World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Medicine

D-Index
94
Citations
94637
World Ranking
10222
National Ranking
313

Richard H. Osborne 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 Richard H. Osborne 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: 610 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: 446 publications — 48th percentile

48% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Richard H. Osborne 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 Richard H. Osborne 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: 399 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: 94 D-Index — 49th percentile

49% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Overview

Richard H. Osborne is affiliated with Swinburne University of Technology in Australia. Their research predominantly focuses on health professions, with substantial contributions in general health professions as well as fields such as epidemiology, health, organizational behavior and human resource management, and education.

Their scholarly work covers a range of topics, with notable emphasis on health literacy and information accessibility. Other significant research areas include mobile health and mHealth applications, social media in health education, global public health policies and epidemiology, breastfeeding practices and influences, health education and validation, and patient-provider communication in healthcare.

Osborne has published frequently in various respected journals. Some of the prominent publication venues include:

  • European Journal of Public Health
  • BMJ Open
  • Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases
  • International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
  • Journal of Medical Internet Research

Their recent papers illustrate engagement with global public health issues and health literacy development. Key publications include:

  • The COVID-19 vaccines rush: participatory community engagement matters more than ever, 2020, The Lancet
  • Applying the Electronic Health Literacy Lens: Systematic Review of Electronic Health Interventions Targeted at Socially Disadvantaged Groups, 2020, Journal of Medical Internet Research
  • Translation method is validity evidence for construct equivalence: analysis of secondary data routinely collected during translations of the Health Literacy Questionnaire (HLQ), 2020, BMC Medical Research Methodology
  • Health literacy development is central to the prevention and control of non-communicable diseases, 2022, BMJ Global Health
  • School-Based Health Literacy Programs for Children (2-16 Years): An International Review, 2021, Journal of School Health

Frequent collaborators in Osborne's research include Mélanie Hawkins, Christina Cheng, Shandell Elmer, Gerald R. Elsworth, and Sónia Dias. These coauthors have contributed repeatedly to advancing topics related to health literacy and public health challenges.

Best Publications

  • Global and regional mortality from 235 causes of death for 20 age groups in 1990 and 2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010

    Rafael Lozano;Mohsen Naghavi;Kyle Foreman;Stephen Lim

  • Disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) for 291 diseases and injuries in 21 regions, 1990-2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010

    Christopher J.L. Murray;Theo Vos;Rafael Lozano;Mohsen Naghavi

  • A comparative risk assessment of burden of disease and injury attributable to 67 risk factors and risk factor clusters in 21 regions, 1990-2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010

    Stephen S. Lim;Theo Vos;Abraham D. Flaxman;Goodarz Danaei

  • Years lived with disability (YLDs) for 1160 sequelae of 289 diseases and injuries 1990-2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010

    Theo Vos;Abraham D. Flaxman;Mohsen Naghavi;Rafael Lozano

  • Global, regional, and national disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) for 333 diseases and injuries and healthy life expectancy (HALE) for 195 countries and territories, 1990–2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016

    Simon I Hay;Amanuel Alemu Abajobir;Kalkidan Hassen Abate;Cristiana Abbafati

  • The global burden of hip and knee osteoarthritis: estimates from the Global Burden of Disease 2010 study

    Marita Cross;Emma Smith;Damian G Hoy;Sandra Nolte

  • Global, regional, and national disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) for 333 diseases and injuries and healthy life expectancy (HALE) for 195 countries and territories, 1990-2016

    Simon I. Hay;Amanuel Alemu Abajobir;Kalkidan Hassen Abate;Cristiana Abbafati

  • A Randomized Trial of Vertebroplasty for Painful Osteoporotic Vertebral Fractures

    Rachelle Buchbinder;Richard Harry Osborne;Peter Robert Ebeling;John D Wark

  • Common values in assessing health outcomes from disease and injury: disability weights measurement study for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010.

    Joshua A. Salomon;Theo Vos;Daniel R. Hogan;Michael Gagnon

  • The grounded psychometric development and initial validation of the Health Literacy Questionnaire (HLQ)

    Richard H Osborne;Roy W Batterham;Gerald R Elsworth;Melanie Hawkins

  • Measuring health literacy in populations: illuminating the design and development process of the European Health Literacy Survey Questionnaire (HLS-EU-Q)

    Kristine Sorensen;Stephan van den Broucke;Juergen M. Pelikan;James Fullam

  • The Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) instrument: a psychometric measure of Health-Related Quality of Life

    Graeme Hawthorne;Jeff Richardson;Richard Harry Osborne

  • Measuring the health-related Sustainable Development Goals in 188 countries: a baseline analysis from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015

    Stephen S Lim;Kate Allen;Zulfiqar A Bhutta;Zulfiqar A Bhutta;Lalit Dandona;Lalit Dandona

  • The Health Education Impact Questionnaire (heiQ): an outcomes and evaluation measure for patient education and self-management interventions for people with chronic conditions.

    Richard H. Osborne;Gerald R. Elsworth;Kathryn Whitfield

  • Healthcare Access and Quality Index based on mortality from causes amenable to personal health care in 195 countries and territories, 1990-2015: a novel analysis from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015

    Ryan M Barber;Nancy Fullman;Reed J D Sorensen;Thomas Bollyky

  • Evidence for tumour necrosis factor/cachectin production in cancer.

    Frances Balkwill;Frances Burke;Denis Talbot;Jan Tavernier

  • Morphine and metabolite behavior after different routes of morphine administration: demonstration of the importance of the active metabolite morphine-6-glucuronide.

    Richard Osborne;Simon Joel;Duncan Trew;Maurice Slevin

  • Health literacy: applying current concepts to improve health services and reduce health inequalities.

    R.W. Batterham;M. Hawkins;P.A. Collins;R. Buchbinder

  • Critical appraisal of health literacy indices revealed variable underlying constructs, narrow content and psychometric weaknesses

    Joanne Jordan;Richard Harry Osborne;Richard Harry Osborne;Rachelle Buchbinder

  • Common values in assessing health outcomes from disease and injury: Disability weights measurement study for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010

    J.A. Salomon;T. Vos;D.R. Hogan;M. Gagnon

Frequent Co-Authors

Rachelle Buchbinder
Rachelle Buchbinder Monash University
Kim L. Bennell
Kim L. Bennell University of Melbourne
Lyn March
Lyn March University of Sydney
Theo Vos
Theo Vos Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation
Anthony D. Woolf
Anthony D. Woolf Royal Cornwall Hospital
Ian P. Wicks
Ian P. Wicks Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research
Hermann Faller
Hermann Faller University of Würzburg
Christopher J L Murray
Christopher J L Murray University of Washington
Robert G. Weintraub
Robert G. Weintraub Royal Children's Hospital
Alan D. Lopez
Alan D. Lopez University of Melbourne

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

For those looking beyond traditional medical degrees, diverse online pathways in healthcare can provide greater flexibility and accessibility. Many students seek out the cheapest bsn programs to advance their nursing credentials without incurring heavy debt, making online RN to BSN tracks especially attractive.

Career changers and non-nurses may benefit from exploring direct entry online msn programs, which offer a fast track to a master's level nursing degree, even without prior nursing experience.

Concerned about entry requirements? If you’re evaluating your options and looking for whats the easiest nursing program to get into?, there are schools that are welcoming to applicants with varied academic backgrounds, further expanding your choices.

For those interested in administrative roles, you can find accredited medical billing and coding schools with financial aid to start a rewarding career with strong job prospects—all from the comfort of your home.

Best Scientists Citing Richard H. Osborne

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles