Do Socioeconomic Factors Drive \u3ci\u3eAedes\u3c/i\u3e Mosquito Vectors and Their Arboviral Diseases? A Systematic Review of Dengue, Chikungunya, Yellow Fever, and Zika Virus

© 2020 The Authors. As the threat of arboviral diseases continues to escalate worldwide, the question of, “What types of human communities are at the greatest risk of infection?” persists as a key gap in the existing knowledge of arboviral diseases transmission dynamics. Here, we comprehensively review the existing literature on the socioeconomic drivers of the most common Aedes mosquito-borne diseases and Aedes mosquito presence/abundance. We reviewed a total of 182 studies on dengue viruses (DENV), chikungunya virus (CHIKV), yellow fever virus (YFVV), Zika virus (ZIKV), and presence of Aedes mosquito vectors. In general, associations between socioeconomic conditions and both Aedes-borne diseases and Aedes mosquitoes are highly variable and often location-specific. Although 50% to 60% of studies found greater presence or prevalence of disease or vectors in areas with lower socioeconomic status, approximately half of the remaining studies found either positive or null associations. We discuss the possible causes of this lack of conclusiveness as well as the implications it holds for future research and prevention efforts. As the threat of arboviral diseases continues to escalate worldwide, the question of, “What types of human communities are at the greatest risk of infection?” persists as a key gap in the existing knowledge of arboviral diseases transmission dynamics. Here, we comprehensively review the existing literature on the socioeconomic drivers of the most common Aedes mosquito-borne diseases and Aedes mosquito presence/abundance. We reviewed a total of 182 studies on dengue viruses (DENV), chikungunya virus (CHIKV), yellow fever virus (YFVV), Zika virus (ZIKV), and presence of Aedes mosquito vectors. In general, associations between socioeconomic conditions and both Aedes-borne diseases and Aedes mosquitoes are highly variable and often location-specific. Although 50% to 60% of studies found greater presence or prevalence of disease or vectors in areas with lower socioeconomic status, approximately half of the remaining studies found either positive or null associations. We discuss the possible causes of this lack of conclusiveness as well as the implications it holds for future research and prevention efforts