Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2024 Jul 15;19(7):e0307182. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0307182

Impact of pole dancing on mental wellbeing and sexual self-concept: Protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

Xizi Li 1, Jianyu Shen 2, Kai Cui 3, Ying Wang 1,*
Editor: Adetayo Olorunlana4
PMCID: PMC11249261  PMID: 39008508

Abstract

Background

Despite the recognized psychological benefits of traditional dance forms, the impact of newer forms, such as pole dancing, on mental well-being and sexual self-concept remains underexplored. This protocol outlines a systematic review and meta-analysis aimed at elucidating the effects of pole dancing, a burgeoning non-pharmacological intervention, on these dimensions of mental health.

Methods

This systematic review was registered in the PROSPERO. We will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis Protocol to accomplish the systematic review protocol. This review will systematically search electronic databases, including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Medline, and CNKI, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the impact of pole dancing on mental well-being and sexual self-concept. Two independent evaluators will screen the literature, extract data, and evaluate study quality and bias. Data synthesis will utilize Stata 14.0 and Revman 5.4, employing random-effects models. The Grading of Recommendations, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system will appraise evidence reliability, with subgroup analysis exploring heterogeneity sources. Publication bias will be assessed through funnel plots and Egger’s regression tests.

Discussion

This review aims to fill the gap in the current literature by providing a comprehensive evaluation of pole dancing’s psychological effects. It is anticipated that this systematic review and meta-analysis will offer valuable insights for health policy and practice, advocating for the inclusion of pole dancing in mental health and sexual well-being interventions.

Trial registration

Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42024529369.

Introduction

The influence of dance extends far beyond mere physical health, permeating various facets of psychological well-being. Evidence robustly suggests that dance not only bolsters mental functioning, self-confidence, and self-esteem but also diminishes feelings of isolation [1, 2]. Furthermore, it positively affects stress levels, psychological capital, and self-concept, particularly noted among students with artistic inclinations [3]. The contribution of dance to psychological well-being is manifold, evidenced by reductions in anxiety, boosts in self-esteem, and mood enhancement [4]. Its beneficial impacts are universally acknowledged, aiding emotional and physical health across diverse groups, including individuals with intellectual disabilities, older adults, and migrant pupils [5, 6].

While extant research on dance therapy has predominantly concentrated on traditional and expressionistic dance forms, exploring contemporary dance genres, particularly those with distinct techniques, remains sparse. Among these, pole dancing emerges as a compelling subject of study. Initially perceived as an activity confined to strip clubs, pole dancing has transcended its origins to be recognized as both a reputable form of fitness and an expressive art form. This evolution is reflected in the practice’s demands for considerable strength, flexibility, and coordination, enhancing physical fitness and promoting profound body awareness [7].

Emerging research underscores the potential of pole dancing to foster significant psychological benefits, including enhanced self-confidence, self-esteem, the fostering of relationships, and a reinforced sense of belonging—each a cornerstone of resilience and mental wellbeing [8, 9]. Specifically, pole dancing has been linked to reductions in depression and anxiety, increases in positive affect, self-esteem, and self-efficacy, and reductions in negative affect and loneliness [10, 11]. Furthermore, it challenges entrenched gender norms, offering a space for the exploration and redefinition of masculinity and sexuality, particularly noted in the participation of men in pole dancing activities, which may counter traditional hetero masculine norms [12].

The intricate relationship between sexual self-concept and mental health has been explored across various contexts, including among individuals with physical-motor disabilities and within the dynamics of marital burnout, suggesting the integral role of sexual self-concept in overall well-being and interpersonal relations [13, 14]. Pole dancing empowers participants to embrace their bodies, express individuality through movement, and challenge societal norms and stereotypes, fostering self-acceptance and body celebration [15, 16]. It offers a unique lens through which the implications of sexual self-concept discrepancies on mental health can be examined, especially among young black women [17].

Pole dancing has been shown to cultivate positive body image experiences by developing physical skills that promote body acceptance, self-confidence, personal growth, and body appreciation, culminating in empowerment and a positive self-image [18]. The exploration of pole dancing’s impact on mental well-being and sexual self-concept reveals its capacity to positively influence psychosexual development and overall mental health [19]. Despite the availability of some studies on the subject, a systematic review and meta-analysis consolidating the effects of pole dancing on mental well-being and sexual self-concept remains absent. This review aims to fill that gap, considering how age, gender ratio, pole dancing style, participant dropout rates, measurement tools, and geographical context may affect pole dancing’s efficacy. The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis hold the promise of offering significant insights into improving mental well-being and addressing issues related to sexual self-concept.

Methods

Protocol and registration

This study is registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews, PROSPERO, under CRD42024529369. To ensure the rigor and transparency of our systematic review, we adhere to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols (PRISMA-P) guidelines [20]. Given that our research entails synthesizing existing primary data rather than collecting new primary data, it does not necessitate ethical approval. This approach underscores our commitment to conducting a systematic review that meets the highest methodological integrity and ethical consideration standards.

Data sources and search strategies

To comprehensively capture the scope of research on pole dancing’s impact on mental well-being and sexual self-concept, a meticulous literature search will be conducted across five electronic databases: Web of Science, Embase, PubMed, Medline, and the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI). The search will span the entirety of the available records in each database up to March 2024, ensuring a wide and contemporary range of literature is reviewed. Team members XL and KC have meticulously designed the search strategies to encompass all relevant terms and their variations in English: "mental well-being", "mental health", "mood states", "sexual self-efficacy", "sexual anxiety", "sexual motivation", "sexual consciousness", "self-esteem", "body appreciation", "body image appreciation", "positive body image", and "pole danc*". These terms are adjusted for equivalent searches within Chinese-language databases to ensure comprehensive global coverage. Please refer to Table 1 for details. The compilation of search results will be managed using Endnote X9 software, with a systematic approach for identifying and removing duplicates based on authorship, title, and publication date details to refine the final literature for review.

Table 1. Search strategy.

Databases Search strategies
Web of Science #1: ((((((((((TS = (“mental wellbeing”)) OR TS = (“mental health”)) OR TS = (“mood states”)) OR TS = (“sexual self-efficacy”)) OR TS = (“sexual anxiety”)) OR TS = (“sexual motivation”)) OR TS = (“sexual consciousness”)) OR TS = (“self-esteem”)) OR TS = (“body appreciation”)) OR TS = (“body image appreciation”)) OR TS = (“positive body image”)
#2: TS = (“pole danc*”)
#3: #1 AND #2
Embase #1: ’mental wellbeing’:ti,ab,kw OR ’mental health’:ti,ab,kw OR ’mood states’:ti,ab,kw OR ’sexual self-efficacy’:ti,ab,kw OR ’sexual anxiety’:ti,ab,kw OR ’sexual motivation’:ti,ab,kw OR ’sexual consciousness’:ti,ab,kw OR ’self esteem’:ti,ab,kw OR ’body appreciation’:ti,ab,kw OR ’body image appreciation’:ti,ab,kw OR ’positive body image’:ti,ab,kw
#2: ’pole danc*’:ti,ab,kw
#3: #1 AND #2
Medline #1: AB “mental wellbeing” OR AB “mental health” OR AB “mood states” OR AB “sexual self-efficacy” OR AB “sexual anxiety” OR AB “sexual motivation” OR AB “sexual consciousness” OR AB “self-esteem” OR AB “body appreciation” OR AB “body image appreciation” OR AB “positive body image”
#2: AB “pole dance*”
#3: #1 AND #2
Pubmed #1: (((((((((("mental wellbeing"[Title/Abstract]) OR ("mental health"[Title/Abstract])) OR ("mood states"[Title/Abstract])) OR ("sexual self-efficacy"[Title/Abstract])) OR ("sexual anxiety"[Title/Abstract])) OR ("sexual motivation"[Title/Abstract])) OR ("sexual consciousness"[Title/Abstract])) OR ("self-esteem"[Title/Abstract])) OR ("body appreciation"[Title/Abstract])) OR ("body image appreciation"[Title/Abstract])) OR ("positive body image"[Title/Abstract])
#2: "pole dance*"[Title/Abstract]
#3: #1 AND #2
CNKI #1: SU = ’性’ or SU = ’健康’ or SU = ’心理’ or SU = ’情绪’ or SU = ’心态’
#2: SU = ’钢管舞’
#3: #1 and #2

Eligibility criteria

Type of study

This systematic review and meta-analysis will rigorously focus on randomized controlled trials (RCTs), providing a robust methodological framework to assess the impact of pole dancing on mental well-being and sexual self-concept.

Types of participants

We impose no restrictions on participant demographics, allowing for a broad inclusivity of populations in the analysis.

Interventions and comparators

The comparative analysis will distinguish between control groups—participants engaging in daily activities—and experimental groups receiving specific pole dancing interventions.

Types of outcome measures

Our primary outcomes of interest are the degrees of mental well-being, and our secondary outcome of interest is the enhancement or alteration of the sexual self-concept. In terms of mental wellbeing, We included studies using scales including the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS) and Ryff Psychological Well-being scale (PWBS-42). For enhancement and alteration of the sexual self-concept, We included studies using scales such as the Multidimensional Sexual Self-Concept Questionnaire (MSSCQ).

Language restriction

Inclusivity extends to the linguistic and publication date criteria, where no restrictions will be applied, facilitating a comprehensive and diverse collection of research findings for analysis.

Study selection and data extraction

The study selection and data extraction process will be meticulously undertaken by two independent reviewers, XL and KC, to ensure the integrity and accuracy of the systematic review. Initially, both reviewers will conduct a preliminary evaluation of all retrieved articles by carefully examining their titles, abstracts, and full texts. Predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria will guide this evaluation to determine each study’s eligibility for inclusion in the review (Fig 1). In instances of disagreement or discrepancy between the two reviewers, a consensus will be sought through discussion. A third reviewer, YW, will be consulted to make a final decision if a resolution cannot be achieved.

Fig 1. Flowchart steps of the systematic review.

Fig 1

Upon determining an article’s eligibility, detailed data extraction will commence. This phase involves the meticulous collection of key study characteristics and findings. Specifically, the following information will be extracted from each eligible study: author’s names, year of publication, country of origin, specific type of pole dancing intervention, total number of participants, gender distribution among participants, dropout rates, participants’ age range, duration of the pole dancing intervention, measurement instruments used, and the average and standard deviation of continuous outcome measures. This comprehensive data extraction is essential for ensuring that the review captures a holistic understanding of the impact of pole dancing on mental well-being and sexual self-concept, facilitating a nuanced analysis and interpretation of the findings.

Methodological quality assessment

To ensure the integrity and validity of our systematic review, the methodological quality of each selected study will undergo a rigorous assessment. This assessment will be conducted by two independent researchers, XL and KC, utilizing the widely recognized Cochrane Collaboration tool for assessing the risk of bias in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) [21]. This tool facilitates a structured evaluation across several domains crucial to the credibility of study findings, categorized into three distinct levels of bias risk: low, unclear, and high.

The specific criteria evaluated will include random sequence generation to assess selection bias, allocation concealment to further evaluate selection bias, blinding of participants and personnel to address performance bias, analysis of incomplete outcome data to determine attrition bias, examination of selective reporting to identify reporting bias, and the identification of any other potential sources of bias. These evaluations will form the basis of a comprehensive bias risk profile for each study, which will be meticulously documented and analyzed.

The assessment process will leverage Review Manager 5.4 software for the graphical representation and detailed evaluation of bias risks. This approach not only ensures a transparent and systematic review of each study’s methodological quality but also facilitates the identification of studies with high levels of rigor and reliability. In cases where discrepancies arise between the two primary researchers, efforts will be made to resolve such differences through discussion. If a consensus cannot be reached, a third reviewer (KC) will be consulted to make a final determination. This multi-tiered review process underscores our commitment to upholding the highest standards of methodological scrutiny and ensuring the robustness of our systematic review’s conclusions.

Grading of evidence

The quality of evidence for each specific outcome will be classified according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach [22]. This method stratifies evidence quality into four levels: high, moderate, low, and very low, providing a transparent and structured process for rating the certainty of evidence in systematic reviews.

Statistical analysis

Addressing missing data

In instances of missing or inadequate data within articles, attempts will be made to contact the original authors for additional information. Should these efforts prove unsuccessful or the data remains insufficient, the affected studies will be excluded from the analysis.

Analyzing treatment effects

The meta-analysis will be conducted using Revman 5.4, developed by the Cochrane Collaboration. For continuous outcomes measured across studies using different scales, the standard mean difference will be calculated, weighted by the inverse of the variance, and presented with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) in forest plots. Statistical significance is predetermined at p-values less than 0.05. Heterogeneity among studies will be quantified using the I2 statistic and the Chi-square test, with significant heterogeneity indicated by an I2 value over 50% and a p-value under 0.10. Depending on the I2 value, analyses will proceed under either a fixed or random-effects model. Subgroup analyses will be performed to explore potential sources of heterogeneity.

Sensitivity analysis

The robustness of the meta-analysis findings will be tested through sensitivity analysis, employing a one-by-one elimination method to pinpoint the sources of heterogeneity.

Subgroup analysis

To understand the effects of diverse variables on the outcomes, subgroup analyses will be carried out based on factors like age, gender ratio, type of pole dancing, dropout rates, measurement tools, and country of origin.

Evaluating publication bias

The publication bias will be assessed through funnel plot analysis for studies exceeding ten in number, complemented by Egger’s regression test for statistical evaluation of bias.

If quantitative synthesis is deemed unsuitable, we will summarize and discuss the outcomes of each study, factoring in the potential for bias and the importance of the findings. After integrating the results, we will pinpoint those interventions that exhibit effectiveness and provide valuable insights for future research endeavors and informed decision-making.

Ethics and dissemination

Given the study’s reliance on published data rather than individual patient information, ethics approval is not required. The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis will be disseminated through presentations at relevant scientific conferences and publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

Amendments

Any changes made to this protocol during the review process will be documented and disclosed in the final report to ensure transparency and accountability.

Discussion

The burgeoning interest in pole dancing as a recreational and fitness activity brings to light its potential therapeutic effects on mental well-being and the sexual self-concept. Empirical evidence suggests that engaging in pole dancing can positively influence mental health parameters, including enhancements in sexual self-efficacy, reductions in sexual anxiety, improvements in sexual self-esteem, and an appreciation for one’s body [20]. Despite the anecdotal and preliminary research findings supporting these benefits, the academic landscape lacks a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis dedicated to consolidating the evidence on the psychological impacts of pole dancing.

Our proposed systematic review and meta-analysis aim to fill this gap in the literature, offering a rigorous examination of the effects of pole dancing on mental well-being and sexual self-concept. Acknowledging that the impact of pole dancing may vary across different demographics and contexts, our analysis will consider variables such as age, gender ratio, the specific style of pole dancing, participant dropout rates, the measurement tools used, and the country of origin. Such a nuanced approach ensures that our findings will provide meaningful insights relevant to diverse individuals and settings.

By systematically collating and analyzing the existing body of research, this study is poised to be a seminal work in the field, establishing a foundation for future research, clinical practices, and policy decisions. It is anticipated that our findings will not only affirm the therapeutic value of pole dancing but also highlight its potential as a viable intervention for enhancing mental well-being and sexual self-concept. In doing so, this review will contribute significantly to understanding non-traditional physical activities as therapeutic tools, paving the way for their integration into holistic health and wellness programs. Through this comprehensive evaluation, we aim to deliver an up-to-date synthesis of evidence that underscores the unique benefits of pole dancing, thereby informing practitioners, policymakers, and participants about its efficacy and safety in promoting mental health and wellbeing.

This study, while comprehensive, is not without its limitations. A primary constraint is the exclusive focus on published studies, thereby excluding grey literature and unpublished works that could potentially offer valuable insights into the effects of pole dancing on mental well-being and sexual self-concept. While practical in terms of accessibility and verifiability of data, this decision may introduce publication bias, as studies with positive outcomes are more likely to be published than those with negative or inconclusive results.

Furthermore, the current landscape of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) specifically examining pole dancing’s impact on mental well-being and sexual self-concept is relatively sparse, both in number and in methodological rigor. The existing studies, although informative, may not provide a sufficiently robust evidence base to draw definitive conclusions. This limitation underscores the need for further research in high-quality RCTs, which are essential to strengthen and substantiate the clinical evidence regarding pole dancing’s therapeutic potential. Advancing this line of inquiry will require concerted efforts from the research community to design and implement studies that can effectively address these gaps and contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of pole dancing as a modality for enhancing mental health and well-being.

Supporting information

S1 Checklist. PRISMA-P 2020 checklist.

(DOCX)

pone.0307182.s001.docx (28.6KB, docx)

Data Availability

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study. All relevant data from this study will be made available upon study completion.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Gunay A, Bacon AM. Experiences of Youth Mentoring Through Street Dance. Youth Justice. 2020;20(3):235–51. doi: 10.1177/1473225419879248 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Gronek P, Boraczynski M, Haas AN, Adamczyk J, Pawlaczyk M, Czarny W, et al. Body adaptation to Dance: A Gerontological Perspective. Aging Dis. 2021;12(3):902–13. doi: 10.14336/AD.2020.1107 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Huang HC, Hsieh HH, Chang CM, Lu YC, Mui WC. An Exploration of Dance Learning Stress Sources of Elementary School Dance Class Students with Artistic Abilities: The Influences of Psychological Capital and Self-Concept. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(12). doi: 10.3390/ijerph19127398 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Maraz A, Király O, Urbán R, Griffiths MD, Demetrovics Z. Why Do You Dance? Development of the Dance Motivation Inventory (DMI). Plos One. 2015;10(3):e122866. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0122866 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Matérne M, Frank A, Lundqvist L, Duberg A. Structured water dance intervention for adults with profound intellectual and multiple disability: Development and description of the method. Dance Articulated. 2022;8(1):7. doi: 10.5324/da.v8i1.5003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Ritchie A, Gaulter A. Dancing towards belonging: the use of a dance intervention to influence migrant pupils’ sense of belonging in school. Int J Inclusive Educ. 2020;24(4):366–80. doi: 10.1080/13603116.2018.1464069 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Donaghue N, Kurz T, Whitehead K. Spinning the pole: A discursive analysis of the websites of recreational pole dancing studios. Fem Psychol. 2011;21(4):443–57. doi: 10.1177/0959353511424367 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Zarobe L, Bungay H. The role of arts activities in developing resilience and mental wellbeing in children and young people a rapid review of the literature. Perspect Public Heal. 2017;137(6):337–47. doi: 10.1177/1757913917712283 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Christensen JF, Vartanian M, Sancho-Escanero L, Khorsandi S, Yazdi SHN, Farahi F, et al. A Practice-Inspired Mindset for Researching the Psychophysiological and Medical Health Effects of Recreational Dance (Dance Sport). Front Psychol. 2021;11. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.588948 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Finn S, Wright LHV, Mak HW, Åström E, Nicholls L, Dingle GA, et al. Expanding the social cure: a mixed-methods approach exploring the role of online group dance as support for young people (aged 16–24) living with anxiety. Front Psychol. 2023;14:1258967. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1258967 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Humphries A, Rugh R, Patrick M, Basso JC. Enhancing Mental Health and Social Connection Through an Acute Online Dance Intervention. 2022. doi: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-1149930/v1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Cuccolo K, Haltom TM. A pole new world: Maneuvering masculinity and sexuality among men who pole dance. Sociol Compass. 2023;17(11). doi: 10.1111/soc4.13142 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Salehi M, Kharaz Tavakol H, Shabani M, Ziaei T. The Relationship Between Self-Esteem and Sexual Self-Concept in People With Physical-Motor Disabilities. Iran Red Crescent Me. 2015;17(1). doi: 10.5812/ircmj.25359 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Minoosepehr S, Karbalaei Mohammad Meyguni A, Nikoogoftar M, Gholamali Lavasani MGL. A Structural Equation Modeling to Explain Marital Burnout: Pornography Consumption and Perfectionism With the Mediating Role of Sexual Self-concept. Practice in Clinical Psychology. 2022;10(1):55–68. doi: 10.32598/jpcp.10.1.802.1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Bott E. Book Review: Pole Dancing, Empowerment and Embodiment. Feminist Rev. 2012;101(1):e1–2. doi: 10.1057/fr.2012.6 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Whitehead K, Kurz T. `Empowerment’ and the Pole: A Discursive Investigation of the Reinvention of Pole Dancing as a Recreational Activity. Fem Psychol. 2009;19(2):224–44. doi: 10.1177/0959353509102218 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Holmes MC. Mental Health and Sexual Self-Concept Discrepancies in a Sample of Young Black Women. J Black Psychol. 2002;28(4):347–70. doi: 10.1177/009579802237542 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Dimler AJ, McFadden K, McHugh TF. "I Kinda Feel Like Wonder Woman": An Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis of Pole Fitness and Positive Body Image. J Sport Exercise Psy. 2017;39(5):339–51. doi: 10.1123/jsep.2017-0028 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Pfeiffer JL, Sowitzki SK, Schafer T, Euteneuer F. Effects of pole dance on mental wellbeing and the sexual self-concept-a pilot randomized-controlled trial. Bmc Psychol. 2023;11(1):274. doi: 10.1186/s40359-023-01322-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. Bmj. 2015;349(jan02 1):g7647. doi: 10.1136/bmj.g7647 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Shuster JJ. Review: Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews for interventions, Version 5.1.0, published 3/2011. Julian P.T. Higgins and Green Sally, Editors. Res Synth Methods. 2011;2(2):126–30. doi: 10.1002/jrsm.38 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Xie CX, Machado GC. Clinimetrics: Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). J Physiother. 2021;67(1):66. doi: 10.1016/j.jphys.2020.07.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Adetayo Olorunlana

17 May 2024

PONE-D-24-13949

Impact of pole dancing on mental wellbeing and sexual self-concept: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Li,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 30 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Adetayo Olorunlana, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Table 1 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table.

3. We note that this manuscript is a systematic review or meta-analysis; our author guidelines therefore require that you use PRISMA guidance to help improve reporting quality of this type of study. Please upload copies of the completed PRISMA checklist as Supporting Information with a file name “PRISMA checklist”.

4. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions?

The research question outlined is expected to address a valid academic problem or topic and contribute to the base of knowledge in the field.

Reviewer #1: Yes

********** 

2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses?

The manuscript should describe the methods in sufficient detail to prevent undisclosed flexibility in the experimental procedure or analysis pipeline, including sufficient outcome-neutral conditions (e.g. necessary controls, absence of floor or ceiling effects) to test the proposed hypotheses and a statistical power analysis where applicable. As there may be aspects of the methodology and analysis which can only be refined once the work is undertaken, authors should outline potential assumptions and explicitly describe what aspects of the proposed analyses, if any, are exploratory.

Reviewer #1: Yes

********** 

3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable?

Descriptions of methods and materials in the protocol should be reported in sufficient detail for another researcher to reproduce all experiments and analyses. The protocol should describe the appropriate controls, sample size calculations, and replication needed to ensure that the data are robust and reproducible.

Reviewer #1: Yes

********** 

4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception, at the time of publication. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

********** 

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

********** 

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above and, if applicable, provide comments about issues authors must address before this protocol can be accepted for publication. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about research or publication ethics.

You may also provide optional suggestions and comments to authors that they might find helpful in planning their study.

(Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors present a well-written systematic review protocol, with the aim of evaluating the effect of pole dancing on mental well-being and sexual self-concept. A relevant topic, with no published systematic reviews and with the potential to provide good evidence for decision-making.

However, I suggest minor revisions so that the manuscript is even better for readers.

The introduction is long and tiring. The suggestion for the authors is to summarize the content featuring the main theme, pole dancing, followed by text with the most up-to-date references of studies that show potential psychological benefits, maintaining the important gap of there being no systematic reviews specifically on pole dancing and concluding the introduction with the main objective.

Finally, the methodology is well constructed, but the text "Our primary outcomes of interest are the degrees of mental well-being and the enhancement or alteration of the sexual self-concept.", does not provide the specificity required in a SR and should be divided. Authors should consider the degrees of mental well-being as a primary outcome, citing validated scales that need to have been used in RCTs to be included in the SR (Ex: The Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS), Ryff Psychological Well -being (PWBS-42) scale). In this way, they would consider enhancement and alteration of the sexual self-concept as secondary outcomes, also including validated scales that should be present in RCTs, such as The Multidimensional Sexual Self-Concept Questionnaire (MSSCQ).

The inclusion in the methodology of the PICOS strategy (P= Adults, I= pole dancing, C= usual activity, or other type of physical activity/dance, O= mental well-being, sexual self-concept assessed by the scales, S= RCT) will further enrich this section.

********** 

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Ricardo Ney Cobucci

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2024 Jul 15;19(7):e0307182. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0307182.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


16 Jun 2024

Dear Reviewer #1:

Thank you very much for your careful review! We have carefully studied your valuable comments and have made amendments one by one. We hope that these adjustments will meet your requirements!

1.“The introduction is long and tiring. The suggestion for the authors is to summarize the content featuring the main theme, pole dancing, followed by text with the most up-to-date references of studies that show potential psychological benefits, maintaining the important gap of there being no systematic reviews specifically on pole dancing and concluding the introduction with the main objective.”

We have streamlined the introduction. We cut out a paragraph. The paragraph reads as follows:

“Additionally, dance is critical in augmenting bodily awareness, fostering mental health, and facilitating neurorehabilitation(7). The release of endorphins triggered by dance activities has been linked to significant improvements in mental well-being(8). In essence, dance offers a holistic therapeutic avenue for enhancing mental health, embodying various psychological benefits such as improved self-esteem, stress mitigation, emotional health, and heightened bodily consciousness. This extensive body of research underscores dance's therapeutic potential in advancing mental health and supporting psychological well-being across various populations. ”

In addition, we have removed the following from the introduction:

“The multifaceted nature of dance, characterized by its rhythm, musicality, social engagement, technical and physical demands, and capacity to facilitate connection, mindfulness, and the expression of aesthetic emotions, contributes to its overall health and well-being benefits.(9)”

“The intersectionality of pole dancing with feminist theory further highlights its role in dialogues concerning gender, sexuality, and empowerment(13). ”

2.Finally, the methodology is well constructed, but the text "Our primary outcomes of interest are the degrees of mental well-being and the enhancement or alteration of the sexual self-concept.", does not provide the specificity required in a SR and should be divided. Authors should consider the degrees of mental well-being as a primary outcome, citing validated scales that need to have been used in RCTs to be included in the SR (Ex: The Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS), Ryff Psychological Well -being (PWBS-42) scale). In this way, they would consider enhancement and alteration of the sexual self-concept as secondary outcomes, also including validated scales that should be present in RCTs, such as The Multidimensional Sexual Self-Concept Questionnaire (MSSCQ).

We adjusted part of the article and identified mental wellbeing and sexual self-concept as the primary outcome and secondary outcome respectively. Finally, we have included in the article specific scales used in the measurement process. For details, please see lines 134-140.

3.The inclusion in the methodology of the PICOS strategy (P = Adults, I = pole dancing, C = usual activity, or other type of physical activity/dance, O = mental well-being, sexual self-concept assessed by the scales, S = RCT) will further enrich this section.

We have adopted the "PICOS" principle to present the inclusion criteria according to your suggestion.For details, please see lines 126-143.

Thank you again for your valuable advice. We have further refined our protocol and made the upcoming studies more standardized.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.doc

pone.0307182.s002.doc (29.5KB, doc)

Decision Letter 1

Adetayo Olorunlana

2 Jul 2024

Impact of pole dancing on mental wellbeing and sexual self-concept: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

PONE-D-24-13949R1

Dear Dr. Li,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Adetayo Olorunlana, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions?

The research question outlined is expected to address a valid academic problem or topic and contribute to the base of knowledge in the field.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses?

The manuscript should describe the methods in sufficient detail to prevent undisclosed flexibility in the experimental procedure or analysis pipeline, including sufficient outcome-neutral conditions (e.g. necessary controls, absence of floor or ceiling effects) to test the proposed hypotheses and a statistical power analysis where applicable. As there may be aspects of the methodology and analysis which can only be refined once the work is undertaken, authors should outline potential assumptions and explicitly describe what aspects of the proposed analyses, if any, are exploratory.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable?

Descriptions of methods and materials in the protocol should be reported in sufficient detail for another researcher to reproduce all experiments and analyses. The protocol should describe the appropriate controls, sample size calculations, and replication needed to ensure that the data are robust and reproducible.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception, at the time of publication. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above and, if applicable, provide comments about issues authors must address before this protocol can be accepted for publication. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about research or publication ethics.

You may also provide optional suggestions and comments to authors that they might find helpful in planning their study.

(Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors responded to the reviewers' suggestions and the manuscript is ready to be published. Congratulations!

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Ricardo Ney Cobucci

**********

Acceptance letter

Adetayo Olorunlana

5 Jul 2024

PONE-D-24-13949R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Li,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Associate Professor Adetayo Olorunlana

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Checklist. PRISMA-P 2020 checklist.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0307182.s001.docx (28.6KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.doc

    pone.0307182.s002.doc (29.5KB, doc)

    Data Availability Statement

    No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study. All relevant data from this study will be made available upon study completion.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES