Table 1.

Study details, characteristics, and results extraction instrument

Scoping review title:	Social science research contributions to antimicrobial resistance: a scoping review
Review objective/s:	To identify, categorise, summarize, synthesize and map out existing knowledge, literature and evidence on AMR from social sciences research
Review question/s:	• What evidence or studies are available that address social, cultural, organizational, political or economic dimensions of AMR? • What empirical, conceptual and/or theoretical elements constitute this body of literature? • What knowledge and research gaps can be identified?
Concepts (what*):	AMR, Social Sciences
Population (for whom*):	Humans (excluding studies conducted in animals and plants)
Core concept:	Social science research contributions to AMR
Language:	English
Date of publication:	January 1998–September 2019
Data extraction:	Name (i.e., person extracting data)
	Date
Publication details
Author(s):
Title:
Type of publication/source (e.g. commentary/peer-reviewed journal)
Year and place of publication:
Aim(s)/research question(s):
Type of study and/or methodological approach (including data collection methods and analytical approach, if available)
Academic discipline/disciplinary approach (e.g. sociology, anthropology, economics):
Location (where*) (e.g. country/province; rural/urban; country income level):
Context (if applicable) (e.g. patients’ home, primary/secondary/tertiary healthcare, pharmacies/ drug shops, farms, local/national/international policy):
Sample size (if applicable):
Year(s) of data collection:
Other results extracted from study or document content
Conceptual/theoretical framework or approach:
Domains addressed/focus of study (e.g., prescribing, consuming or dispensing practices, social interactions including user—prescriber and/or professional—institutional interactions, formal/informal aspects, stockholders, contextual factors, drivers, costs and impacts, socio-cultural meanings, images and stigma, intervention development or evaluation, etc.);
Key findings that relate to the scoping review question(s) (*what result):
Comments on gaps, inconsistencies, biases and unmet needs in AMR research:
Reported AMR-related academic activities (e.g., research and teaching programs, fellowships, funded projects; NGOs and networks; program and policy development, campaigns, advocacy, and knowledge exchange activities, regulation and delivery on AMR, etc.):
Other emerging information or themes (*what else):

*Components of the SPICE framework: Setting (where); Perspective/Population (for whom); Intervention/Phenomena of Interest (what); Comparison (what else); Evaluation (what result or how well)