Traumatic brain injuries (TBI) and mental health or substance use disorders (MHSU) are global public health concerns due to their prevalence and impact on individuals and societies. However, care for individuals with TBI and MHSU remains fragmented with a lack of appropriate services and supports across the continuum of healthcare. This systematic review provided an evidence-based foundation to inform opportunities to mobilize and adapt existing resources to integrate care for individuals with TBI and MHSU by comprehensively summarizing existing integrated activities and reported barriers and facilitators to care integration. MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Sociological Abstracts, and Dissertations & Theses Global were independently reviewed by two reviewers based on pre-determined eligibility criteria. Data on the integration activity, level and type of integration, reported barriers and facilitators, and the strategies aligning with the World Health Organization’s (WHO) Framework on Integrated Person-Centred Care were extracted to form the basis for a narrative synthesis. Fifty-nine peer-reviewed articles were included, describing treatments (N = 49), programs (N = 4), or screening activities (N = 7). Studies discussing clinical integration at the micro- (N = 38) and meso- (N = 10) levels, service integration at the micro- (N = 6) and meso- (N = 5) levels, and functional integration at the meso-level (N = 1) were identified. A minority of articles reported on facilitators (e.g., cognitive accommodations in treatment plans; N = 7), barriers (e.g., lack of education on cognitive challenges associated with TBI; N = 2), or both (N = 6), related to integrating care. This review demonstrated that integrated TBI and MHSU care already exists across a range of levels and types. Given the finite and competing demands for healthcare resources, cognitive accommodations across treatment plans to facilitate integrated TBI and MHSU care should be considered. Multidisciplinary teams should also be explored to provide opportunities for education among health professionals so they can be familiar with TBI and MHSU. Trial registration: Prospero Registration: CRD42018108343.

Objectives: This novel critical transdisciplinary scoping review examined the literature on integrated care pathways that consider Black people living with traumatic brain injury (TBI). The objectives were to (a) summarize the extent, nature, and range of literature on care pathways that consider Black populations, (b) summarize how Blackness, race, and racism are conceptualized in the literature, (c) determine how Black people come to access care pathways, and (d) identify how care pathways in research consider the mechanism of injury and implications for human occupation. Methods: Six databases were searched systematically identifying 178 articles after removing duplicates. In total, 43 articles on integrated care within the context of Black persons with TBI were included. Narrative synthesis was conducted to analyze the data and was presented as descriptive statistics and as a narrative to tell a story. Findings: All studies were based in the United States where 81% reported racial and ethnic disparities across the care continuum primarily using race as a biological construct. Sex, gender, and race are used as demographic variables where statistical data were stratified in only 9% of studies. Black patients are primarily denied access to care, experience lower rates of protocol treatments, poor quality of care, and lack access to rehabilitation. Racial health disparities are disconnected from racism and are displayed as symptoms of a problem that remains unnamed. Conclusion: The findings illustrate how racism becomes institutionalized in research on TBI care pathways, demonstrating the need to incorporate the voices of Black people, transcend disciplinary boundaries, and adopt an anti-racist lens to research.

Background: Current understandings of the etiology of traumatic brain injury (TBI) and the trajectory of care significantly lack consideration for the inclusion of Black populations. The global prevalence of TBI is increasing, particularly in North America and Europe where approximately 65 million people are affected every year. Although community integration is an ultimate goal of rehabilitation post injury, persons with TBI, particularly Black populations continually face challenges with regards to unmet needs along the continuum of care including meaningful participation and vocation, resulting in occupational deprivation. While integrated care is seen as an appealing approach to service delivery, little is known about what this means for Black people with TBI. This protocol produces the first critical transdisciplinary (CTD) scoping review mapping the extent, range, and nature of integrated care pathways for Black people experiencing TBI. Methods: CTD provides an analytical tool with a health equity lens that will be applied as both a methodology and theory for undertaking this review. Under the methodological guidance of Arksey and O'Malley, CTD will be used to map the literature and better understand the elements of integrated care pathways for Black people experiencing TBI. To identify the published literature, several databases will be searched including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Sociological Abstracts. Discussion: The application of CTD compels health-care providers, administrators, clinician-scientists, rehabilitation specialists, and scholars in the field of TBI and integrated care to reexamine hidden assumptions about racism, racialization, and Blackness that are often embedded in current visions of health for all. The health equity lens of CTD asks about who is accounted for in the research and clinical literature and who is absented. It is anticipated that applying the health equity lens of CTD will provide a critical examination of the literature and illuminate significant implications for integrated care for Black persons experiencing TBI. Systematic review registration: Not applicable.