Abstract
BACKGROUND: Implementation climate is a key organizational determinant of whether evidence-based interventions (EBIs) are adopted, delivered with fidelity, and sustained in healthcare. Despite its importance, the concept is inconsistently defined, often conflated with culture or readiness, and assessed with measures of unclear scope. We aimed to clarify how implementation climate is defined and used in healthcare, identify its defining attributes, antecedents, and consequences, delineate boundaries with related constructs, and synthesize quantitative and qualitative approaches to measurement. METHODS: We combined a Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) scoping review with Walker and Avant's eight-step concept analysis method. CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO were searched in November 2024, supplemented by citation tracking and grey literature searching. Empirical and theoretical articles that defined, discussed or measured implementation climate in healthcare were eligible. Data were charted in Excel and synthesised inductively to derive definitions, attributes, antecedents, consequences, conceptual boundaries, and measurement indicators; attributes were mapped to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). RESULTS: We included 39 sources (24 quantitative, 7 qualitative, 5 theoretical/review, 3 mixed-methods). We propose a synthesized definition: implementation climate is the shared perception among staff that using a specific EBI is an organizational priority, actively supported through resources and HR processes, reinforced by incentives or recognition, and aligned with everyday values and workflows. Seven recurring attributes emerged: clear expectations for EBI use; tangible organizational support (e.g., protected time, training, leadership); incentives and recognition; compatibility with workflow and values; high relative priority; tension for change; and HR practices that select and socialize staff for EBI openness. Transformational leadership and deliberate resource allocation surfaced as dominant antecedents. Stronger implementation climates were associated with improved implementation outcomes (e.g., reach and fidelity) and workforce outcomes (e.g., retention, lower burnout). Measurement options include the Implementation Climate Scale (ICS), the briefer Implementation Climate Measure (ICM), the Equity-Oriented Implementation Climate tool, and qualitative assessments. CONCLUSION: Implementation climate is a modifiable, measurable organizational lever for strengthening quality improvement and implementation efforts. Leaders can strengthen it by clarifying expectations, protecting time and training, aligning incentives, and ensuring workflow fit. Researchers should refine and adapt measures across contexts and test objective indicators alongside staff perceptions.