The DOI matches its Crossref record; its reference list is not available.
Functions, Utilities and Limitations: A Scoping Study of Decision Support Algorithms in Social Work
Abstract
Purpose This scoping study aims to provide an overview of the functions, utilities and limitations of applying “decision support algorithms” (DSAs) in different social work contexts.Method The study involves searching the Scopus and Web of Science databases, which results in the inclusion of 55 articles in the analysis.Results We find important differences in the functions, utilities and limitations of DSAs according to the choice of data, variables, technology and social work context.Discussion The reviewed literature indicates that social workers are rarely involved in developing DSAs. This seems to result in a limited innovation of DSAs that are capable of stimulating the reflection of social workers and thereby qualifying their decision-making process.Conclusion This study calls for further research on how to enhance interaction between social workers at the street level and system builders and managers at the system level in developing DSAs designed for reflection.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
There is a lack of an updated review capturing research on digital discretion of the past 5 years.
“Firstly, there is a lack of an updated review capturing research of the past 5 years.”
From Research on digital discretion—The subjectification of street‐level work in public administration (2025) · cites this paper as Jacobi & Christensen,2023
Research on digital discretion has been the subject of several other literature or scoping reviews.
“Research on digital discretion has been the subject of several other literature or scoping reviews (e.g., Busch & Henriksen,2018; Jacobi & Christensen,2023; Lindgren etal.,2019; Nordesjö etal.,2022; Peeters etal.,2020; Ylönen,2023).”
From Research on digital discretion—The subjectification of street‐level work in public administration (2025) · cites this paper as Jacobi & Christensen,2023
The reviews conducted in recent years only address a narrow field, primarily policies in social work.
“The reviews conducted in recent years only address a narrow field, primarily policies in social work.”
From Research on digital discretion—The subjectification of street‐level work in public administration (2025) · cites this paper as Jacobi & Christensen,2023
Citations
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 43 · Cited by 30
Research works printed but not linked: 46
- 10.1016/j.chiabu.2021.105059 · DOI
- 10.1080/1364557032000119616 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/padm.12386 · DOI
- 10.37765/ajmc.2021.88580 · DOI
- 10.3233/AIS-130241 · DOI
- 10.1177/0261018310367674 · DOI
- 10.1017/S0047279422000174 · DOI
- 10.1300/J407v09n03_07 · DOI
- Desiere, S., Langenbucher, K. & Struyven, L. (2019). Statistical profiling in public employment services: An international comparison. Social Sciences, 8, 281. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/social-issues-migration-health/statistical-profiling-in-public-employment-services_b5e5f16e-en
- Eskelinen L., 2015, Profilering af ledige. Analyse af profileringsværktøjer i fire lande [Profiling of unemployed: An analysis of tools for profiling in four countries]
- 10.1177/0894439318788314 · DOI
- 10.1093/bjsw/bcv031 · DOI
- 10.1002/car.2547 · DOI
- 10.1080/09503153.2019.1575954 · DOI
- 10.1093/bjsw/bcz157 · DOI
- 10.1007/s10560-020-00733-w · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1080/15228835.2017.1417953 · DOI
- 10.1109/TCSS.2020.3021467 · DOI
- 10.1177/20539517221125163 · DOI
- 10.1080/1369118X.2021.1924827 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.3390/socsci8100281 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1002/ajs4.155 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.telpol.2020.101976 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1007/s10896-019-00074-y · DOI
- Latour B, 1992, Shaping technology/building society: Studies in sociotechnical change, 225
- 10.1080/15433714.2014.914992 · DOI
- Lund C, 2019, Uden for Nummer, 19, 4
- Martinez-Gil J., 2016, Communications in computer and information science: New trends in databases and information systems, 157
- 10.1080/13691457.2022.2063806 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.erap.2009.11.004 · DOI
- 10.1093/swr/29.1.21 · DOI
- Mozzana C, 2019, Historical Social Research, 44, 225
- O’Connell P. J., 2012, Economic and Social Review, 43, 135
- 10.1300/J147v29n04_02 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.dss.2017.04.002 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.knosys.2018.04.007 · DOI
- 10.1086/701439 · DOI
- 10.1080/15228835.2019.1614513 · DOI
- 10.1007/s10115-018-1230-x · DOI
- 10.1002/car.2749 · DOI
- 10.1093/oso/9780198838494.003.0006 · DOI
- 10.1177/2053951717720949 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.104556 · DOI
- Wandner S. A, 2008, Monthly Labor Review, 31, 17
- 10.1177/146801730200200104 · DOI
- 10.1177/0269094214545045 · DOI
Metadata
- Authors
- Jacobi, C. B., & Christensen, M.
- Affiliations
- University College Absalon (DK)
- Corresponding author
- Jacobi, Claus Brygger
- Venue
- Journal of Evidence-Based Social Work
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2022-12-20
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 323-341
- ISSN
- 2640-8066 (ISSN-L)
- 2640-8074
- OpenAlex
- W4313465676
- Cited by
- 30
- References
- 43
- Citations by year
- 2026: 16 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2
- FWCI
- 5.40
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Evidence-Based Social Work (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- article
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Public Administration › Social Work Education and Practice
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › Decision Support System Applications
- Social Sciences › General Social Sciences › Social Sciences and Policies
- Keywords
- decision support algorithm, social work, social work decision-making, algorithmic decision support, social work practice
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
