Introduction. This paper serves as a continuation of the material presented in the article «The ESSE-RF2 epidemiological study in the Omsk Region: organization issues and the population’s response». Objective — to analyze the reasons for epidemiological survey refusals in the population. Materials and methods. The investigation was conducted on a random male and female sample of Omsk and the Omsk Region within the 2017 multicenter observational study «Epidemiology of Cardiovascular Diseases in the Regions of the Russian Federation. The second study» (ESSE-RF2). The examinees’ age was 25—64 years. The response to the study in the region was 84%; and 16% of the sample refused to participate in it. Results. Refusal without explanation (27.8%) or unwillingness to undergo examination (22.1%) was most commonly reported among the reasons for refusals. These reasons were regarded as refusal from unwillingness; these totaled almost half of all cases of the refusals. Among the motivated reasons, there were refusals because of employment (25.8%), which were considered as refusals on wording «no free time» (18.1%) and «refusal in fact» (he had promised, but did not appear for examination (7.7% of cases). It is logical to assume that the unwillingness to undergo examination can also be provoked by a large workload of a person at work; therefore, the true number of referrals in the sample because of employment may amount to as much as 75%. The objectively impossible examination includes refusals because of the presence of an intercurrent critical illness or condition (4.5% of all refusal cases). Refusals because of lack of patient complaints (5.8%) seem logical. However, the majority of those who refused for this reason were males at a critical age of 55 years in the context of chronic noncommunicable diseases (CNCD). Various manifestations of increased anxiety (suspicion of fraud and giving blood samples into the wrong hands, fear of harming one’s health or violating religious canons, etc.) within our examined sample ranged from 6.5 to 0.3%, totaling about 10% Conclusion. The analysis has shown that the investigator, who invites the resident included in the sample to take part in a study, provides the participant with complete information about the latter, as required by law, but is not armed with arguments to replace a refusal motivation by a participation one. The development of this argument would be useful to increase the population’s response to the study. It is not inconceivable that for its development, the organizers of epidemiological programs should attract a psychologist. To reduce the number of refusals by the people who are at work (the most common reasons for refusals), it would be optimal for supporting the similar studies by regional or federal regulatory documents that are binding upon the employers to let the employee go from a job for medical examination when he or she is included in the random sample of an investigation studying the country’s socially important factors, such as risk factors for CNCD.