Are We Respecting Respondents Enough? Lessons from a 2021 SHG Study Still Hold True Today

Last week, I was catching up with my friend Matt Walmsley, and he reminded me of a study that he and his team at SurveyHealthcareGlobus (SHG) presented back in 2021. It’s one of those pieces of work that, in the bustle of conferences like Intellus or PMRC, you might miss because it’s presented in the room next door.

But it’s worth revisiting -- because it tackles a problem that remains just as urgent today as it was then: how we treat survey research respondents.

Respondents are the lifeblood of our industry. Without them, there’s no data, no insights, no input path to better treatments or smarter commercial strategies. And yet, SHG’s survey of more than 200 physicians worldwide revealed that too often, our practices unintentionally disrespect their time and erode their trust.

‍

The Five Common Mistakes

The SHG study highlighted five recurring mistakes in healthcare panel management that should still make us squirm:

1. Inadequate or delayed compensation – Physicians were clear: prompt, fair payment is table stakes. Delays or overly complex redemption processes signal a lack of respect for their time.
2. Outdated screening practices – Long, repetitive screeners frustrate respondents. Nothing says “we don’t value you” like five minutes of demographic queries only to be DQ'ed.
3. Poor communication strategies – Vague invites, unclear expectations, and underreporting survey duration drive attrition. Transparency builds trust; opacity erodes it.
4. Transactional relationships – Treating respondents as interchangeable “inputs” misses the opportunity to cultivate loyalty. Many participants want to learn, share expertise, and contribute to patient care, not simply just collect an honorarium.
5. Sub-optimal survey design – Lengthy, repetitive, or poorly worded surveys are the fastest way to kill engagement.

‍

What Motivates Respondents

While compensation remains the number one motivator, it’s not the only one. Interest in the topic, a chance to share one's expertise, and the opportunity to contribute to better products and patient outcomes also rank highly. The implication? If we design research around relevant, meaningful questions, we not only improve data quality but also foster intrinsic motivation.

And when deciding whether to participate, the top two factors are survey length and incentive. A short, well-designed survey with fair compensation will win every time. Yet we continue to test patience with endless screeners and 30-minute grinds that drive fatigue after the 20-minute mark.

‍

Listening to Respondents

What struck me most about the study were the open-text comments. HCPs pleaded: don’t waste my time. They asked for shorter screeners, honest time estimates, questions that make sense, and surveys tailored to their expertise. Over half said that simply improving screening processes would make the biggest difference in their willingness to participate.

They also told us what makes them walk away from a firm altogether: delayed or inadequate compensation, repeated screen-outs, and overly complex surveys. Seventy percent reported that if they hit the fifth screener question before being disqualified, they felt their time had been wasted.

These aren’t abstract complaints. They’re deal-breakers.

‍

Implications for Pharma and Medtech Insights

So what do we do with this? As commercial and insights professionals, we need to ask ourselves: are we designing studies for our needs, or for our respondents’?

A few implications stand out:

• Respect is currency. Prompt compensation and transparent communication aren’t “nice to haves.” They’re the foundation of long-term respondent engagement.
• Design with empathy. Simple, concise, relevant surveys lead to higher-quality data and more willing participants.
• Think beyond transactions. Many respondents actually enjoy participating, especially when the topic is meaningful and the process smooth. This is an opportunity to build relationships, not just extract answers.
• Mobile compatibility still matters. Even though desktops remain the primary device, one-third of respondents prefer mobile. Poor formatting, tiny radio buttons, or endless scrolling on a phone erode participation.

‍

Closing Thoughts

Matt’s reminder was a timely one: our industry can’t take respondents for granted. If we continue to ignore their feedback, we’ll burn out the very people we rely on to fuel insight-driven innovation.

The good news is that the fixes aren’t rocket science. Pay fairly. Screen efficiently. Write surveys that respect time and intellect. Communicate transparently. Build relationships, not transactions.

As we head into the next wave of AI-enabled research and digital transformation, let’s not forget the basics. Respondents are people first. And respecting them is not just the right thing to do -- it’s also the smart thing to do.

‍