot study on the use of decision theory and value of information analysis as part of the NHS Health Technology Assessment programme

    K Claxton;L Ginnelly;M Sculpher;Z Philips

  • Expected value of sample information calculations in medical decision modeling.

    A. E. Ades;G. Lu;K. Claxton

  • Discounting in Economic Evaluations

    Arthur E. Attema;Werner B. F. Brouwer;Karl Claxton

  • Estimating health opportunity costs in low-income and middle-income countries: a novel approach and evidence from cross-country data.

    Jessica Ochalek;James Lomas;Karl Claxton

  • Assessing quality in decision analytic cost-effectiveness models. A suggested framework and example of application.

    Mark Sculpher;Elisabeth Fenwick;Karl Claxton

  • Unrelated Future Costs and Unrelated Future Benefits: Reflections on NICE Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal

    Alec Morton;Amanda I Adler;David Bell;Andrew Briggs

Frequent Co-Authors

Mark Sculpher
Mark Sculpher University of York
Anthony J. Culyer
Anthony J. Culyer University of York
Nigel Rice
Nigel Rice University of York
Andrew Briggs
Andrew Briggs University of Glasgow
Nancy Devlin
Nancy Devlin University of Melbourne
Peter C. Smith
Peter C. Smith Imperial College London
Keith R. Abrams
Keith R. Abrams University of Leicester
John Brazier
John Brazier University of Sheffield
Peter J. Neumann
Peter J. Neumann University of Bern
Richard Cookson
Richard Cookson University of York

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 up a wide array of flexible online degree options. Many students are drawn to an online master degree in psychology to deepen their understanding of human behavior and open doors to counseling, research, and organizational roles.

Those interested in educational leadership may benefit from fastest online edd programs, which allow professionals to earn a Doctor of Education in a shorter time frame. These programs are ideal for those seeking advancement in educational administration or policy.

Time and cost are major considerations. 1 year graduate programs offer a quick path to specialized knowledge, supporting career changes or upskilling without the traditional multi-year commitment.

For those looking to finish their undergraduate studies rapidly, accelerated online degrees make it possible to complete a bachelor’s degree quickly and conveniently. These pathways are particularly valuable for adult learners or those balancing work and study.

Best Scientists Citing Karl Claxton

Trending Scientists