World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!
Kirsten McCaffery

Kirsten McCaffery

D-Index & Metrics

Discipline name D-Index World Ranking Current World Ranking National Ranking Current National Ranking Publications Citations
Social Sciences and Humanities 72 688 598 47 43 412 19803

Kirsten McCaffery publications per year

The chart shows the history of publications by Kirsten McCaffery between 2000 and 2021, highlighting the no. of papers published in each year and offering an overview of the publication velocity of this scholar. Kirsten McCaffery published across 22 years, from 2000 to 2021, averaging 17.7 papers a year. Output peaked at 72 publications in 2021. 108 of the 390 publications appeared in the last two years.

No. of publications
20 40 60
Bar chart. Horizontal axis: year, 2000 to 2021. Vertical axis: number of publications, 0 to 72. Peak 72 publications in 2021. 2000: 2 publications 2001: 1 publication 2002: 2 publications 2003: 8 publications 2004: 11 publications 2005: 2 publications 2006: 3 publications 2007: 6 publications 2008: 9 publications 2009: 8 publications 2010: 13 publications 2011: 13 publications 2012: 14 publications 2013: 20 publications 2014: 15 publications 2015: 21 publications 2016: 23 publications 2017: 27 publications 2018: 34 publications 2019: 50 publications 2020: 36 publications 2021: 72 publications
2000 2021

390 publications in total across all disciplines

View publications per year as a table
Kirsten McCaffery: publications per year, 2000 to 2021
Year Publications
2000 2
2001 1
2002 2
2003 8
2004 11
2005 2
2006 3
2007 6
2008 9
2009 8
2010 13
2011 13
2012 14
2013 20
2014 15
2015 21
2016 23
2017 27
2018 34
2019 50
2020 36
2021 72
Total 390
Download as CSV

Kirsten McCaffery 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 Kirsten McCaffery 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, 404–413 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: 412 publications — 96th percentile

96% 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
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 30 412
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

Kirsten McCaffery 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 Kirsten McCaffery 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, 72 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: 72 D-Index — 92nd percentile

92% 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
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 72
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

Research.com Recognitions

  • 2020 - Fellow of the Australian Academy of Health and Medical Science

Overview

What is she best known for?

The fields of study she is best known for:

  • Internal medicine
  • Cancer
  • Disease

The scientist’s investigation covers issues in Family medicine, Gynecology, Cervical cancer, Cervical screening and Mass screening. Her Family medicine study integrates concerns from other disciplines, such as Breast cancer, Clinical trial, Physical therapy and Health education. Her research integrates issues of Cancer and Demography in her study of Gynecology.

The Cervical cancer study combines topics in areas such as Vaccination, Public health and Human papillomavirus. Her Cervical screening study combines topics in areas such as Psychosocial, Papillomaviridae, HPV infection and Sexually transmitted disease. In her study, which falls under the umbrella issue of Psychosocial, Colposcopy and Randomized controlled trial is strongly linked to Anxiety.

Her most cited work include:

  • Supporting Patient Autonomy: The Importance of Clinician-patient Relationships (256 citations)
  • Exploring patient involvement in healthcare decision making across different education and functional health literacy groups. (235 citations)
  • Management of asthma in pregnancy guided by measurement of fraction of exhaled nitric oxide: a double-blind, randomised controlled trial. (223 citations)

What are the main themes of her work throughout her whole career to date?

Her scientific interests lie mostly in Family medicine, Health literacy, Overdiagnosis, Medical education and Psychological intervention. Her Family medicine research is multidisciplinary, incorporating elements of Cancer screening, Cervical screening, Cervical cancer, Randomized controlled trial and Gynecology. Her studies deal with areas such as Physical therapy, Clinical trial and Anxiety as well as Randomized controlled trial.

Her Gynecology research includes elements of Young adult, Genital warts, Mass screening and Vaccination. Her Health literacy course of study focuses on Literacy and Patient participation and Health education. The concepts of her Overdiagnosis study are interwoven with issues in Breast cancer, Breast cancer screening, Disease and Harm.

She most often published in these fields:

  • Family medicine (34.40%)
  • Health literacy (22.74%)
  • Overdiagnosis (14.29%)

What were the highlights of her more recent work (between 2019-2021)?

  • Family medicine (34.40%)
  • Health literacy (22.74%)
  • Public health (10.50%)

In recent papers she was focusing on the following fields of study:

Her main research concerns Family medicine, Health literacy, Public health, Psychological intervention and Medical education. Her Family medicine research is multidisciplinary, incorporating perspectives in Test, Cancer screening, Randomized controlled trial, Anxiety and Overdiagnosis. The Health literacy study combines topics in areas such as Intervention, Gerontology and Developmental psychology.

Her work deals with themes such as Vaccination and Hygiene, which intersect with Public health. In her work, Pain medicine, Physical therapy, Emergency department, Research design and Mass screening is strongly intertwined with Quality of life, which is a subfield of Psychological intervention. Her Medical education study incorporates themes from PsycINFO, Sample, Literacy and Critical appraisal.

Between 2019 and 2021, her most popular works were:

  • Willingness to vaccinate against COVID-19 in Australia. (55 citations)
  • Health literacy and disparities in COVID-19-related knowledge, attitudes, beliefs and behaviours in Australia. (15 citations)
  • Concerns and motivations about COVID-19 vaccination. (13 citations)

In her most recent research, the most cited papers focused on:

  • Internal medicine
  • Cancer
  • Disease

Public health, Anxiety, Pandemic, Family medicine and Government are her primary areas of study. Her study in Anxiety is interdisciplinary in nature, drawing from both Test, Mental health, Preventive healthcare and Cervical screening. Her research integrates issues of Information Dissemination, Overdiagnosis, Randomized controlled trial and Geriatrics in her study of Preventive healthcare.

Her Cervical screening course of study focuses on Health professionals and Cancer screening. Her Family medicine study combines topics from a wide range of disciplines, such as Psychological intervention and Apprehension. Her Psychological intervention research is multidisciplinary, relying on both Response rate, Clinical trial and Hygiene.

Best Publications

  • Supporting Patient Autonomy: The Importance of Clinician-patient Relationships

    Vikki A. Entwistle;Stacy M. Carter;Alan Cribb;Kirsten McCaffery

  • Exploring patient involvement in healthcare decision making across different education and functional health literacy groups.

    Sian K. Smith;Ann Dixon;Lyndal Trevena;Donald Nutbeam

  • Physician-patient-companion communication and decision-making: a systematic review of triadic medical consultations.

    R.C. Laidsaar-Powell;P.N. Butow;S. Bu;C. Charles

  • Shared decision making: What do clinicians need to know and why should they bother?

    Tammy C Hoffmann;Tammy C Hoffmann;Magenta B Simmons;Kevin McNamara

  • Management of asthma in pregnancy guided by measurement of fraction of exhaled nitric oxide: a double-blind, randomised controlled trial.

    Heather Powell;Heather Powell;Vanessa E Murphy;D Robin Taylor;Michael J Hensley;Michael J Hensley

  • Assessing the value of diagnostic tests: a framework for designing and evaluating trials

    Lavinia Ferrante di Ruffano;Christopher J Hyde;Kirsten J McCaffery;Patrick M M Bossuyt

  • Psychological Wellbeing and Academic Experience of University Students in Australia during COVID-19.

    Rachael H. Dodd;Kevin Dadaczynski;Orkan Okan;Kirsten J. McCaffery

  • Social and psychological impact of HPV testing in cervical screening: a qualitative study

    Kirsten McCaffery;J. Waller;J. Nazroo;J. Wardle

  • Knowledge, attitudes, and behavioral intentions in relation to the early detection of colorectal cancer in the United Kingdom

    Kirsten McCaffery;Jane Wardle;J.o Waller

  • Use of a decision aid including information on overdetection to support informed choice about breast cancer screening: a randomised controlled trial

    Jolyn Hersch;Alexandra Barratt;Jesse Jansen;Les Irwig

  • Too much medicine in older people? Deprescribing through shared decision making

    Jesse Jansen;Vasi Naganathan;Stacy L Carter;Andrew J McLachlan

  • Addressing health literacy in patient decision aids

    Kirsten J. McCaffery;Margaret Holmes-Rovner;Sian K. Smith;David R. Rovner

  • A decision aid to support informed choices about bowel cancer screening among adults with low education: randomised controlled trial

    Sian K. Smith;Lyndal Trevena;Judy M. Simpson;Alexandra Barratt

  • Testing positive for human papillomavirus in routine cervical screening: examination of psychosocial impact

    Kirsten McCaffery;Jo Waller;Sue Forrest;Louise Cadman

  • Validation of a measure of knowledge about human papillomavirus (HPV) using item response theory and classical test theory

    Jo Waller;Remo Ostini;Laura A.V. Marlow;Kirsten McCaffery

  • People's Experiences and Satisfaction With Telehealth During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Australia: Cross-Sectional Survey Study.

    Jennifer M.J. Isautier;Tessa Copp;Julie Ayre;Erin Cvejic

  • Knowledge of human papillomavirus (HPV) and HPV vaccination: an international comparison.

    Laura A.V. Marlow;Gregory D. Zimet;Kirsten J. McCaffery;Remo Ostini

  • Attitudes towards HPV testing: a qualitative study of beliefs among Indian, Pakistani, African-Caribbean and white British women in the UK.

    K McCaffery;S Forrest;J Waller;Mina Desai

  • Women's views on overdiagnosis in breast cancer screening: a qualitative study.

    Jolyn Hersch;Jesse Jansen;Alexandra Barratt;Les Irwig

  • Awareness of human papillomavirus among women attending a well woman clinic.

    J Waller;K McCaffery;S Forrest;A Szarewski

  • Psychosocial influences on older adults' interest in participating in bowel cancer screening.

    Jane Wardle;Stephen Sutton;Sara Williamson;Tamara Taylor

Frequent Co-Authors

Les Irwig
Les Irwig University of Sydney
Lyndal Trevena
Lyndal Trevena University of Sydney
Don Nutbeam
Don Nutbeam University of Sydney
Jane Wardle
Jane Wardle University College London
Paul Glasziou
Paul Glasziou Bond University
Jo Waller
Jo Waller King's College London
Parisa Aslani
Parisa Aslani University of Sydney
Stacy M Carter
Stacy M Carter University of Wollongong
Peter G. Gibson
Peter G. Gibson University of Newcastle Australia
Nehmat Houssami
Nehmat Houssami University of Sydney

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 Social Sciences and Humanities degree opens diverse pathways, and online education is making these fields more accessible than ever. One popular choice for working professionals is enrolling in online master's programs, which offer flexible schedules and accelerated completion—ideal for advancing a career without taking a break from work.

For those looking to start or quickly finish their undergraduate studies, accelerated bachelor's degree online programs are an efficient option. These programs condense coursework to help students graduate faster, enter the workforce sooner, or prepare for graduate school.

Social work remains a critical field, and pursuing the most affordable online msw programs ensures a practical, cost-effective route to earning a Master of Social Work—opening doors to meaningful careers in counseling, advocacy, or administration.

Those interested in applied behavioral analysis can explore online bcba masters programs to become Board Certified Behavior Analysts, a role sought after in education, healthcare, and human services. The online format allows for balancing professional responsibilities while building specialized expertise.

Best Scientists Citing Kirsten McCaffery

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles