## 3 Discussion
### Methodological Considerations  
Although the data analyzed are highly relevant, it is important to consider that this study has some limitations. There was also a clear difference in demographics between the HIC and LMIC subsets, with LMIC participants mostly being stakeholders from non-government organizations, with a limited proportion of civil service workers. This sociodemographic variation might explain why the earlier observed difference between LMIC and HIC knowledge scores did not always hold during further analyses. The observation that governmental staff in LMICs were harder to reach in the current study also highlighted the challenge in obtaining information from political key players and policy-makers in these regions. Lack of access to politicians in LMICs regarding their knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions about AMR was the main limitation factor in this study. There was a selection bias for LMIC participants since they were recruited via convenience sampling. Extensive research for contact information was performed to compile mailing lists for a wide range of countries, covering more countries than included in the current study. However, many LMICs do not have an electronic governance system, which made it difficult to invite politicians from these countries. On the other hand, many HICs do not share the email addresses of politicians and policy-makers on public websites and were unwilling to provide this information via email. Consequently, there was an overrepresentation of representatives from the Netherlands (48.7%), Spain (27.6%), and Myanmar (9.7%). Initially, our study aimed to have a similar proportion of participants, and, unfortunately, the focal persons of AMR in Myanmar were no longer able to participate due to the ongoing political turmoil in Myanmar. This clear country selection bias is the major challenging factor for the generalization of the results since Dutch and Spanish participants mainly represent theHIC cohort, and half of the LMIC participants were Burmese. To overcome this selection bias, we included country of origin as a separate variable in the case of the top three represented countries (i.e., The Netherlands, Spain, and Myanmar). In general, there were small differences between the Spanish and Dutch cohorts, and the same was observed when comparing answers given by representatives from different LMIC countries. For this reason, we stratified the data based on the country's economy (i.e., HIC vs. LMIC), although one needs to be aware that these two subsets only represent a small proportion of all HIC and LMIC countries. Furthermore, there was a self-desirability bias associated with the self-reported opinion of perceptions and attitudes toward AMU and AMR for all participants. Taking these limitations into consideration, the current study provides new and insightful data from the perspective of politicians and stakeholders worldwide. As the present work shows the differences in KAP about AMR among politicians, policy-makers, and stakeholders from LMICs and HICs, future work should perform the situational analysis of NAP-AMR to measure the progress of national action plans in these countries with AMR focal-person interviews.