# Interprofessional Approaches to the Treatment of Mild Traumatic Brain Injury: A Literature Review and Conceptual Framework Informed by 94 Professional Interviews

## TL;DR

This paper reviews how different healthcare professionals approach mild traumatic brain injury and proposes a framework to improve coordinated care.

## Contribution

A new conceptual framework for interprofessional mTBI rehabilitation based on clinician interviews and literature synthesis.

## Key findings

- Clinicians agree on the importance of patient-centered, function-oriented care for mTBI.
- Barriers to effective care include fragmented communication, reimbursement issues, and referral delays.
- A four-domain framework was developed to guide interprofessional mTBI rehabilitation.

## Abstract

Background/Objectives: Mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) presents with persistent, heterogeneous symptoms requiring multifaceted care. Although interdisciplinary rehabilitation is increasingly recommended, implementation remains inconsistent. This study aimed to synthesize existing literature and clinician perspectives to construct a practice-informed conceptual framework for interprofessional mTBI rehabilitation. Methods: Structured interviews were conducted with 94 clinicians—including neurologists, neuropsychologists, optometrists, occupational and physical therapists, speech-language pathologists, neurosurgeons, and case managers—across academic, private, and community settings in the United States. Interviews followed a semi-structured format adapted for the NIH I-Corps program and were analyzed thematically alongside existing rehabilitation literature. Results: Clinicians expressed strong consensus on the value of function-oriented, patient-centered care. Key themes included the prevalence of persistent cognitive and visual symptoms, emphasis on real-world goal setting, and barriers such as fragmented communication, reimbursement restrictions, and referral delays. Disciplinary differences were noted in perceptions of symptom persistence and professional roles. Rehabilitation technologies were inconsistently adopted due to financial, training, and interoperability barriers. Equity issues included geographic and insurance-based disparities. A four-domain conceptual framework emerged: discipline-specific expertise, coordinated training, technological integration, and care infrastructure, all shaped by systemic limitations. Conclusions: Despite widespread clinician endorsement of interprofessional mTBI care, structural barriers hinder consistent implementation. Targeted reforms—such as embedding interdisciplinary models in clinical education, expanding access to integrated technology, and improving reimbursement mechanisms—may enhance care delivery. The resulting framework provides a foundation for scalable, patient-centered rehabilitation models in diverse settings.