Qualitative analysis finds body schema and mental health improvements in women participating in a community-based aerial sling class, suggesting holistic movement benefits.
Contrary to the dominant ultra-cognitive approach in public health whereby only thought processes are supposed to link to action (e.g., physical activity) and health, in this research an embodied (body-mind unison) philosophy was examined by showcasing the importance of holistic and performative movement experiences to health and well-being. Specifically, the purpose of this study was to comprehensively examine the interrelated, multiple, and embodied benefits of a community-based aerial sling class (“Flow”) on body schema, mental health, fitness, and lifestyle change (diet). This was a phenomenological, qualitative, and community-based research study among seven women (age range: 28-48 years old), including the class instructor, who participated in the Flow class at a major metropolitan southern US city. Hermeneutic phenomenology was used to analyze the study’s data in the latest version of NVivo. Based on the qualitative data, four themes (with several sub-themes) emerged regarding the positive effects of the Flow class: a) Body schema improvement, including improved body awareness and mindfulness (e.g., knowing how to engage and isolate certain muscles and managing TMJ symptoms) and increased body confidence in expression and performance; b) Improved mental health, including decreased stress and obsessive thoughts, increased joy and confidence from accomplishment (“mentally rewarding”), and experiencing a supportive community; c) Increased fitness: Strength, energy, flexibility; and d) Improved diet, including decreased consumption of processed food coupled with increased protein intake and healthy eating habits. The study’s hypothesis was supported, in that holistic, embodied, and performative movement programs within a community setting can lead to physical and mental benefits as well as positive lifestyle changes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Maria Kosma (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: