World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!
Award Badge
Social Sciences and Humanities
UK
2026

D-Index & Metrics

Social Sciences and Humanities

D-Index
80
Citations
39315
World Ranking
372
National Ranking
63

Mary Dixon-Woods 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 Mary Dixon-Woods 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: 253 publications — 79th percentile

79% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Mary Dixon-Woods 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 Mary Dixon-Woods 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: 80 D-Index — 95th percentile

95% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Research.com Recognitions

  • 2026 - Research.com Social Sciences and Humanities in United Kingdom Leader Award
  • Fellow of The Academy of Medical Sciences, United Kingdom
  • Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences, United Kingdom
  • Fellow of The Academy of Medical Sciences, United Kingdom
  • Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences, United Kingdom
  • Fellow of The Academy of Medical Sciences, United Kingdom
  • Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences, United Kingdom
  • Fellow of The Academy of Medical Sciences, United Kingdom
  • Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences, United Kingdom

Overview

Mary Dixon-Woods is affiliated with the University of Cambridge in the United Kingdom. Their research spans several interconnected fields with a focus on health professions and medicine, contributing extensively to the understanding and improvement of healthcare systems.

The primary fields of study encompass Health Professions and Medicine. More specifically, their subfields of research include General Health Professions, Economics and Econometrics, Emergency Medical Services, Clinical Psychology, and Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health. These subfields indicate a broad approach to healthcare research, touching on both clinical and systemic aspects.

The main topics of work explored by Mary Dixon-Woods cover areas such as Healthcare Policy and Management, Primary Care and Health Outcomes, Healthcare Cost, Quality, and Practices, COVID-19 and Mental Health, Maternal and Perinatal Health Interventions, Patient Safety and Medication Errors, and the Delphi Technique in Research.

Frequent publication venues for their work include:

  • BMJ
  • BMJ Open
  • BMJ Quality & Safety
  • Apollo (University of Cambridge)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)

Some recent papers authored or co-authored by Mary Dixon-Woods are:

  • A qualitative study of experiences of NHS mental healthcare workers during the Covid-19 pandemic (2021, BMC Psychiatry)
  • Remote care for mental health: qualitative study with service users, carers and staff during the COVID-19 pandemic (2021, BMJ Open)
  • A modified Delphi study to identify the features of high quality measurement plans for healthcare improvement projects (2020, BMC Medical Research Methodology)
  • Clinical negligence costs: taking action to safeguard NHS sustainability (2020, BMJ)
  • Seven features of safety in maternity units: a framework based on multisite ethnography and stakeholder consultation (2020, BMJ Quality & Safety)

Frequent collaborators in research include Graham Martin, Tim Draycott, Janet Willars, Akbar Ansari, and Jenni Burt. These collaborations suggest consistent interdisciplinary work and partnerships focused on health services and policy research.

In addition to articles, Mary Dixon-Woods has contributed to academic books, including a publication titled Collaboration-Based Approaches released by Cambridge University Press in 2022.

Mary Dixon-Woods has been recognized as a Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences and the Academy of Medical Sciences in the United Kingdom, distinctions that align with their broad contributions in health and social science research.

Best Publications

  • Better reporting of interventions: Template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide

    Tammy C Hoffmann;Paul P Glasziou;Isabelle Boutron;Ruairidh Milne

  • Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence: A review of possible methods:

    Mary Dixon-Woods;Shona Agarwal;David Jones;Bridget Young

  • Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups

    Mary Dixon-Woods;Debbie Cavers;Shona Agarwal;Ellen Annandale

  • How can systematic reviews incorporate qualitative research? A critical perspective:

    Mary Dixon-Woods;Sheila Bonas;Andrew Booth;David R. Jones

  • The problem of appraising qualitative research

    Mary Dixon-Woods;Rachel L. Shaw;Shona Agarwal;Jonathan A. Smith

  • Demystifying theory and its use in improvement

    Frank Davidoff;Mary Dixon-Woods;Laura C. Leviton;Susan Michie

  • Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence: A review of possible methods

    M Dixon-Woods;S Agarwal;D Jones;A Sutton

  • Explaining Michigan: Developing an Ex Post Theory of a Quality Improvement Program

    Mary Dixon-Woods;Charles L. Bosk;Emma Louise Aveling;Christine A. Goeschel

  • Ten challenges in improving quality in healthcare: lessons from the Health Foundation's programme evaluations and relevant literature.

    Mary Dixon-Woods;Sarah McNicol;Graham Martin

  • Appraising qualitative research for inclusion in systematic reviews: a quantitative and qualitative comparison of three methods

    Mary Dixon-Woods;Alex Sutton;Rachel L. Shaw;Tina Miller

  • Using framework-based synthesis for conducting reviews of qualitative studies

    Mary Dixon-Woods

  • Culture and behaviour in the English National Health Service: overview of lessons from a large multimethod study

    Mary Dixon-Woods;Richard Baker;Kathryn Charles;Jeremy Dawson

  • Reality check for checklists.

    Charles L Bosk;Mary Dixon-Woods;Christine A Goeschel;Peter J Pronovost

  • Reporting of stepped wedge cluster randomised trials: extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement with explanation and elaboration

    Karla Hemming;Monica Taljaard;Monica Taljaard;Joanne E McKenzie;Richard Hooper

  • Including qualitative research in systematic reviews: opportunities and problems

    Mary Dixon-Woods;Ray Fitzpatrick;Karen Roberts

  • Integrative approaches to qualitative and quantitative evidence

    Mary Dixon-Woods;Shona Agarwal;Bridget Young;David Jones

  • Parenting in a crisis: conceptualising mothers of children with cancer

    Bridget Young;Mary Dixon-Woods;Michelle Findlay;David Heney

  • Managing communication with young people who have a potentially life threatening chronic illness: qualitative study of patients and parents

    Bridget Young;Mary Dixon-Woods;Kate C Windridge;David Heney

  • The problem with root cause analysis

    Mohammad Farhad Peerally;Susan Carr;Justin Waring;Mary Dixon-Woods

  • The social licence for research: why care.data ran into trouble

    Pam Carter;Graeme T Laurie;Mary Dixon-Woods

  • Finding qualitative research: an evaluation of search strategies

    Rachel L Shaw;Andrew Booth;Alex J Sutton;Tina Miller

  • How to study improvement interventions: a brief overview of possible study types.

    Margareth Crisóstomo Portela;Peter J Pronovost;Thomas Woodcock;Pam Carter

Frequent Co-Authors

Graham P. Martin
Graham P. Martin University of Cambridge
Bridget Young
Bridget Young University of Liverpool
Peter J. Pronovost
Peter J. Pronovost Case Western Reserve University
Richard J. Lilford
Richard J. Lilford University of Birmingham
David R. Jones
David R. Jones Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center
Richard Ashcroft
Richard Ashcroft Queen Mary University of London
Kathy Pritchard-Jones
Kathy Pritchard-Jones University College London
Ray Fitzpatrick
Ray Fitzpatrick University of Oxford
Rafael Perera
Rafael Perera University of Oxford
Marie Johnston
Marie Johnston University of Aberdeen

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 the door to a variety of fulfilling online degrees and career options. Many students are drawn to the flexibility and accessibility of psy d programs, which prepare graduates for advanced roles in clinical psychology and mental health services. These programs are ideal for those who want to make a significant impact in their communities while advancing their education from home.

For those interested in relationship counseling or therapy, flexible marriage and family therapy programs online offer pathways to licensure and professional practice. These programs often cater to working adults seeking to change or advance their careers quickly.

Affordability is another important consideration. The best online masters in psychology combine rigorous academics with accessible tuition rates, enabling more students to pursue graduate training without incurring significant debt.

Aspiring educational leaders can find opportunities through edd programs online, offering fast-track options to help professionals quickly move into advanced roles in education administration or policy.

As demand grows for flexible, high-quality learning, these online pathways make it easier to balance studies with work and personal commitments, supporting a diverse range of career outcomes in the social sciences and humanities.

Best Scientists Citing Mary Dixon-Woods

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles