Natasha Mitchell

55 papers receiving 787 citations

Peers

Natasha Mitchell
Comparison fields: 5 of 123
  • Issues, ethics and legal aspects 77
  • Health Information Management 110
  • Applied Psychology 50
  • General Health Professions 223
  • Clinical Psychology 145
Replace Allison A. Lewinski with:
Allison A. Lewinski United States
Nabeel Al‐Yateem United Arab Emirates
Karen H. Morin United States
Vera Nincic Canada
George Castledine United Kingdom
Heli Hätönen Finland
Jeffrey Borkan United States
Loreto Lancia Italy
Antonio Jesús Ramos‐Morcillo Spain
David Arthur Hong Kong
Natasha Mitchell relative to Allison A. Lewinski United States Allison A. Lewinski's profile →
Citations per field
00.5×12.3×
Allison A. Lewinski · 1×
Citations per year

Countries citing papers authored by Natasha Mitchell

Since Specialization
Citations

This map shows the geographic impact of Natasha Mitchell's research. It shows the number of citations coming from papers published by authors working in each country. You can also color the map by specialization and compare the number of citations received by Natasha Mitchell with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Natasha Mitchell more than expected).

Fields of papers citing papers by Natasha Mitchell

Since Specialization
Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

This network shows the impact of papers produced by Natasha Mitchell. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the papers produced by Natasha Mitchell. The network helps show where Natasha Mitchell may publish in the future.

Co-authors

The 25 scholars most cited alongside Natasha Mitchell, linked wherever they have co-authored with each other. Click a name or a connecting line to browse the papers they share.

Border = papers with Natasha Mitchell Line = papers co-authored together Natasha Mitchell links everyone, so they are left out of the graph.

All Works

20 of 20 papers shown

Showing the 20 most-cited of 69 papers — load more, or switch the sort, to bring in the rest.

#Work
1 200784
2 200968
3 200763
4 201561
5 201753
6 201152
7 200840
8 199825
9 201525
10 200925
11 201024
12 201123
13 200223
14 201222
15 200920
16
A Descriptive Study of Urban School Counseling Programs.
200519
17 202119
18 201915
19 201815
20 201414

About Natasha Mitchell

Natasha Mitchell is a scholar working on Issues, ethics and legal aspects, Health Information Management, Ophthalmology, Small Animals and General Health Professions, having authored 69 papers that have together received 859 indexed citations. Recurring topics across this work include Electronic Health Records Systems (5 papers), Mental Health Treatment and Access (5 papers), Cardiac Health and Mental Health (4 papers), Intraocular Surgery and Lenses (4 papers), Veterinary Orthopedics and Neurology (4 papers), Survey Methodology and Nonresponse (4 papers), Forensic and Genetic Research (3 papers) and Healthcare Systems and Technology (3 papers). The work is most often cited by research in Issues, ethics and legal aspects (77 citations), Health Information Management (110 citations), Applied Psychology (50 citations), General Health Professions (223 citations) and Clinical Psychology (145 citations). Natasha Mitchell has collaborated with scholars based in United Kingdom, United States and Australia. Frequent co-authors include Rebecca Randell, Dawn Dowding, Carl Thompson, David Torgerson, Catherine Hewitt, Julia Bryan, Nicky Cullum, Rebecca Foster, Valerie Lattimer and Cheryl Holcomb‐McCoy. Their work appears in journals such as Trials, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, BMJ Open, Health Technology Assessment and Forensic Science International Genetics.

Rankless uses publication and citation data sourced from OpenAlex, an open and comprehensive bibliographic database. While OpenAlex provides broad and valuable coverage of the global research landscape, it—like all bibliographic datasets—has inherent limitations. These include incomplete records, variations in author disambiguation, differences in journal indexing, and delays in data updates. As a result, some metrics and network relationships displayed in Rankless may not fully capture the entirety of a scholar's output or impact.

Explore authors with similar magnitude of impact

Rankless by CCL
2026