Temporary Assistant Professor

Department of Family and Community Resource Management

Faculty of Family and Community Sciences, The Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda

Baroda  Gujarat, India 

Research Scholar

Department of Family and Community Resource Management Faculty of Family and Community Sciences

The Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda

Vadodara, Gujarat, India

Research Scholar

Department of Family and Community Resource Management Faculty of Family and Community Sciences

The Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda

Vadodara, Gujarat, India

Introduction

Musculoskeletal Disorders (MSDs) refer to a variety of conditions that affect the muscles, bones, tendons, ligaments, and other components of the musculoskeletal system. The prolonged use of soft couches can contribute to posture-related issues, potentially leading to MSDs. Soft couches often lack adequate support, causing individuals to adopt poor sitting postures. This can result in discomfort, stiffness, and pain, particularly in the neck, shoulders, and lower back. Maintaining good posture and utilizing ergonomic furniture can help alleviate these issues.

Moreover, conducting ergonomic evaluations and seeking medical consultations can provide valuable insights into the impact of soft couches on musculoskeletal health. Analyzing user feedback and applying ergonomic principles in the assessment process can contribute to a comprehensive understanding of the MSD problems associated with soft couches (Bai et al., 2024).

In 2020, the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) updated its 40-year-old definition of pain, officially defining it as "an unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with, or resembling that associated with, actual or potential tissue damage." This updated definition includes six key elements that further contextualize the experience of pain: the simultaneous influence of biological, psychological, and societal factors on pain perception; the distinction between pain and nociception; the learned aspects of pain; the dual nature of pain as both adaptive and maladaptive; the importance of respecting subjective pain reports; and the recognition that there are multiple ways to express or experience pain. These updates have been seen as crucial for advancing pain research and emphasize the multifactorial, bidirectional, and personal nature of pain (Blanchard et al., 2001; Coakley & Shelemay, 2007; Perl, 2007; Gilam et al., 2020).

Despite these advancements, there remains a lack of comprehensive reviews on methods for assessing ergonomics in furniture. Research on ergonomics has predominantly focused on workplace scenarios, with less attention given to the evaluation of ergonomics in furniture used in homes, schools, and other environments. As a result, researchers studying furniture design often struggle to find suitable evaluation methods to create furniture that reduces the risk of MSDs.

Extended use of soft couches can lead to MSDs and posture-related issues due to inadequate support. The absence of proper lumbar support may cause strain on the lower back, and sinking into the soft cushions can result in poor spinal alignment, contributing to discomfort and potential long-term problems. Users may adopt unnatural positions, increasing the risk of muscle imbalances and joint stress, which can further exacerbate MSDs and posture-related issues over time.

This study will be beneficial for individuals of all age groups in understanding proper sitting postures and the causes of lower back pain or similar discomfort. Additionally, the findings will be valuable for manufacturers, as they highlight the importance of considering population-specific body measurements when designing soft couches, ultimately enhancing the experience of relaxation.

Methodology

The research design for this study was descriptive in nature and conducted in Vadodara, focusing on employed adults aged between 25 and 45 years who were selected using a purposive sampling technique. Data were collected through a structured questionnaire, which was carefully validated by a panel of experts to ensure its relevance and accuracy for the study's objectives. The reliability of the questionnaire was determined using the Cronbach's alpha test, which yielded a strong reliability score of 0.876, indicating high internal consistency. The questionnaire was divided into three main sections: the first section gathered comprehensive background information about the participants, including their age, gender, family details, occupation, and specific details regarding the duration and purpose for which they used soft couches. The second section focused on the musculoskeletal discomfort experienced by the respondents, utilizing the Modified Nordic Questionnaire (1987) as a tool to assess the prevalence and severity of such discomfort among the participants. Finally, the third section of the questionnaire sought to capture the respondents' suggestions and feedback on the design and comfort of soft couches, providing valuable insights for potential improvements in ergonomics and user satisfaction. The study's methodology was designed to ensure a thorough understanding of the relationship between soft couch usage and musculoskeletal discomfort, with the goal of informing better furniture design practices.

Major Findings

Background Information

The data revealed that 79.75% of the respondents were between the ages of 18 and 31. Additionally, 32.91% of the respondents were male, while 65.82% were female. Regarding family structure, 65.82% of the respondents belonged to joint families, and 48.82% belonged to nuclear families. In terms of employment, 40.51% of the respondents worked in multinational corporations (MNCs), while 13.92% were employed in government jobs. The data also indicated that 62.76% of the respondents used their soft couches primarily for watching TV, followed by 58.23% who used them for resting and 47.89% who used them for sitting and reading. Additionally, 37.97% of the respondents spent 1–2 hours on their soft couch, followed by 29.11% who spent 2–3 hours, and 13.92% who spent 3–4 hours.

Information regarding Soft Couch

The data reflected that 55.7% of the respondents had cotton furnishing on their soft couch, 27.85% of the respondents had velvet furnishing on their soft couch followed by 16.46% had silk. The data also revealed that 60% of the respondents had 5-seater soft couches at their house followed by 40% of the respondents had 7-seater soft couch at their residence.

Musculoskeletal Discomfort experienced by the respondents

Musculoskeletal Discomfort experienced by the respondents since past 12 months

The data in reflected that 20,25% of the respondents did not experience any neck paint followed by 78.48% who experienced pain in their neck. The data also revealed that 68.35% of the respondents experienced pain in the shoulder. Pain in the wrist was also experienced by 58.23% of the respondents. Upper back pain was also reported by 59.49% of the respondents. 86.08 per cent had observed some pain in their ankles and feet after using soft couches for a long time since last 12 months.

Musculoskeletal Discomfort experienced by the respondents in the past 7 days

The data reflected that 82.28% of the respondents experienced pain in their neck. 77.22% of the respondents had reported to experience pain in their shoulder followed by 69.62% of the respondents who complained of pain in their wrist for 7 days.

Visitation to Doctor due to Musculoskeletal Discomfort experienced by the respondents

The data in figure 3 reflected that 16.46% of the respondents experienced Musculoskeletal discomfort and visited the doctor followed by 82.28% of the respondents who visited the doctor despite of experiencing pain in their neck. 77.22% of the respondents did not visit doctor or took any intervention due to the musculoskeletal discomfort experienced by them in their shoulders. 29.11% of the respondents visited the doctor due to musculoskeletal discomfort experienced by them due in their hand similarly 69.62% of the respondents did not take any intervention due to the discomfort in their shoulder. On analyzing the data on musculoskeletal discomfort experienced by the respondents in the upper back it was found that 26.58% of the them took intervention and 69.62% did not take any intervention due to the discomfort. Musculoskeletal discomfort experienced in the knees also was on eof the reason for 26.58% of the respondents to visit the doctor followed by 72.15% who did not take any consultation for the same.

Level of Comfort of the respondents regarding Soft Couches

The data revealed that 6.33% of the respondents rated 0 for recommending soft couches for future purchase. The data revealed that 25.32 % of the respondents rated soft couches as 8 followed by 15.19 percent who gave a rating of 10 for recommending soft couches for future purchase.

Recommendations of the respondents regarding Soft Couches

The data in table 1 reflected that 58.23 % of the respondents wanted an adjustable art rest followed by 50.63% who wanted a reclining feature in their soft couches. 44.30% of the respondents wanted to have storage space in the soft couches followed by 41.77% of the respondents wanted a height adjustment feature in their soft couches.

Table 1: Distribution of respondents according to their Recommendations regarding Soft Couches

Features	Respondents (n=79)
	f	%
Lumber/low support	33	41.77
Adjustable arm rest	46	58.23
Recline feature	40	50.63
Storage	35	44.30
Height adjustment	33	41.77

Recommendations for Sofa Selections

1.     While selecting sofa or soft couches one should note certain ergonomic features to avoid injuries and maximum comfort. Ergonomics in furniture design ensures that the furniture fits the user’s body and supports areas that need it most, such as the back, neck, and legs. For sofas, key elements include a high back, firm but comfortable cushions, and adjustable armrests to accommodate various body types and preferences. The sofa should also be wide enough to seat your family comfortably².

2.     Soft couches should have proper lumbar support to maintain the spine’s natural curve, adjustable features to customise the fit, and cushioning that promotes proper posture and movement. Investing in such a sofa provides immediate comfort and contributes to your long-term well-being by preventing musculoskeletal disorders²​​.

3.     Sofa sets which offer adjustable features like armrests, headrests, and lumbar support. These features are essential for maintaining proper posture and reducing the risk of aches and pains associated with prolonged sitting. Recliners, for example, often feature plush cushioning and soft upholstery, providing a luxurious seating experience with full support to the body²​​.

4.     Select sofa with highly padded armrests, backrests, footrests, and cushions. Certain models also feature heating massage options to help reduce back pain and provide relief​​².

5.     Ensure that the material if the soft couch is of high-quality materials such as PU leather, durable steel frames, and skin-friendly fabrics are common in ergonomic chairs, ensuring comfort and longevity²​​.

6.     The sofa / soft couches should be easily movable, adjusted and converted to the users needs and preferences².

7.     One can add Seat cushions that tilt slightly, to ensure that the buttocks are slightly higher than your knees, aiding to keep the back straight³.

8.     One can also select soft couches or sofa with adjustable headrests³.

9.     The front edge of the sofa should curve downwards so it doesn't press into the backs of the legs³.

10.   Ensure before buying the sofa one can check the seat depth to provide support to the thighs.

11.   Ensure that the sofa have armrests that slope gently, providing arms and shoulders room to relax without feeling boxed in³.

Conclusion

The data collected indicate that many adults face similar issues with soft couches and express a need for enhanced features to improve comfort. Over 40% of respondents favored the addition of lumbar support, adjustable armrests, a recline feature, storage options, and adjustable height. This research will be valuable to stakeholders in the furniture industry by highlighting the problems users face and guiding necessary modifications. Additionally, the findings will benefit future designers, encouraging them to incorporate specific design modifications to maximize user comfort. In India, the selection of living room furniture holds significant importance due to cultural practices of welcoming and hosting guests. Therefore, it is essential to prioritize the inclusion of comfortable features in soft couches

References

1. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Health and Medicine Division, Board on Health Care Services, & Committee on Identifying Disabling Medical Conditions Likely to Improve with Treatment. (2020). Selected health conditions and likelihood of improvement with treatment. National Academies Press. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK559512/
2. Metercube. (n.d.). Ergonomic living room furniture guide. https://metercube.com/blog/ergonomic-living-room-furniture-guide/#:~:text=Ergonomics%20in%20furniture%20design%20ensures,various%20body%20types%20and%20preferences
3. Stay Home Body. (n.d.). Ergonomic couch: Comfort & health benefits. https://stayhomebody.com/blogs/comfy-101/ergonomic-couch-comfort-health-benefits?srsltid=AfmBOoqYYjxJRQ1ZngcfGlpBqriZJYD2uHZQi3A1VpKou-e_b4Crfodt
4. Bai, Y., Kamarudin, K. M., & Alli, H. (2024). A systematic review of research on sitting and working furniture ergonomic from 2012 to 2022: Analysis of assessment approaches. Heliyon, 10(7), e28384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e28384
5. Blanchard, C., Blanchard, R., Fellous, J., Guimarães, F., Irwin, W., & LeDoux, J. (2001). The brain decade in debate: III neurobiology of emotion. Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research, 34(3), 283–293. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-879X2001000300001
6. Coakley, S., & Shelemay, K. K. (Eds.). (2007). Pain and its transformations: The interface of biology and culture. Harvard University Press.
7. Perl, E. R. (2007). Ideas about pain: A historical view. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 8(1), 71–80. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2042
8. Gilam, G., Gross, J. J., Wager, T. D., Keefe, F. J., & Mackey, S. C. (2020). What is the relationship between pain and emotion? Bridging constructs. Neuron, 107(1), 17–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2020.05.024