Thomas Foth

31 papers receiving 745 citations

Thomas Foth's Hit Papers

The Use of the Delphi and Other Consensus Group Methods in Medical Education Research: A Review 2017 · 383 citations
3830+3+6Years since publication100200300

Peers

Thomas Foth
Comparison fields: 5 of 120
  • Research and Theory 18
  • Issues, ethics and legal aspects 14
  • Family Practice 10
  • General Health Professions 127
  • Health Informatics 7
Replace John Tingle with:
John Tingle United Kingdom
Jacqueline Pich Australia
Tom Andrews Ireland
Abukari Kwame Canada
Kirsten Frederiksen Denmark
Sara Bayes Australia
C. Johnman United Kingdom
Lisa Kennedy Sheldon United States
Peter Pype Belgium
Jacqui Allen Australia
Thomas Foth relative to John Tingle United Kingdom John Tingle's profile →
Citations per field
00.5×
John Tingle · 1×
Citations per year

Countries citing papers authored by Thomas Foth

Since Specialization
Citations

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

Fields of papers citing papers by Thomas Foth

Since Specialization
Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

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

Co-authors

The 24 scholars most cited alongside Thomas Foth, 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 Thomas Foth Line = papers co-authored together Thomas Foth links everyone, so they are left out of the graph.

All Works

20 of 20 papers shown

Showing the 20 most-cited of 33 papers — load more, or switch the sort, to bring in the rest.

#Work
1
The Use of the Delphi and Other Consensus Group Methods in Medical Education Research: A Review
Hit paper breakdown →
2017383
2 2016147
3 201639
4 201819
5 202116
6
Radical Sex Between Men : Assembling Desiring-Machines
201716
7 201212
8 201311
9 201311
10 202410
11 201610
12 201310
13 20159
14 20226
15 20216
16 20216
17 20185
18 20214
19 20224
20 20224

About Thomas Foth

Thomas Foth is a scholar working on Sociology and Political Science, General Health Professions, Clinical Psychology, History and Political Science and International Relations, having authored 33 papers that have together received 755 indexed citations. Recurring topics across this work include Criminal Justice and Corrections Analysis (5 papers), Historical Psychiatry and Medical Practices (4 papers), Medical History and Research (3 papers), Delphi Technique in Research (3 papers), Ethics in medical practice (3 papers), Foucault, Power, and Ethics (3 papers), HIV, Drug Use, Sexual Risk (3 papers) and Healthcare Decision-Making and Restraints (3 papers). The work is most often cited by research in Research and Theory (18 citations), Issues, ethics and legal aspects (14 citations), Family Practice (10 citations), General Health Professions (127 citations) and Health Informatics (7 citations). Thomas Foth has collaborated with scholars based in Canada, United States and Germany. Frequent co-authors include Lee‐Anne Ufholz, Susan Humphrey‐Murto, Carol Gonsalves, Timothy J. Wood, Lara Varpio, Carol Wang, Dave Holmes, Nikolaos Efstathiou, Brandi Vanderspank‐Wright and Kylie Smith. Their work appears in journals such as Nursing Philosophy, Nursing Inquiry, Academic Medicine, International Journal of Nursing Studies and Journal of Forensic Nursing.

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