Amelia Van Pelt
1,2,3* 
, Rinad S. Beidas
1,2,4,5,6,7,81 Department of Psychiatry, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
2 Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
3 Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
4 Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
5 Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
6 Penn Implementation Science Center at the Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics (PISCE @ LDI), University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
7 Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
8 Penn Medicine Nudge Unit, University of Pennsylvania Health System, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Abstract
In implementation science, contextual inquiry guides the implementation process for successful uptake of evidence-based practices. However, the conceptualization and measurement of context varies across frameworks and stakeholders. To move the field forward, future efforts to advance the understanding of context should incorporate input from implementation stakeholders through co-creation, elicit stakeholders’ perspectives in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) to generate a more comprehensive list of determinants, and refine inconsistencies in terminology to promote research synthesis. Greater conceptual clarity and generalizability in contextual inquiry will enable improved communication and collaboration, thus facilitating a shift in focus to development and evaluation of implementation strategies to improve healthcare and health outcomes.