World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Medicine

D-Index
82
Citations
51615
World Ranking
15841
National Ranking
7971

Kate Lorig publication distribution in Medicine in 2026

The chart shows the distribution of publications by all Research.com ranked scientists in the field of Medicine in 2026. The highlighted bar marks where Kate Lorig sits on this spectrum.

101–120 publications: 5 scientists 121–140 publications: 26 scientists 141–160 publications: 73 scientists 161–180 publications: 155 scientists 181–200 publications: 230 scientists 201–220 publications: 363 scientists 221–240 publications: 487 scientists 241–260 publications: 545 scientists 261–280 publications: 722 scientists 281–300 publications: 768 scientists 301–320 publications: 834 scientists 321–340 publications: 895 scientists 341–360 publications: 922 scientists 361–380 publications: 838 scientists 381–400 publications: 861 scientists 401–420 publications: 918 scientists 421–440 publications: 806 scientists 441–460 publications: 771 scientists 461–480 publications: 751 scientists 481–500 publications: 713 scientists 501–520 publications: 617 scientists 521–540 publications: 611 scientists 541–560 publications: 537 scientists 561–580 publications: 504 scientists 581–600 publications: 509 scientists 601–620 publications: 396 scientists 621–640 publications: 386 scientists 641–660 publications: 371 scientists 661–680 publications: 340 scientists 681–700 publications: 336 scientists 701–720 publications: 307 scientists 721–740 publications: 259 scientists 741–760 publications: 230 scientists 761–780 publications: 228 scientists 781–800 publications: 217 scientists 801–820 publications: 204 scientists 821–840 publications: 186 scientists 841–860 publications: 177 scientists 861–880 publications: 155 scientists 881–900 publications: 139 scientists 901–920 publications: 145 scientists 921–940 publications: 116 scientists 941–960 publications: 133 scientists 961–980 publications: 91 scientists 981–1,000 publications: 96 scientists 1,001–1,020 publications: 77 scientists 1,021–1,040 publications: 70 scientists 1,041–1,060 publications: 63 scientists 1,061–1,080 publications: 77 scientists 1,081–1,100 publications: 49 scientists 1,101–1,120 publications: 54 scientists 1,121–1,140 publications: 49 scientists 1,141–1,160 publications: 51 scientists 1,161–1,180 publications: 35 scientists 1,181–1,200 publications: 39 scientists 1,201–1,220 publications: 26 scientists 1,221–1,240 publications: 37 scientists 1,241–1,260 publications: 36 scientists 1,261–1,280 publications: 27 scientists 1,281–1,300 publications: 32 scientists 1,301–1,320 publications: 28 scientists 1,321–1,340 publications: 17 scientists 1,341–1,360 publications: 30 scientists 1,361–1,380 publications: 28 scientists 1,381–1,400 publications: 17 scientists 1,401–1,420 publications: 21 scientists 1,421–1,440 publications: 15 scientists 1,441–1,460 publications: 12 scientists 1,461–1,480 publications: 12 scientists 1,481–1,500 publications: 18 scientists 1,501–1,520 publications: 14 scientists 1,521–1,540 publications: 17 scientists 1,541–1,560 publications: 15 scientists 1,561–1,580 publications: 6 scientists 1,581–1,600 publications: 2 scientists 1,601–1,620 publications: 12 scientists 1,621–1,640 publications: 11 scientists 1,641–1,660 publications: 8 scientists 1,661–1,680 publications: 5 scientists 1,681–1,700 publications: 5 scientists 1,701–1,720 publications: 10 scientists 1,721–1,740 publications: 12 scientists 1,741–1,760 publications: 14 scientists 1,761–1,780 publications: 6 scientists 1,781–1,795 publications: 5 scientists 1,796+ publications: 100 scientists
101 publications 1,796+

This scientist: 224 publications — 5th percentile

5% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

The last bar groups every scientist with 1,796 publications or more.

Kate Lorig D-index placement in Medicine in 2026

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

70–71 D-Index: 226 scientists 72–73 D-Index: 391 scientists 74–75 D-Index: 574 scientists 76–77 D-Index: 730 scientists 78–79 D-Index: 891 scientists 80–81 D-Index: 972 scientists 82–83 D-Index: 1,027 scientists 84–85 D-Index: 1,003 scientists 86–87 D-Index: 960 scientists 88–89 D-Index: 970 scientists 90–91 D-Index: 922 scientists 92–93 D-Index: 839 scientists 94–95 D-Index: 808 scientists 96–97 D-Index: 779 scientists 98–99 D-Index: 668 scientists 100–101 D-Index: 611 scientists 102–103 D-Index: 630 scientists 104–105 D-Index: 513 scientists 106–107 D-Index: 541 scientists 108–109 D-Index: 445 scientists 110–111 D-Index: 429 scientists 112–113 D-Index: 400 scientists 114–115 D-Index: 393 scientists 116–117 D-Index: 318 scientists 118–119 D-Index: 302 scientists 120–121 D-Index: 287 scientists 122–123 D-Index: 255 scientists 124–125 D-Index: 256 scientists 126–127 D-Index: 252 scientists 128–129 D-Index: 230 scientists 130–131 D-Index: 179 scientists 132–133 D-Index: 168 scientists 134–135 D-Index: 163 scientists 136–137 D-Index: 159 scientists 138–139 D-Index: 134 scientists 140–141 D-Index: 134 scientists 142–143 D-Index: 118 scientists 144–145 D-Index: 109 scientists 146–147 D-Index: 106 scientists 148–149 D-Index: 74 scientists 150–151 D-Index: 79 scientists 152–153 D-Index: 80 scientists 154–155 D-Index: 87 scientists 156–157 D-Index: 57 scientists 158–159 D-Index: 74 scientists 160–161 D-Index: 69 scientists 162–163 D-Index: 60 scientists 164–165 D-Index: 53 scientists 166–167 D-Index: 39 scientists 168–169 D-Index: 42 scientists 170–171 D-Index: 32 scientists 172–173 D-Index: 39 scientists 174–175 D-Index: 40 scientists 176–177 D-Index: 28 scientists 178–179 D-Index: 19 scientists 180–181 D-Index: 23 scientists 182–183 D-Index: 31 scientists 184–185 D-Index: 18 scientists 186–187 D-Index: 20 scientists 188–189 D-Index: 22 scientists 190–191 D-Index: 13 scientists 192–193 D-Index: 21 scientists 194–195 D-Index: 12 scientists 196–197 D-Index: 12 scientists 198–199 D-Index: 14 scientists 200–201 D-Index: 15 scientists 202–203 D-Index: 13 scientists 204–205 D-Index: 10 scientists 206–207 D-Index: 8 scientists 208–209 D-Index: 4 scientists 210–211 D-Index: 12 scientists 212–213 D-Index: 11 scientists 214–215 D-Index: 10 scientists 216 D-Index: 4 scientists 217+ D-Index: 98 scientists
70 D-Index 217+

This scientist: 82 D-Index — 21st percentile

21% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

The last bar groups every scientist with 217 D-Index or more.

Overview

Kate Lorig is affiliated with Stanford University in the United States and has a research focus spanning medicine and health professions. Their work incorporates subfields such as general health professions, psychiatry and mental health, sociology and political science, public health, environmental and occupational health, and pharmacology.

The scientist's research topics include geriatric care and nursing homes, dementia and cognitive impairment research, family support in illness, family and disability support research, health systems, economic evaluations, quality of life, health disparities and outcomes, and diabetes management and education.

Kate Lorig's publications have appeared multiple times in venues such as the Journal of Applied Gerontology, The Gerontologist, Health Education & Behavior, PsycTESTS Dataset, and Alzheimer's & Dementia.

Recent papers highlight diverse areas within health research. These include:

  • Comparison of a Single-Session Pain Management Skills Intervention With a Single-Session Health Education Intervention and 8 Sessions of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy in Adults With Chronic Low Back Pain, 2021, JAMA Network Open
  • Effects of COVID-19 on Informal Caregivers and the Development and Validation of a Scale in English and Spanish to Measure the Impact of COVID-19 on Caregivers, 2020, Journal of Applied Gerontology
  • Development and Evaluation of the Eight-Item Caregiver Self-Efficacy Scale (CSES-8), 2020, The Gerontologist
  • Empowered Relief, cognitive behavioral therapy, and health education for people with chronic pain: a comparison of outcomes at 6-month Follow-up for a randomized controlled trial, 2024, PAIN Reports
  • Translating CDSMP to the Workplace: Results of the Live Healthy Work Healthy Program, 2020, American Journal of Health Promotion

Frequent co-authors collaborating with Kate Lorig include Dolores Gallagher-Thompson, Khushboo Sheth, Philip L. Ritter, Jasmine Santoyo-Olsson, and Kenneth E. Covinsky.

Best Publications

  • Patient Self-management of Chronic Disease in Primary Care

    Thomas Bodenheimer;Kate Lorig;Halsted Holman;Kevin Grumbach

  • Self-management education: history, definition, outcomes, and mechanisms.

    Kate R. Lorig;Halsted R. Holman

  • Evidence suggesting that a chronic disease self-management program can improve health status while reducing hospitalization: a randomized trial.

    Kate R. Lorig;David S. Sobel;Anita L. Stewart;Byron William Brown Jr.

  • How should we define health

    M. Huber;J.A. Knottnerus;L. Green;H.E. van der Horst

  • Development and evaluation of a scale to measure perceived self-efficacy in people with arthritis.

    Kate Lorig;Robert L. Chastain;Elaine Ung;Stanford Shoor

  • Chronic disease self-management program: 2-year health status and health care utilization outcomes.

    Kate R. Lorig;Philip Ritter;Anita L. Stewart;David S. Sobel

  • Effect of a Self- Management Program on Patients with Chronic Disease

    K R Lorig;D S Sobel;P L Ritter;D Laurent

  • Outcome Measures for Health Education and Other Health Care Interventions

    Kate Lorig;Anita Stewart;Philip Ritter;Virginia González

  • Evidence suggesting that health education for self-management in patients with chronic arthritis has sustained health benefits while reducing health care costs.

    Kate R. Lorig;Peter D. Mazonson;Halsted R. Holman

  • Self-management: Enabling and empowering patients living with cancer as a chronic illness†‡

    Ruth McCorkle;Elizabeth Ercolano;Mark Lazenby;Mark Lazenby;Dena Schulman-Green

  • A Review and Synthesis of Research Evidence for Self-Efficacy-Enhancing Interventions for Reducing Chronic Disability: Implications for Health Education Practice (Part I)

    Ray Marks;John P. Allegrante;Kate Lorig

  • Patients as partners in managing chronic disease : Partnership is a prerequisite for effective and efficient health care

    Halsted Holman;Kate Lorig

  • Patient self-management: a key to effectiveness and efficiency in care of chronic disease.

    Halsted Holman;Kate Lorig

  • Osteoarthritis: new insights. Part 2: treatment approaches.

    David T. Felson;Reva C. Lawrence;Marc C. Hochberg;Timothy McAlindon

  • Capturing the Patient's View of Change as a Clinical Outcome Measure

    David Fischer;Anita L. Stewart;Daniel A. Bloch;Kate Lorig

  • Internet-based chronic disease self-management: a randomized trial.

    Kate R Lorig;Philip L Ritter;Diana D Laurent;Kathryn Plant

  • Self-Management of Chronic Disease by Older Adults: A Review and Questions for Research

    Noreen M. Clark;Marshall H. Becker;Nancy K. Janz;Kate Lorig

  • Outcomes of self-help education for patients with arthritis

    Kate Lorig;Deborah Lubeck;R. Guy Kraines;Mitchell Seleznick

  • Internet Versus Mailed Questionnaires: A Randomized Comparison

    Philip Ritter;Kate Lorig;Diana Laurent;Katy Matthews

  • Arthritis Self-Management Studies: A Twelve-Year Review

    Kate Lorig;Halsted Holman

Frequent Co-Authors

Philip L. Ritter
Philip L. Ritter Stanford University
Marcia G. Ory
Marcia G. Ory Texas A&M University
John Lynch
John Lynch University of Adelaide
Anita L. Stewart
Anita L. Stewart University of California, San Francisco
James F. Fries
James F. Fries Stanford University
Matthew H. Liang
Matthew H. Liang Brigham and Women's Hospital
David M. DeJoy
David M. DeJoy University of Georgia
Carol R. Horowitz
Carol R. Horowitz Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai
Sean Mackey
Sean Mackey Stanford University
Robert J. Vandenberg
Robert J. Vandenberg University of Georgia

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

Advancing your career in medicine often involves exploring various degree options beyond the traditional path. Many students consider online programs for their flexibility and accessibility. When looking into management careers in healthcare, it’s crucial to prioritize accreditation. Learn more about which online healthcare administration programs have cahme accreditation? to ensure your degree is respected and meets industry standards.

For registered nurses seeking to further their education, options are available that offer fewer barriers. For example, you can now pursue an rn to bsn with no clinicals required, making the transition more convenient for working professionals.

If your goal is to reach the highest levels of clinical practice, online Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP) programs can be a strategic choice. You might want to review the shortest dnp program online for a faster path, or seek out the easiest online dnp programs to balance your studies with existing commitments.

Exploring these flexible online pathways can help you accelerate your career in medicine and healthcare, all while accommodating your personal and professional needs.

Best Scientists Citing Kate Lorig

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles