## 2 Materials and Methods  
The original questionnaire, was developed by IZSLT in the context of a letter of agreement with FAO on the antimicrobial resistance in beekeeping and on the responsible use of the veterinary medicines at the apiary level [20]. The content was then adapted and broken out into three separate surveys, antimicrobial resistance [28], varroa management, and infectious disease management, in collaboration with FAO, Apimondia, and Appalachian State University. All the surveys, including this one, were administered online via Qualtrics [29], with voluntary and confidential participation. The varroa survey was translated into 9 languages: Chinese, Danish, Dutch, English, French, Italian, Russian, Slovenian, and Spanish. It required an internet connection and approximately 10 min to complete. At the end of the varroa survey, respondents could optionally provide their email addresses to receive information and updates on the varroa disease. The surveys were disseminated through various channels by the collaborators, including the Center for Analytics Research & Education (CARE) at Appalachian State University and by IZSLT. Moreover, targeted emails to over 4650 people, an article in _Bee Culture Magazine_, and promotion through social media were adopted to disseminate it. Additional promotion was provided by multiple affiliated parties, including the beekeeping association APIMONDIA, bee research groups, FAO, CARE, and TECA partners, including La Federacion Internacional Latinoamericana de Apicultura (FILAPI) and the Beekeeping Network North-South (BNNS). The goal was to reach as many beekeepers as possible. The questionnaire (Appendix A) consisted of 25 questions organized into five sections: demographic data (section A), apiary management (section B), varroa knowledge and biosecurity measures adopted (section C), use of antimicrobial use for varroa control (section D), and training (section E). Measurement levels for most questions were based on Likert scale for categorical variables in addition to Boolean questions with \"yes\"-or-\"no\"-style response options. Age, years of experience beekeeping, and estimated number of hives presently managed used continuous data measures. Some questions used response options: \"extremely useful\", \"moderately useful\", \"not at all useful\", etc. These variables were coded numerically to include a baseline of zero to \"not at all useful\" and increasing for the highest category. Section \"A\" (7 questions) aimed to collect demographic data on beekeepers, including age, gender, education, and the continent where they were located, avoiding any identifying information. Section \"B\" (4 questions) was designed to collect preliminary information, including years of experience, number of hives managed, frequency of hive inspections, types of hives in use, and hive movement patterns. Section \"C\" (3 questions) was designed to verify if respondents were able to identify a specific disease depicted in a picture and to assess their knowledge of both the prevention and control measures adopted against varroa. For each practice, respondents were asked to report usefulness as \"extremely useful\", \"moderately useful\", or \"not at all useful\". We coded \"extremely useful\" = 2, \"moderately useful\" = 1, and \"not at all useful\" = 0. The mean values of usefulness of varroa prevention and control measures were coded as relevance scores. Means from 0 to 0.99 were coded as \"Low relevance\", from 1 to 1.49 were considered as \"Medium relevance\", and above 1.50 were described as \"High relevance\" measures. Section \"D\" (6 questions) assessed different information on acaricides use. The first questions asked beekeepers whether or not they used treatments against varroa mites, and if the answer was affirmative, we asked which medicines were adopted. All commercial products were listed in the respective active ingredients. Moreover, the purchasing channels and limits (prescription) were assessed.