I haven't reviewed literature on this issue but it's a great question and I can share experiences from running about a dozen surveys of oncologists over the past couple of years. While 'survey fatigue' existed to some degree for us in approaching similar groups of clinicians repeatedly, the two most important factors to a strong response rate appeared to be (1) reasonable length (i.e. don't make it too long), and (2) avoidance of complexity in structuring questions (e.g. simple multiple choice and free text have worked well, whereas questions involving cross-classifications in their answers or excessive reading seems to be problematic). I've been part of both compensated and non-compensated surveys....while I'm sure compensation helps in some cases, it did not have any noteworthy impact on our response rates. Having an easily accessible structure online is a key factor. Fluidsurveys.com has worked well for us in the past.

I haven't reviewed literature on this issue but it's a great question and I can share experiences from running about a dozen surveys of oncologists over the past couple of years. While 'survey fatigue' existed to some degree for us in approaching similar groups of clinicians repeatedly, the two most important factors to a strong response rate appeared to be (1) reasonable length (i.e. don't make it too long), and (2) avoidance of complexity in structuring questions (e.g. simple multiple choice and free text have worked well, whereas questions involving cross-classifications in their answers or excessive reading seems to be problematic). I've been part of both compensated and non-compensated surveys....while I'm sure compensation helps in some cases, it did not have any noteworthy impact on our response rates. Having an easily accessible structure online is a key factor. Fluidsurveys.com has worked well for us in the past.

Andrew -

I agree with Brian that I believe brevity is important, and I particularly do not like being given a ridiculously short estimate as to how long a survey will take, only to come to feel I was told a lie. 

I worked for many years on estimation for energy establishment sample surveys, with continuous data, which were official and mandatory surveys of those industries, but we still were very conscious of the survey burden.  When I went to the International Conference on Survey Nonresponse (ICSN), in 1999, our agency's response rate for mandatory industry surveys was naturally very high, with nonresponse usually being just late or edit-failed data.  But I recall people from the Netherlands at that time saying what extremely low response rates they were getting, and as I recall, they blamed it on a saturation of surveys. People were just - I believe was the idea - too tired of too many surveys.  I had a different goal for attending that conference, but there was an online procedings that may be somewhere on the internet, and a book published for invited papers, that might touch on your questions.  

There is also an organization, the American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR),

 http://www.aapor.org/AAPORKentico/default.aspx

which might be a good resource for information on this question.

There is a big difference between a survey reported by an office as an official duty, likely with readily programmed continuous data, and a telephone opinion survey to individuals at home who have other things on their minds, and may not be keen on someone else's commercial interests. I take it that what you have in mind is something in between - a hospital survey.  What I think I can tell you is that if response rates are too low, you may be wasting resources on unreliable and biased surveys.  In my opinion it is better to do a little well, than to do a great deal, unreliably.  

But being a retired statistician, I should know better than to rely on my own biased opinions and anecdotal evidence.   :-)    Perhaps members of the AAPOR have done statistically scientific studies that you would like to see. 

Also, the American Statistical Association (ASA) has a "Survey Research Methods Section," that has published, online, papers presented and submitted to the Joint Statistical Meetings (JSM) of North America, and some other related conference papers,  since 1978:

 http://www.amstat.org/sections/SRMS/Proceedings/

You may find papers of interest there.

 I also just now visited the home page for the ASA,

 http://www.amstat.org/

There, in the upper right, I searched for response fatigue and found results, including the following: "Analyzing Potential Mode Effects in the National Crime Victimization Survey."  Note in that paper at the link attached, that the abstract says this: "After

accounting for respondents’ level of exposure to the NCVS, the difference in victimization rates between in-person and telephone groups is shown to be non-significant, suggesting the apparent mode effect is actually a symptom of respondent

fatigue."

I worry when people throw around the word "significance," however.

 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262971440_Practical_Interpretation_of_Hypothesis_Tests_-_letter_to_the_editor_-_TAS

At any rate, you might find some information there.  My work was with continuous data, and you may find more relevant information on the AAPOR site, with which I am not really familiar. 

Best wishes - Jim 

Article Practical Interpretation of Hypothesis Tests - letter to the...

Dear Brian and James,

Thank you for your insightful and detailed replies. 

I actually have some answers about length. 1. Jepson C, Asch DA, Hershey JC, Ubel PA. In a mailed physician survey, questionnaire length had a threshold effect on response rate. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005 Jan;58(1):103–5. and 1. Kellerman SE, Herold J. Physician response to surveys. A review of the literature. Am J Prev Med. 2001 Jan;20(1):61–7. basically said

I'd say that content, length, and frequency are all important. I can't imagine a monetary incentive that would help that would be affordable, and I wonder about response bias in such a case in particular. Response propensity groups are important.  But whatever I speculate, the truth may be quite different, so hopefully you will find one or more studies done already by the AAPOR, and/or other organizations. 

thanks to you both.