Cognitive participation
glasses:“Participants
Our data suggest that the concept of technology-based interventions held a degree of The second NPT construct–cognitive participation–adds context to this sense-making work. This construct draws on data from all three themes—Participants expressed mixed attitudes towards the use of technology within the intervention. Some referred to individual characteristics such as their age as an influencing factor in the context of their decision making whereas others expressed uncertainty about technology, based on personal experience (“The need to enrol support (both from family members and health professionals) was recognised as an important factor in facilitating ongoing use of the technology at home. This was associated with the need for technical help with settings as well as safety considerations when using the strobe glasses:“Participants also recognised that the technology added a degree of difficulty or challenge to the intervention which could prove to be a barrier to implementation in people with more advanced PD:“Furthermore, technology self-efficacy also featured as a significant determiner of ongoing use of the technology at home. Concerns about encountering technical issues meant that some participants would be less likely to maintain use of the technology beyond the study period desperate their preference for the technological intervention:“Irrespective of the value placed in the technology and the perceived need for support, participants still expressed intention to use the devices if efficacy was shown. This is exemplified by the following quotation from PD03 who previously stated an aversion to technology:“Participants also described new motivation around behaviour change in relation to technology-based “brain training” type activities as a result of their introduction to, and experience with, TVT:“