The COVID‐19 pandemic has had disproportionately negative impacts on socially disadvantaged and underserved populations around the world. Inequality and the related social determinants that impact certain groups are directly related to the adverse health outcomes of vulnerable populations during the pandemic. People in disadvantaged communities are generally more prone to occupational exposure to the virus and tend to have limited access to health care and higher rates of comorbidities. Outcomes related to widespread school closures are also of particular concern for underserved communities. Additionally, these populations are more susceptible to the negative economic outcomes of the pandemic. There is an urgent need for research and policy solutions regarding the impact of the COVID‐19, with particular attention to the needs of disadvantaged and vulnerable populations, a foundation for which is offered in this discussion.

Research foundations for broadening participation in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education and the workforce appear in several different strains of social science research. The science of broadening participation (SoBP) is necessary to inform a comprehensive understanding of what the pertinent issues are, why they occur, and how various organizations—in academia, business, and government—are creating pathways toward more diverse, inclusive, and productive entities. Inspired by and building upon the 2016 Symposium on the Science of Broadening Participation, this special issue is a compendium of articles that are representative of the various topics that formed the core of the discussions that took place and of recommendations that ensued from them. Focused on questions linked to increasing the participation and inclusion of women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in STEM fields, matters related to frameworks, measurement, education, and the workforce were explored with the aim of SoBP delineation and the determination of research-based approaches for policy development and implementation. Moreover, a set of challenges is presented for scholars, analysts, and other stakeholders to pursue in furthering and supporting SoBP goals.

Public health reports contain limited information regarding the psychological and neurological symptoms of tick-borne diseases (TBDs). Employing a mixed-method approach, this analysis triangulates three sources of symptomology and provides a comparison of official public health information, case reports, medical literature, and the self-reported symptoms of patients with Lyme disease and other TBDs. Out of the fifteen neuropsychiatric symptoms reported in the medical literature for common TBDs, headaches and fatigue and/or malaise are the only two symptoms fully recognized by public health officials. Of TBDs, Lyme disease is the least recognized by public health officials for presenting with neuropsychiatric symptoms; only headaches and fatigue are recognized as overlapping symptoms of Lyme disease. Comparisons from a patient symptoms survey indicate that self-reports of TBDs and the associated symptoms align with medical and case reports. Anxiety, depression, panic attacks, hallucinations, delusions, and pain—ranging from headaches to neck stiffness and arthritis—are common among patients who report a TBD diagnosis. Given the multitude of non-specific patient symptoms, and the number and range of neuropsychiatric presentations that do not align with public health guidance, this study indicates the need for a revised approach to TBD diagnosis and for improved communication from official public health sources regarding the wide range of associated symptoms.

Background: The extent of tick-borne disease (TBD) risk in the United States is generally unknown. Active surveillance using entomological measures, such as presence and density of infected nymphal Ixodes scapularis ticks, have served as indicators for assessing human risk, but results have been inconsistent and passive surveillance via public health systems suggests TBDs are underreported. Objective: Research using various data sources and collection methods (eg, Google Trends, apps, and tick bite encounters [TBEs] reports) has shown promise for assessing human TBD risk. In that vein, and engaging a One Health perspective, this study used multimodal databases, geographically overlaying patient survey data on TBEs and concomitant reports of TBDs with data drawn from other sources, such as canine serological reports, to glean insights and to determine and assess the use of various indicators as proxies for human TBD risk. Methods: This study used a mixed methods research strategy, relying on triangulation techniques and drawing on multiple data sources to provide insights into various aspects of human disease risk from TBEs and TBDs in the United States. A web-based survey was conducted over a 15-month period beginning in December 2020 to collect data on TBEs. To maximize the value of the covariate data, related analyses included TBE reports that occurred in the United States between January 1, 2000, and March 31, 2021. TBEs among patients diagnosed with Lyme disease were analyzed at the county level and compared to I scapularis and I pacificus tick presence, human cases identified by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and canine serological data. Spatial analyses employed multilayer thematic mapping and other techniques. Results: After cleaning, survey results showed a total of 249 (75.7%) TBEs spread across 148 respondents (61.9% of all respondents, 81.7% of TBE-positive respondents); 144 (4.7%) counties in 30 states (60%) remained eligible for analysis, with an average of 1.68 (SD 1.00) and median of 1 (IQR 1) TBEs per respondent. Analysis revealed significant spatial matching at the county level among patient survey reports of TBEs and disease risk indicators from the CDC and other official sources. Thematic mapping results included one-for-one county-level matching of reported TBEs with at least 1 designated source of human disease risk (ie, positive canine serological tests, CDC-reported Lyme disease, or known tick presence). Conclusions: Use of triangulation methods to integrate patient data on TBE recall with established canine serological reports, tick presence, and official human TBD information offers more granular, county-level information regarding TBD risk to inform clinicians and public health officials. Such data may supplement public health sources to offer improved surveillance and provide bases for developing robust proxies for TBD risk among humans.