As a narrative review I found the manuscript to be very interesting. Recognizing strong methodological differences between a narrative review versus a systematic review the manuscript could be strengthened by adding a limitation section that more clearly articulates the potential risk for bias inherent with narrative reviews versus the strengths of narrative reviews focused on the big picture. Based on reading the contributions of authors, it appears that there was input processes in place, though not independence which can lead to a higher risk of subjective bias and reduces reproducibility. It would be useful if there could be some connecting statement that helps readers understand how your findings led to "we propose a novel classification system for social dance mental health research" and how "emerging themes" were identified. The authors state that the intention of the review was to "identify the core theories, populations, impetus, and designs used in research in this field, as well as to identify gaps in the literature and priorities for future research" However the reporting appears to lack reporting findings or discussion on core theories as well as lacks a comprehensive statement as to "impetus" of included studies. In the text summaries it would be helpful to have some additional effort in aggregating the findings/ discussion based on some weighing of evidence (Higher Quality). There is a recommendation made referring to the adoption of common measures (reference 115). This may be useful to improve research across different MH conditions - it is however not clear whether they are particularly the best outcomes to address issues discussed as important within dance - e.g. social connectedness. Although I have discussed a number of issues that I think could strengthen the manuscript - I believe the topic and overview of the literature makes an important contribution to the current literature.