Rosemary Field

559 total citations
20 papers, 418 citations indexed

About

Rosemary Field is a scholar working on General Health Professions, Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health and Oncology. According to data from OpenAlex, Rosemary Field has authored 20 papers receiving a total of 418 indexed citations (citations by other indexed papers that have themselves been cited), including 14 papers in General Health Professions, 8 papers in Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health and 5 papers in Oncology. Recurrent topics in Rosemary Field's work include Global Cancer Incidence and Screening (4 papers), Patient Dignity and Privacy (4 papers) and Ethics in medical practice (4 papers). Rosemary Field is often cited by papers focused on Global Cancer Incidence and Screening (4 papers), Patient Dignity and Privacy (4 papers) and Ethics in medical practice (4 papers). Rosemary Field collaborates with scholars based in United States, United Kingdom and India. Rosemary Field's co-authors include Michael West, Kathleen H. Mooney, Georgina Morley, Christian N. Burchill, Kathryn L. McCance, Ken R. Smith, Patricia Berry, Susan L. Beck, Gail L. Towsley and Lee Ellington and has published in prestigious journals such as The Lancet, American Journal of Preventive Medicine and Journal of Advanced Nursing.

In The Last Decade

Rosemary Field

18 papers receiving 390 citations

Author Peers

Peers are selected by citation overlap in the author's most active subfields. citations · hero ref

Author						Papers	Cites
Rosemary Field	242	162	89	50	47	20	418
Lara Carson Weinstein	234 1.0×	110 0.7×	49 0.6×	9 0.2×	37 0.8×	34	477
J. R. Williams	125 0.5×	149 0.9×	29 0.3×	16 0.3×	36 0.8×	21	414
Morhaf Al Achkar	125 0.5×	176 1.1×	52 0.6×	19 0.4×	31 0.7×	41	367
Shalini Patel	109 0.5×	135 0.8×	88 1.0×	4 0.1×	53 1.1×	28	388
Alaina L. Carr	54 0.2×	94 0.6×	77 0.9×	18 0.4×	56 1.2×	24	283
Julia van Weert	236 1.0×	104 0.6×	70 0.8×	4 0.1×	30 0.6×	22	363
Gina Johnson	58 0.2×	148 0.9×	39 0.4×	5 0.1×	33 0.7×	28	357
Leslie Rittenmeyer	262 1.1×	204 1.3×	32 0.4×	8 0.2×	30 0.6×	25	438
Cora Hinds	153 0.6×	177 1.1×	97 1.1×	12 0.2×	87 1.9×	7	376
Kari Sand	164 0.7×	227 1.4×	83 0.9×	4 0.1×	65 1.4×	26	427

Countries citing papers authored by Rosemary Field

Since Specialization

Citations

This map shows the geographic impact of Rosemary Field'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 Rosemary Field with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Rosemary Field more than expected).

Fields of papers citing papers by Rosemary Field

Since Specialization

Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

This network shows the impact of papers produced by Rosemary Field. 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 Rosemary Field. The network helps show where Rosemary Field may publish in the future.

Co-authorship network of co-authors of Rosemary Field

This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Rosemary Field. A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Rosemary Field based on the total number of citations received by their joint publications. Widths of edges represent the number of papers authors have co-authored together. Node borders signify the number of papers an author published with Rosemary Field. Rosemary Field is excluded from the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.

All Works

Sort: Min cites: Since: Top N: Style:

20 of 20 papers shown

Morley, Georgina & Rosemary Field. (2025). The Moral Distress Model Revisited: Integrating Nurses’ Experiences in the United States and United Kingdom. The Journal of Clinical Ethics. 36(2). 132–151. 1 indexed citations

Morley, Georgina, et al.. (2024). “Moral spaces”: A feasibility study to build nurses’ ethical confidence and competence. Nursing Ethics. 32(3). 782–797.

Morley, Georgina, et al.. (2023). A divided community: A descriptive qualitative study of the impact of the COVID ‐19 pandemic on nurses and their relationships. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 79(12). 4635–4647.

Morley, Georgina, et al.. (2022). RESPONDER: A qualitative study of ethical issues faced by critical care nurses during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Journal of Nursing Management. 30(7). 2403–2415. 10 indexed citations

Morley, Georgina, et al.. (2021). Interventions to mitigate moral distress: A systematic review of the literature. International Journal of Nursing Studies. 121. 103984–103984. 78 indexed citations

Field, Rosemary. (2018). Books: The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: 27 Psychiatrists and Mental Health Experts Assess a President. British Journal of General Practice. 68(675). 490.1–490. 8 indexed citations

Field, Rosemary. (2018). Professional ethics, mental health and dangerous decisions – reducing the risk of dangerousness in world leaders. Medicine Conflict & Survival. 34(1). 13–18. 1 indexed citations

Bena, James, et al.. (2017). Value of, Attitudes Toward, and Implementation of Evidence-Based Practices Based on Use of Self-Study Learning Modules. The Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing. 48(5). 209–216. 5 indexed citations

Nutter, Benjamin, et al.. (2016). Validation of Predictors of Fall Events in Hospitalized Patients With Cancer. Clinical journal of oncology nursing. 20(5). E126–E131. 5 indexed citations

10.

Beck, Susan L., et al.. (2009). Core Aspects of Satisfaction with Pain Management: Cancer Patients' Perspectives. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management. 39(1). 100–115. 76 indexed citations

11.

Humphrey, Charlotte, et al.. (2007). Clarifying concerns about doctors' clinical performance. Journal of Health Organization and Management. 21(3). 333–343. 6 indexed citations

12.

Ellington, Lee, et al.. (2005). Factors that influence Spanish‐ and English‐speaking participants' decision to enroll in cancer randomized clinical trials. Psycho-Oncology. 15(4). 273–284. 50 indexed citations

13.

Field, Rosemary, et al.. (2004). Medicine in the UK after Shipman: Has “all changed, changed utterly”?. The Lancet. 364. 40–41. 2 indexed citations

14.

Hutchinson, Allen, et al.. (2003). Developing primary care review criteria from evidence-based guidelines: coronary heart disease as a model.. PubMed. 53(494). 690–6. 21 indexed citations

15.

Ellington, Lee, et al.. (2003). Decision-Making Issues for Randomized Clinical Trial Participation among Hispanics. Cancer Control. 10(5_suppl). 84–86. 11 indexed citations

16.

O’Rourke, Alan, Nick J. Fox, & Rosemary Field. (2001). A survey of education and training for clinical governance leads and Caldicott Guardians in primary care in Trent Region. 9(3). 137–142. 1 indexed citations

17.

McCance, Kathryn L., Kathleen H. Mooney, Rosemary Field, & Ken R. Smith. (1996). Influence of others in motivating women to obtain breast cancer screening.. PubMed. 4(3). 141–6. 9 indexed citations

18.

West, Michael & Rosemary Field. (1995). Teamwork in primary health care. 1. Perspectives from organisational psychology. Journal of Interprofessional Care. 9(2). 117–122. 30 indexed citations

19.

Field, Rosemary & Michael West. (1995). Teamwork in primary health care. 2. Perspectives from practices. Journal of Interprofessional Care. 9(2). 123–130. 40 indexed citations

20.

McCance, Kathryn L., Kathleen H. Mooney, Ken R. Smith, & Rosemary Field. (1990). Validity and Reliability of a Breast Cancer Knowledge Test. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 6(2). 93–98. 64 indexed citations

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