Making Context Assessment Manageable: How to Slice and Dice Context in Different Ways
By Dr. Sobia Khan, Director of Implementation and Dr. Julia E. Moore, Executive Director
8-min read
First Published: March 21, 2023
Last Updated: November 18, 2025
What do we mean by “context” in implementation?
Whenever we face huge implementation challenges, we often realize that these challenges are related to context. So, what is context? Context is big and hard to unpack. That's because anything that relates to something happening in a larger setting or system can be a contextual factor. Additionally, we recognize that context varies depending on where you live and work, as well as the types of systems you are part of. So, certain contextual factors might have more importance in some settings and systems versus others.
Essentially, context includes the people, systems, structures, and conditions that shape how implementation unfolds.
This is what makes assessing context so complex. At TCI, whenever we discuss context with people, we often receive numerous questions about how to make sense of it and what the best frameworks/tools are for assessing context.
How to set clear context assessment goals
Rather than thinking of contextual factors as a monolith, it is helpful to consider them as categorized into different levels of the system or different aspects of implementation. The reality is that you will always pay attention to context throughout your implementation journey. It helps to focus on certain components of context at specific moments in time, rather than becoming overwhelmed by all the factors you need to consider at all times.
Clarifying your assessment purpose helps you determine which contextual factors are relevant at this time. Assessing context also doesn’t need to be overwhelming.
Considering context across levels of the system
One way to do this is to focus on the question(s) you are asking about the context. A good general question is, “What are the factors within our setting that might make it challenging for us to implement the THING we want to implement?” Another good general question is, “What are the factors outside of our setting that might make it challenging for us to implement the THING we want to implement?” These questions are ‘pulse check’ questions, in the sense that you are generally orienting yourselves to the helpful or hindering contextual factors. Questions like these tap into levels of the system. One of the most commonly used frameworks to consider contextual factors is the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), which describes these factors in an embedded manner (Damschroder et al., 2009; Damschroder et al., 2022). Another common tool is the Hexagon tool from the National Implementation Research Network (NIRN).
Many of us are also considering factors at multiple levels rather than just the implementation setting and the system. We wanted to point this out because it helps define the levels of context that will impact implementation – such as your implementation settings, within communities, within a state, or within a larger system – and then identify which factors might be relevant at each of these levels.
Examining inner and outer setting factors helps identify what supports and what hinders implementation.
Using context to inform fit, readiness, and sustainability
You will likely consider contextual factors throughout your entire implementation journey for various reasons. Therefore, you might consider asking more specific questions related to context along the way to make your assessments even more manageable. Some questions here might include, “What contextual factors might affect the fit of the THING within our setting? What contextual factors make the setting ready to implement? What contextual factors are impacting ongoing implementation and sustainability?” These questions tap into the fact that we seek information about context because it helps us make certain types of decisions. We need to know if something fits to know how it might be adapted. We need to understand readiness to know whether we can “hit the ground running” with implementation, or whether we need to spend time building readiness. We also need to know how context might impact implementation, and what contextual factors to consider in our plans for sustainability.
Imagine how you could simplify context assessments if you used the same general framework across the implementation lifespan?
Introducing the Context Compass Framework
The Context Compass Framework can be a helpful tool for considering the intersections between levels of context and types of context assessments. We used the CFIR as the basis for this framework, reviewed other frameworks to incorporate factors relevant to different global contexts, and added information to help clarify which factors relate to fit, readiness, implementation, and sustainability.
Sometimes people are dismissive of contextual frameworks because they don’t see themselves in that framework. The truth is, there are excellent frameworks and tools available that are highly comprehensive, and these are designed to be relevant to multiple contexts, not just yours. To make it yours, it’s okay to adapt them to be more reflective of the reality of your context.
For example, during my calls with global health teams, many people have cited factors such as political instability and environmental instability as potential changes to the relative priority of the THING. In the case of these teams, they may want to specify this in their assessment framework, therefore adapting an existing framework. We have added a subfactor related to instability in the Context Compass Framework to ensure inclusivity across different settings. However, if this does not apply to your context, you can always remove it from your assessment.
The point is to think critically about what’s in and what’s out based on relevance, which can further help you make a context assessment more manageable and pragmatic for you. The Context Compass framework connects system levels with the types of context assessments needed to support implementation decisions.
Making context assessments practical and manageable
Using a context framework or tool is similar to using any other data collection and mapping method with which you may be familiar, and which we have discussed extensively (e.g., mapping barriers and facilitators to the Theoretical Domains Framework). It is up to you how rigorous your data collection methods are, based on your needs, objectives and resources. Context assessments can employ full surveys and setting observations, or they can be done in natural opportunities during meetings and other conversations. After collecting data, it is helpful to work with your team to make sense of the data by applying it to a selected framework or tool, and determining which factors are most prominent in terms of what’s going well and what’s not going so well in implementation. Context insights can come from structured data collection or from everyday conversations—rigor can match your needs.
What’s next for the Context Compass?
As interest in using implementation science to guide large and small change efforts gains momentum, we are hearing more about the need to understand and address contextual factors. Therefore, we will be delving into context over the next year. Currently in the works, we are redesigning the StrategEase tool to incorporate context. This will be an interactive online tool which can help you and your team explore ways to address contextual factors.
This article was featured in our monthly Implementation in Action bulletin! Want to receive our next issue? Subscribe here.