Pickleball Participation and the Health and Well-Being of Adults—A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pickleball has grown tremendously in recent years, yet little evidence exists regarding pickleball-related injuries. This scoping review extends current work on pickleball participation by identifying positive and negative health effects associated with the sport. We summarize how pickleball impacts the health and well-being of adult participants. METHODS: Searches were conducted on MEDLINE, CINAHL, ProQuest Nursing, ERIC, SPORTDiscus, PsycINFO, Scopus, CBCA Complete, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. Selected studies considered aspects of health and/or well-being of adult pickleball participants. Using the population/concept/context framework, participants were healthy, able-bodied adults 18 years of age or over, who had played pickleball at least once. The positive and negative outcomes of pickleball on participants' health and well-being (concept) within the context of pickleball participation were examined. Full-text articles written in English since 2013 were included. Extracted data were tabulated, and a descriptive summary with thematic analysis was completed. RESULTS: This scoping review comprised 27 articles that met the inclusion criteria. Pickleball is promising as an exercise intervention for all adults, and there is evidence of positive social and psychological effects, and health and fitness benefits to participating in pickleball by older adults. CONCLUSIONS: Although we are still in the early stages of studying pickleball, there have been some documented health benefits of using the sport as a physical exercise intervention for adults. More research is needed on the types, prevalence, and severity of pickleball injuries and the sport's impact on younger players.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".